Talk:Rocket Racing League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Aviation Portal

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated projects or task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

There have been two more teams added since, perhaps someone should update the article. This is the source about the third team joining, I can't seem to find anything about the second team.

[edit] Future plans? Schedule?

While this racing league sounds fun, and there's lots of information devoted to the *potential* events ... I've found no details as to *when* they intend to begin. What's the date of the first race? How many races per year? What locations? If these items have not been fully decided yet, what's the timeline for making these agreements?

They have to get the technology workable first. Can't have any races without planes to race, and they just flew the prototype for the first time a week ago. It has to go through the full flight test program, then they have to build the "production" engines, acquire and modify the airframes, etc etc. Way too early to set an actual schedule. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The first race has now been announced for 2008 Oshkosh. Last year they had that terrible, fatal P-51 collision, this year they will need a whole motorcade of gun carriages to transport the coffins. This article badly needs a criticism section. Rocket planes are one of the most dangerous stuff known to mankind, the nazi Me-163 and Ba-349 Natter killed pilots by the scores, the NASA X-15 exploded with a force of 2 tons of TNT, most rocket fuel is volatile and toxic and lasts so little landing must be glide-only, so there can be no go-around. Fatalities will be so common it's like Nero's arena with gladiators vs beasts.

Otherwise, rocketplane flying promotes evil ideologies, since it was used operationally only by the nazis (the Me-163) and the imperial japanese forces (the Nakajima Kikka kamikaze baka bomb) with shades of self-sacrifice mentality, which we see today in Al-Kaida terror and Iraq rebel tactics. Rocket plane flying glorifies the most desperate methods of late WWII axis aerial warfare. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently dangerous about rockets or rocket powered vehicles. Rocket Racing specifically uses engines and airframes with high demonstrated reliability and nontoxic propellants. If you want a more useful data point, look at the Dassault Mirage III -- approximately 20,000 rocket-powered flights and no rocket-related accidents, even with a toxic and corrossive oxidizer. (I don't actually know that there weren't any, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that there were, and there's plenty of info of the airplane generally. I also know that XCOR's safety officer has spent a nontrivial amount of effort looking and been unable to find any such reports.) But then, I suppose looking at actual operational vehicles with good safety records wouldn't be very helpful to your rant. Evand (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RRLLogo.jpg

Image:RRLLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)