# How does Rocket performance compare to other things?

Typically cars are rated on their 0-60 mph times. (Tesla's currently kicking some serious gas car butt, where the P90D with Ludicrous mode hitting 2.8s which is literally ludicrous. As in you can hurt yourself just hitting the gas pedal).

For a faster vehicle, I am thinking 0-Mach 1 is more fun time to consider.

Looking at the Thaicomm-8 mission timeline at Spaceflightnow.com it suggests from a standing start, to Mach 1 at 1 minute 10 seconds.

That is pretty darn good. 70 seconds to Mach 1.

How does that time compare for: a) Other boosters. b) Fighter jets c) What else can exceed Mach 1 under power?

Man, the drag racing videos of a Tesla Model S against various gas powered 'super cars' are fun to watch. Can you imagine a Falcon 9 vs F-22 race? That would be cool. Impossible, but cool!

• Fastest accelerating electric motorcycle does 0-60 in under 1 second :-) – Rory Alsop May 26 '16 at 18:41
• Don't forget that Mach 1 is a relative speed. – called2voyage May 26 '16 at 18:47
• @RoryAlsop That sounds painful. How many G's does it take to get 0-60mph in under 1 second? 60 mph=100kph=27.8 m/s And Accel=Velocity/time. So 27.8 m/s divided by 1 second, so 9.8 m/s/s is 1 G so almost 3 G's of accel? That is lower than I expected. – geoffc May 26 '16 at 19:09
• The important factor for rockets is not acceleration, but delta-v, hence thus comparisons are quite meaningless. You can easily design rockets that have accelerations that kill humans. Important things are Isp of engines, Payload to LEO / GEO and delta-v given a nominal payload. – Polygnome May 27 '16 at 6:25
• "That is pretty darn good. 70 seconds to Mach 1." Bear in mind most of that is an initial climb too. How many other things accelerate almost vertically while flying at Mach 1? I don't think there's much comparison really, especially considering the huge fuel consumption rates of rockets. – Andy May 27 '16 at 10:52