Bloodhound LSR Thread As Requested...
Discussion
Max_Torque said:
Hawk1018 said:
The project moves on, with Ian being a failsafe on funding.
Do we know this, or does the project depend upon renewed sponsorship to achieve it's goals?(i can't see how it is any more 'sponsor firendly' now that when it had the original project team?)
Now cashflow isn’t an issue the team are confident they can hit the deadlines they set.
The project was looking to have fallen short on the rocket motor and rocket fuel pumping system (not sure what the latest fuel pump plan actually is?), and although the jet engine clearly works, running it in the field and at much higher speeds will of course be a significantly more taxing task.
Jules_T said:
Max_Torque said:
Hawk1018 said:
The project moves on, with Ian being a failsafe on funding.
Do we know this, or does the project depend upon renewed sponsorship to achieve it's goals?(i can't see how it is any more 'sponsor firendly' now that when it had the original project team?)
Now cashflow isn’t an issue the team are confident they can hit the deadlines they set.
The project was looking to have fallen short on the rocket motor and rocket fuel pumping system (not sure what the latest fuel pump plan actually is?), and although the jet engine clearly works, running it in the field and at much higher speeds will of course be a significantly more taxing task.
I hope all party's who were originally involved can come together and work things out. I guess it's supposed to be a fun project bringing great minds together with Great British engineering.
I think incorporating electric technology will make it revelant for the new generation of kids and better for furthering new modern technology systems for engineers.
Max_Torque said:
Given that the hybrid rocket motor will almost certainly run with a pressure feed fuel system when it's in a rocket, why wouldn't you use that system? Light, efficient and simple?
The issue would be a 1000psi pressure vessel 6" behind the soft, squishy, organic thing driving the car. From a safety viewpoint having a nominally non pressurised volume of HTP is preferable. It matter less in a rocket as the level of acceptable risk is higher. Also, many rockets actually use a decomposing HTP turbo pump instead of pressurising the fuel, the issue with a blowdown (pressurised) system is that you actually get a reducing pressure through the burn as your fuel volume decreases, that is unless you carry large volumes of inert gas to maintain a steady pressure as the fuel is consumed.At the speed this vehicle is capable of, any incident is going to involve a LOT of energy, so i can't see the particularly big issue with having a relatively small amount of an inert high pressure gas on board. Obviously, suitable blast door and / or venting would be required to ensure any catastrophic release was vented sideways and away from the driver. Using a low density frangible container (ie a Carbon fibre pressure vessel) vastly reduces any ballistic protection requirements as well as a significant amount of weight. The total storage volume isn't going to be very large, as the run time for the rocket is pretty small (ie the total fuel volume is fairly small) so holding a pressure greater than the chamber pressure (?? don't know what chamber pressure the rocket will run at) shouldn't be that difficult.
For me, simplicity and robustness is well worth the trade off (the storage pressure vessels will obviously have to be easily changeable at the turn around point, but that's the same for the battery energy storage system (unless in either case you are going to carry enough energy to drive the fuel into the rocket on both passes)
For me, simplicity and robustness is well worth the trade off (the storage pressure vessels will obviously have to be easily changeable at the turn around point, but that's the same for the battery energy storage system (unless in either case you are going to carry enough energy to drive the fuel into the rocket on both passes)
Max_Torque said:
At the speed this vehicle is capable of, any incident is going to involve a LOT of energy, so i can't see the particularly big issue with having a relatively small amount of an inert high pressure gas on board. Obviously, suitable blast door and / or venting would be required to ensure any catastrophic release was vented sideways and away from the driver. Using a low density frangible container (ie a Carbon fibre pressure vessel) vastly reduces any ballistic protection requirements as well as a significant amount of weight. The total storage volume isn't going to be very large, as the run time for the rocket is pretty small (ie the total fuel volume is fairly small) so holding a pressure greater than the chamber pressure (?? don't know what chamber pressure the rocket will run at) shouldn't be that difficult.
For me, simplicity and robustness is well worth the trade off (the storage pressure vessels will obviously have to be easily changeable at the turn around point, but that's the same for the battery energy storage system (unless in either case you are going to carry enough energy to drive the fuel into the rocket on both passes)
1000litres is not an insignificant volume of fuel......For me, simplicity and robustness is well worth the trade off (the storage pressure vessels will obviously have to be easily changeable at the turn around point, but that's the same for the battery energy storage system (unless in either case you are going to carry enough energy to drive the fuel into the rocket on both passes)
Add to that having to repressurise the 1000litre tank after refilling after the first run......
The team have done the trade off studies & the non pressurised, pumped system was preferable.
Take a look here & see if you spot anything that resembles a pump.... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#/medi...
Simply putting a blast door in the side of the monocoque would create a whole raft of separate issues, not least getting the strength/stiffness back from the hole you have cut in the side.
Edited by IN51GHT on Tuesday 26th March 21:56
Under the LSR rules can you replace components between the two runs?
Replenishing fuels is one thing, but replacing substantial components (batteries, rockets) must be outside the rules (or the spirit of the rules). My reasoning is that the 1 hour turn around time was stipulated to try to avoid “rebuilds” but allow refuelling.
Recharging batteries would be fine, replacing not. Replenishing the hydrogen peroxide fine, replacing the rocket not.
I have no idea if my interpretation of the rules or their spirit, is correct, so I stand to be corrected.
Replenishing fuels is one thing, but replacing substantial components (batteries, rockets) must be outside the rules (or the spirit of the rules). My reasoning is that the 1 hour turn around time was stipulated to try to avoid “rebuilds” but allow refuelling.
Recharging batteries would be fine, replacing not. Replenishing the hydrogen peroxide fine, replacing the rocket not.
I have no idea if my interpretation of the rules or their spirit, is correct, so I stand to be corrected.
Andy speaks on the project, and the getting past the cash flow issues of the project's past...………...sounds like exciting times ahead! Andy Green Diary....
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47735...
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47735...
IN51GHT said:
Max_Torque said:
At the speed this vehicle is capable of, any incident is going to involve a LOT of energy, so i can't see the particularly big issue with having a relatively small amount of an inert high pressure gas on board. Obviously, suitable blast door and / or venting would be required to ensure any catastrophic release was vented sideways and away from the driver. Using a low density frangible container (ie a Carbon fibre pressure vessel) vastly reduces any ballistic protection requirements as well as a significant amount of weight. The total storage volume isn't going to be very large, as the run time for the rocket is pretty small (ie the total fuel volume is fairly small) so holding a pressure greater than the chamber pressure (?? don't know what chamber pressure the rocket will run at) shouldn't be that difficult.
For me, simplicity and robustness is well worth the trade off (the storage pressure vessels will obviously have to be easily changeable at the turn around point, but that's the same for the battery energy storage system (unless in either case you are going to carry enough energy to drive the fuel into the rocket on both passes)
1000litres is not an insignificant volume of fuel......For me, simplicity and robustness is well worth the trade off (the storage pressure vessels will obviously have to be easily changeable at the turn around point, but that's the same for the battery energy storage system (unless in either case you are going to carry enough energy to drive the fuel into the rocket on both passes)
Add to that having to repressurise the 1000litre tank after refilling after the first run......
The team have done the trade off studies & the non pressurised, pumped system was preferable.
Take a look here & see if you spot anything that resembles a pump.... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#/medi...
Simply putting a blast door in the side of the monocoque would create a whole raft of separate issues, not least getting the strength/stiffness back from the hole you have cut in the side.
Max_Torque is right that a carbon reinforced pressure vessel (you could buy it quite easily these days), a high-pressure top-off tank of nitrogen/helium to keep the main tank pressurised as it drains and the associated pipework will be lighter than fitting a fuel pump plus controller. A hybrid rocket has fairly modest chamber pressures so it wouldn't be unreasonable to do it this way.
A liquid fuelled rocket has a totally different requirement for pumping, so not really fair to use an F1 as a comparison.
Aussie Invader takes quite a different approach to Bloodhound WRT to propulsion. http://aussieinvader.com
I would love to see both cars run and go for the record.
I would love to see both cars run and go for the record.
Arnold Cunningham said:
Aussie Invader takes quite a different approach to Bloodhound WRT to propulsion. http://aussieinvader.com
I would love to see both cars run and go for the record.
Gotta say I prefer their propulsion method but there are very few details on the site of what has been built and how long its taken.I would love to see both cars run and go for the record.
Good luck to them though..
He's pretty active on FB etc detailing progress and updates - it continues to move forward, although I suspect has many of the same issues as bloodhound (£). In fact, the only "active" car that I know of is the North American Eagle, driven by Jessi Coombs, based on an F104 Starfighter fuselage. But it's not a 1000mph car. I think Jessi has hit 480mph so far.
While we're here, also worth calling out David Warby (son of Ken) is slowly encroaching on his old mans 318 mph water speed record too. Hit 230 mph recently I think, although 90mph off is still a fair way to go.
While we're here, also worth calling out David Warby (son of Ken) is slowly encroaching on his old mans 318 mph water speed record too. Hit 230 mph recently I think, although 90mph off is still a fair way to go.
Edited by Arnold Cunningham on Tuesday 14th May 16:58
rev-erend said:
Arnold Cunningham said:
Aussie Invader takes quite a different approach to Bloodhound WRT to propulsion. http://aussieinvader.com
I would love to see both cars run and go for the record.
Gotta say I prefer their propulsion method but there are very few details on the site of what has been built and how long its taken.I would love to see both cars run and go for the record.
Good luck to them though..
Wouldn't want to be sat in the middle of that explosion!
There is a news updates page on there which shows progress. They're nowhere near as far on as Bloodhound and it appears to being build in someone's shed, which is very Australian.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff