Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

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

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

Not after the high-altitude flights, though, and the average gap between
"hard" flights of the same airframes was a month and a half.

Some of that was the requirement to analyze the data from one flight
before doing the next. It wasn't a mechanical problem.

They also had a tendency to need major parts of the airframe (tail and
wing surfaces) replaced or refurbished after the more demanding flights.

Only rarely. You make it sound routine, but it wasn't. It was
actually very uncommon.

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.

We're talking about a vehicle nearly a half century old, flown to very
conservative flight rules for research. Retrospect only works about
so well.

If FRC had had a requirement to fly two high-altitude flights within
14 days, I am quite confident it could have. This is because, in
part, one of the X-15 ops engineers told me so.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Then you aren't paying attention to what you're reading, then.

I understand them completely.

Not from your posts, since *everyone* in this thread has corrected you
multiple times.

No, the significant thing is that it requires a craft that can carry a
payload of a few hundred extra pounds, along with the capability of
flying without major refurbishment. This has not been done before.

No? What was the payload capacity of the X-15?

Not much. A few instruments and one person. And the refurbishment part
was a real show-stopper.

You said you read the rules - why don't you know this, then?

What is it you think I don't know?

Pretty much everything, so far.

Except for the whole "carry a payload and be reusable without a long
turnaround time" bit.

The X-15 carried a payload and was reusable without a long turnaround time.

Complete rubbish. You don't seem to know anything about the X-Prize
*or* the X-15.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

...for a tiny fraction of the cost, and having the ability to
repeat the feat in less than two weeks (which the government
program didn't manage).

So what's significant about it?

If I have to explain to you the significance of the tech behind a
reusable spaceplane, then why have you even bothered posting to this
thread to begin with?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Yes it was.

Actually, it wasn't. You just think it was.


Uh... is this the five minute argument, or do you want the full half hour?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

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.

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.

The X-15 was an amazing craft, but it was limited by its size and mass.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

So that is a large part of what makes it different from the single-shot
suborbital flights of the past.


As another poster has already pointed out, two of the four previous manned
suborbital space flights were done with reusable craft.

Yeah, I forgot about the X-15. And I used to have a photo of the X-15
signed by Joe Engle. My bad.

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

The earlier flights were not done in a re-usable spacecraft.

So what?

So that is a large part of what makes it different from the single-shot
suborbital flights of the past.

Not to mention the thousands of man-hours and cast of thousands needed
to turn around the shuttle.

One step on the road to non-government, gold-plated, decades-long
development projects type spaceflight.

The problem is that merely reaching the altitude is only a
part of the problem. The real issue is achieving orbital velocity
and the Rutan aircraft doesnt achive much more than 15%
of the velocity required to put something in orbit.

That's not the point of this particular exercise.

Lindbergh didn't take any passengers, or significant cargo, either.

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

"Vaughn" wrote in message
news

Sorry, but I have to go with Pete here, the relevent point is that
it is being done by a small private corporation...and they are making
it look easy!

What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat that a
government agency accomplished decades earlier?

They don't need a cast of thousands and a couple hundred million to do
it.

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

Then you aren't paying attention to what you're reading, then.


I understand them completely.



No, the significant thing is that it requires a craft that can carry a
payload of a few hundred extra pounds, along with the capability of
flying without major refurbishment. This has not been done before.


No? What was the payload capacity of the X-15?

One pilot.