On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:28:39 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:37:32 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Not to mention they were doing this with a much smaller payload.

It was built to be an experimental vehicle, not to win the X-Prize.
If it had needed the bigger payload, it would have had it.

I'm sorry, but the only way they could have put the extra payload (sized
to fit two extra humans) into the X-15 was to completely redesign the
whole thing from the ground up. There was *no* extra room in that
plane, and the extra mass to height would have needed even *more* size
for fuel and structure.

You misunderstand. If carrying a crew of three in the X-15 had been
necessary, the X-15 would have been designed to do so from the
beginning. The X-Prize contenders knew that they had to carry three,
so the vehicles are designed to do so.

Saying that the X-15 can't meet the X-Prize rules, promulgated four
decades after the X-15 was designed, is an irrational statement. Of
course it can't. Even if it had carried three people and flown twice
to the target altitude in less than two weeks, it couldn't meet the
X-Prize rules ever. It was funded with government money and flown by
a government agency.

It is clear, however, that the X-15 demonstrated the technology
required to fly a manned vehicle to the target altitude in the time
period required. Adding seats for two more people, neither of whom
will actually fly in the vehicle, is a minor challenge compared to
that. After all, we flew the enlarged and extended X-15-2 to a speed
record and fitting the extra two crew into it wouldn't have messed
with the loft lines.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer