Request TOPGEAR reliant robin SPACE SHUTTLE

JAW1002

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
reliant-space-shuttle.jpg



if you can make addons, "i cant" this looks simple enough.

plz can someone remake the topgear space shuttle..

want more views and some info look here [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20"]YouTube- Top Gear - Reliant Robin space shuttle - Richard Hammond and James May - BBC[/nomedia]
 
That was some good quality television entertainment right there. Those are my favorite show hosts below the Mythbusters.

Also, they knew it wouldn't separate, something about a shear pin that wouldn't be delivered on time. Made a nice boom eh?
 
Also, they knew it wouldn't separate, something about a shear pin that wouldn't be delivered on time. Made a nice boom eh?
The explosion they showed wasn't actually caused by the shuttle--it was another clip that they spliced in.
 
True. it was done to make it all look more dramatic shame really because I wondered how well the robin reliant would glide.
 
if you wanna fly the robin, check this out: http://www.topgear.com/uk/games/rocket-robin

i love that game! - didn't know that thing was for real!


edit:

just finished watching it! OMG!!! AWESOOOOOOOOME!!!!!! that thing is REAL! :hail::hail::hail:
that was SO cool! specially when it blew up... "how are we gonna use it again?" ROFLMAO!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
So, given an ejection seat and a parachute, how many of you would ride the Reliant Robin? I probably would, given the two things mentioned above.
 
So, given an ejection seat and a parachute, how many of you would ride the Reliant Robin? I probably would, given the two things mentioned above.
Given that a person on board to operate a mechanical linkage would've probably succeeded in separating the Robin from the tank, I would totally do it.
 
Given that a person on board to operate a mechanical linkage would've probably succeeded in separating the Robin from the tank, I would totally do it.

Not a chance it'd actually fly in any meaningful way without significantly larger wings more properly designed for this type of flight regime. I think flying on this would be a one way ticket out of this world, as it were. :)
 
Not a chance it'd actually fly in any meaningful way without significantly larger wings more properly designed for this type of flight regime. I think flying on this would be a one way ticket out of this world, as it were. :)
Ejection seat and a parachute--Top Gear has already fitted cars with ejection seats in the past, so that seems perfectly doable to me.
 
I wouldn't... I would have some doubts that this monstrosity would attempt snapping at me when I try to bail out.
 
Having actualy sat in one, I can't recommend it. Only thing in its advantage was it was cheap, and I think you only needed a motor-cycle licence to drive it.

Personally I prefer the Bond Bug, rarity value...
http://www.shorey.net/Auto/Miscellaneous%20Pictures/1970%20Bond%20Bug.jpg

You don't see wing-mirrors like that anymore! Though, as it had a tendency to catch fire, you would see piles of melted glass-fibre and a chassis at the side of the road in the 1970's. Happy days.

N.
 
The c5 , British Motor Industry reached its peak when that hit the road.

N.
 
Not to forget the great strides in gas-turbine powered saloons:
http://www.rover.org.nz/pages/jet/jet5.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]One should also realise that everyone was learning at the time - it was a miracle if the engine ran at all; test-bed operators were unmarried volunteers![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A typical sequence from a notebook -[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1st test: satisfactory light-up, no oil pressure.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2nd test: no light-up.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3rd test: engine exploded.[/FONT]

Pioneering stuff.

N.
 
I'm not very good at complex meshes and at coding the aerodynamics, so I can't do the Robin, but I can do the stack as a velcro rocket.

To me it looks that the Robin and the SRBs have no engines (maybe some smoke to make it look better, I see some coming out of the SRBs),
and that six of these are on the External Tank: http://www.contrailrockets.com/Products/prod05.htm

I'd also need some help with the numbers (from http://www.contrailrockets.com/top_gear_show_2007.htm, some converted in to metric units by me):

Fuel: 23 kg
Oxidizer: 64 kg
Peak Thrust: 75646 N
Average Thrust: 37823 N

Robin mass: 250 kg

Burn time roughly 40 seconds, booster sep at 23 seconds

Looking at the video, I'd say it reached an altitude of 1 km or so.
Final velocity didn't look that high, not much more than 100 m/s.

Can anyone give me information on the stack mass? IIRC it has a mass of 1500 kg.

For now I'll use an ISP of 2500 m/s, a thrust of 37823 N, a fuel mass of 87 kg and a empty mass of 1250 kg for the stack until someone gives me better numbers.
 
I'm not very good at complex meshes and at coding the aerodynamics, so I can't do the Robin, but I can do the stack as a velcro rocket.

To me it looks that the Robin and the SRBs have no engines (maybe some smoke to make it look better, I see some coming out of the SRBs),
and that six of these are on the External Tank: http://www.contrailrockets.com/Products/prod05.htm
I'm pretty sure that the SRBs had engines in them, if you watch the whole video. The Robin itself did not have engines that were used during the ascent.
 
Even if the explosion at the end was spliced in, freaking awesome video. Yeah, I'd give it a go if it had an ejection seat :headbang:
 
Back
Top