Bloodhound LSR Thread As Requested...

[CallMeLegend]

The plea for funding would have struggled to come at a worse time too, the planet faces a very uncertain short term financial future in the wake of Kung-Flu, so it would be a very brave (or wealthy) company that stumped up £8m.

[hidetheelephants]

CallMeLegend said:

The plea for funding would have struggled to come at a worse time too, the planet faces a very uncertain short term financial future in the wake of Kung-Flu, so it would be a very brave (or wealthy) company that stumped up £8m.

Should tap up Mike Bloomberg, he's willing to spend half a billion dollars on winning American Samoa in the democratic primary, $8m is chump change.

[robinessex]

Bernie Eccelstone had £2 billion, stolen from F1, he can't possibly spend, except giving chunks of it to his stupid daughter(s)

[skwdenyer]

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...?

[CallMeLegend]

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...?

I think there are larger issues short term

[rev-erend]

Big issues.

Toilet roll shortages

[GOATever]

rev-erend said:

Big issues.

Toilet roll shortages

Does LSR run on bog rolls though?

[Hammerhead]

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.

[robinessex]

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.

I bet, in reality, that engine was scrap re putting it in an aircraft again.

[CallMeLegend]

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.

I bet, in reality, that engine was scrap re putting it in an aircraft again.

Yes it's a development engine, 2hrs flight left (minus Newquay & the desert hrs), but still perfectly OK for ground running.

[Gareth79]

It seems a very very tall order to find £8m sponsorship at this time :/

[F1natic]

I am really hopeful that it's a bit of hardnosed businessman brinksmanship, threatening that the whole shamozzle will die without funding as a technique of flushing out the on the fence investors. I hope.

[robinessex]

What about the lottery. They've funded 'unworthy causes' in the past, something that would fly the UK flag can't be all bad. Oh, hang, we flogged it ages ago to a Canadian Pension Fund. Bugger !!

[AW111]

Take a photo.

Rotate 90 degrees so it's standing on its tail.

Sell the idea to Donald as "Trump desert tower"

[Halmyre]

AW111 said:

Take a photo.

Rotate 90 degrees so it's standing on its tail.

Sell the idea to Donald as "Trump desert tower"

Or request 80 years worth of royalties on jet engine design.

[ChocolateFrog]

I thought it was being bankrolled by the owner now and any sponsorship was more of a nice to have rather than a necessity.

[CallMeLegend]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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).

really? Given that Bloodhound is a land based vehicle, where mass is not nearly as critical as for an aerospace application (ie rocket) you just build your pressurised fuel tank with a larger safety factor (say 2.0 instead of 1.2 used for rockets!) and carry a little extra mass, but still a lot less mass than any similar fuel supply solution?

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.

[CallMeLegend]

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).

really? Given that Bloodhound is a land based vehicle, where mass is not nearly as critical as for an aerospace application (ie rocket) you just build your pressurised fuel tank with a larger safety factor (say 2.0 instead of 1.2 used for rockets!) and carry a little extra mass, but still a lot less mass than any similar fuel supply solution?

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.

That's it, you solved it, we never thought of any of those factors when designing the rocket fuel supply system....

[anonymous-user]

CallMeLegend said:

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).

really? Given that Bloodhound is a land based vehicle, where mass is not nearly as critical as for an aerospace application (ie rocket) you just build your pressurised fuel tank with a larger safety factor (say 2.0 instead of 1.2 used for rockets!) and carry a little extra mass, but still a lot less mass than any similar fuel supply solution?

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.

That's it, you solved it, we never thought of any of those factors when designing the rocket fuel supply system....

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!