This isn't 'Space exploration', but isn't it a way to develop rocket power in small motors, that could contribute to space exploration?

See: http://www.rocketracingleague.com/
Awfully cheesy video.
You can see the prototype RRL plane recently demonstrate at Oshkosh on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEPr3DRUS7Y
and a New Scientist news report at : http://space.newscientist.com/articl...es-flight.html

John

Gentlemen, light your engines!

Awesome

__________________
-The Wolf
http://www.ryanmercer.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/ryanmercer317
http://www.pleasegodhelpme.org

I second that!

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

It's been asked long ago, and I haven't seen anything significant other than the coolness factor of it.

Cheesy? Sure, I would consider it over-hyped, but I'm not sure cheesy is applicable. It did look impressive.

BTW... here's a few other ToSeeks.
Rocket Racing League
Rocket Racers Prepare for Competition
Finally, A Sport for Geeks: Rocket Racing League Announces First Live Exhibition
Rocket racing

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Whether you're talking HP/weight ratio, crashworthiness, better reliability, or greater gas milage, a lot of today's road vehicles owe their superior safety and performance to their road-racing heritage.

The same cannot typically be said of airplane racing, many of which use souped-up versions of military fighter aircraft.

The RRL is all about pushing the performance evelope, but doing so in an efficient manner. The technological results won't be huge, but they will incrementally build on what we're using today.

I envision:

1. Variable-geometry rocket nozzles which change shape to maximize their efficiency at any given altitude.

2. Computer-generated flight profiles which maximize the use of real-time winds and temperature gradients.

And more.

Ed Wright wote a hit peice against the HLLV mega-module approach. And I have had it in for him and the rocket racing phonies ever since.

Suborbital toys do nothing to advance real spaceflight.

Sure they do, they generate an interest... which brings money.

__________________
-The Wolf
http://www.ryanmercer.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/ryanmercer317
http://www.pleasegodhelpme.org

Interest is really the key word nowadays concerning space, isn't it?

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

To where? Isn't space travel interesting enough?

I feel that since we've had plane races in the past, and rocket propulsion in the past, that the direction of interest is the other way around. I think there are more people that are going to be interested in the races, because of their interest in rocketry rather than those thinking the other way around.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I live in the racing capital of the world... most of the year people don't care about cars... then when it's time for the 500, or the 400... people suddenly have a deep passion for race cars... I think the same will be similar with rocket races... people will get excited about it, it will draw a crowd and it will draw money in.

__________________
-The Wolf
http://www.ryanmercer.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/ryanmercer317
http://www.pleasegodhelpme.org

I don't think the RRL is going to ( excuse the pun ) take off much. Warbird racing is faster, Red Bull Air Races are more spectacular. The Rocket powered vehicle isn't going to be especially fast, isn't going to be especially agile....to be honest it's a bit of a gimmick. It's a spinoff of motors already being designed for other projects - not a driving force behind engine development in itself.

There's a certain cool-factor to it, but I don't imagine it will ever have particularly large fields nor will it last very long.

Doug

If the RRL sparks an infusion of money into the companies that make rocket engines, then it'll help those companies achiever their higher ambitions. Like the movie line said, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

...Income for their stockholders.

What kind of high hopes would you think they would have? Since a rocket engine is such a small part of an entire program, I doubt it would have much of an effect. It could spark some larger engines, or foot in the door as a contractor, but not a whole lot of new technology.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

For many of the small companies such as XCOR, new technology isn't needed nearly as much as capital. From what I've read, XCOR is building the engines used in the RRL planes with Armadillo Aerospace also getting some of the work. The plane itself is simply a version of the Velocity 4-place canard homebuilt. I read last week that they're planning on selling the plane turn-key for something like $1.5 million. Since the Velocity kit itself (without engines and avionics) goes for less than $50,000, it seems a lot of the money is going for the engine.

XCOR has experience with using a homebuilt plane as an engine test bed. It appears there's a lot of commonality between the RRL engine and the engine(s) they're planning on using in their Lynx suborbital plane. It seems they're taking a systematic approach for developing rocket technology. Given sufficient funding, that seems like a good long-term approach.