View Single Post
  #2  
Old May 15th 04, 05:33 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

But it also doesn't mean that it *was* possible.

Since it didn't happen, then the burden of proof is on *your* side.


I thought I had already done that.


Not even close.

The X-15 was turned in less than two
weeks and it flew above 100 km. Put those together and you've got a
spacecraft being reused in less than two weeks.


But - and we've told you this a couple of times so far - IT NEVER
HAPPENED IN THE X-15 PROGRAM.

If there was something to be gained by actually flying it twice above
100 km within a two week period it would have been done.


Well, according to you, and only you.

Considering how they actually ran the X-15 program, if this were true,
they would have tried it anyway. They *liked* fast turnarounds in that
program, especially at the end.

They didn't, therefore they couldn't.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.