Bloodhound LSR Thread As Requested...
Discussion
Oberon said:
First it was going to be a V8 racing engine and a gearbox, (clumsy I thought) now an electric motor (better) to drive the rocket fuel pump. But I have never understood why Bloodhound wasn't designed from the outset with a pressurised tank system as used on Aussie Invader R and several other rocket-propelled vehicles. Simple construction, minimal moving parts, presumably quite cheap. Seems like a no-brainer - can anyone enlighten me?
The driver behind this was the safety aspect of having 1000L of HTP being maintained at around 1000psi (from memory).A decomposing HTP turbo pump would be the obvious solution, if the budget were available to develop.A readily available on board supply of HTP is already there. A 1000bhp (ish) pump would fit on a footprint the size of a piece of A3 paper
Edited by CallMeLegend on Monday 3rd February 07:24
Oberon said:
I see, thanks Marc. I hadn't considered it a serious safety issue since pressurised HTP tanks have been used in other manned vehicles and rocket jetpacks. But re your hypothesis wouldn't the initial HTP supply still need to be pressurised by some other means in order to drive the decomposing HTP-driven pump?
Yes, you'd have a small (5L or so) vessel pressurised to stary the pump, once that's done it's job the pressure is basically atmospheric inside, so you only have a pressure vessel for a short period of time & it's much smaller.Once the pump is doing it's job you bleed a very small amount of HTP pach into the pumps catalyst t sustain it's operation.
Here we go again apparently only 1 months left to save the project looks like the new owner is true to his word and will not find it to the end. So much hard work went into it to get it ready in such a short time for desert runs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment...
Edited by CallMeLegend on Tuesday 3rd March 07:46
hidetheelephants said:
£8m is a bit chunky for crowdfunding I'd have thought, plus the best time for launching that appeal would have been while they were in SA getting wide coverage from BBC etc. rather than right now when we're all about to die from lurgy.
Agreed, the timing given the current global situation could be be worse.skwdenyer said:
robinessex said:
Bernie Eccelstone had £2 billion, stolen from F1, he can't possibly spend, except giving chunks of it to his stupid daughter(s)
I struggle to see why some state funding shouldn’t go into this, as a flag-flying exercise for newly-independent Britain.In fact I wonder if they’ve tapped the Brexit Party and Vote Leave donors yet...?
robinessex said:
Hammerhead said:
skwdenyer said:
I struggle to see why some state funding shouldn’t go into this, as a flag-flying exercise for newly-independent Britain.
I asked this question whilst at Bloodhound HQ recently. The answer I was given was that UK Gov already has in the form of lending them the Typhoon jet engine (and access to tech back-up etc) - you can't just buy one of these off of the shelf, alas. Also, UK Gov will only match funding pumped into the project from outside. ChocolateFrog said:
I thought it was being bankrolled by the owner now and any sponsorship was more of a nice to have rather than a necessity.
Nope, Ian promised to get it to the desert for high speed testing, at no point did he offer to fun it to the record. I was rather hoping he'd "get the bug" & dig deep, but it is his own hard earned cash, so a big ask from anybody.Max_Torque said:
CallMeLegend said:
Oberon said:
But I have never understood why Bloodhound wasn't designed from the outset with a pressurised tank system as used on Aussie Invader R and several other rocket-propelled vehicles. Simple construction, minimal moving parts, presumably quite cheap. Seems like a no-brainer - can anyone enlighten me?
The driver behind this was the safety aspect of having 1000L of HTP being maintained at around 1000psi (from memory).And of course, you only pressurise the "full" tank directly before each run, and at the end of the run the tank is empty of everything but the inert pressurisation gas. Any failure at high speed (partially full tank + pressure) results in a leak that is going to be ejected and lost backwards (car going fowards into >700mph airstream) and will be spread out over a large area so unlikely to be an issue for the driver up front or personal at the test ground.
Max_Torque said:
Did i touch a nerve?
Can you sensibly answer why using pressurised oxidiser tanks is "dangerous" or really, anymore more riksy than the risks already inherent with doing 1000 mph on wheels? Pressure vessel design is not difficult, or risky, and it's used across a massive range of industries, from oil/gas to rocketry, chemical processing and many, many more (got a welder in your garage? Then you've got a high pressure vessel on that etc!
No you did not touch a nerve. The reason for not using a pressurised tank has been covered previously in this thread and at some length by myself I suggest you go back and do some reading.Can you sensibly answer why using pressurised oxidiser tanks is "dangerous" or really, anymore more riksy than the risks already inherent with doing 1000 mph on wheels? Pressure vessel design is not difficult, or risky, and it's used across a massive range of industries, from oil/gas to rocketry, chemical processing and many, many more (got a welder in your garage? Then you've got a high pressure vessel on that etc!
Zirconium said:
mcdjl said:
Zirconium said:
I would think that at this stage they should be sticking with whatever is simplest, cheapest and quickest to take forward. That might mean sticking with the Jaguar engine driven pump. That might be less than optimal, but if most of the problems in getting it to work have already been sorted then it may be the cheapest option - they need to be looking to save money everywhere now.
Didn't the Jag engine get dropped a while back?Max_Torque said:
CallMeLegend said:
Zirconium said:
mcdjl said:
Zirconium said:
I would think that at this stage they should be sticking with whatever is simplest, cheapest and quickest to take forward. That might mean sticking with the Jaguar engine driven pump. That might be less than optimal, but if most of the problems in getting it to work have already been sorted then it may be the cheapest option - they need to be looking to save money everywhere now.
Didn't the Jag engine get dropped a while back?Why don't you just rip something out of a crashed tesla and stick that in? You'be got the pump already, and £10K would see you the parts (battery & motor/inverter unit) from a tesla. It's all been reverse engineered and open sourced so you can drive it directly over CAN. Peak power on typical traction eMachine is going to be around 6 to 8krpm, but with field weakening you'll be able to run a lot of power to over 10krpm.
rev-erend said:
Blib said:
I might be interested, just need a big win on the euro millions.Evanivitch said:
vacant-100 said:
How exactly does it take £8,000,000+ to stick a bloody great rocket on a chassis and pop it in a shipping container to South Africa?
How does it cost that much to send a military grade jet engine combined, with a rocket that could be used for nefarious purpose, on a boat down to South Africa and then transport it by land?The paperwork alone will set you back...
robinessex said:
Wouldn't a sponsorship deal be easier to procure, if companies would offer their services free? For example, if DHL or a similar shipper offered to move everything for free, I doubt they'd even notice the work required to do that.
That's how the project survived in the early days, the problem is progress is glacially slow if you rely on handouts.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff