Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...

Every time I've mentioned it so far, you've gotten a sudden case of
amnesia, with a side-dose of "I didn't say that."

**** off.


If you knew of a single statement of mine that was incorrect you'd have
cited it. Your level of credibility has been established.


Hmmm. Mr. McNicoll, in the third message of this thread you said:
"That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km."
That was incorrect. But, of course, that error on your part didn't
count -- since it was based on ignorance.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

LOL! Troll! I can't believe so many are being reeled in by this guy.
He's a troll. And, he's right. Either killfile him or ignore him.
He's adding nothing to thread and asking questions which are common
sense or been previously explained 100 times over.


Actually, he's asking questions that have everyone stumped.


Really? Who?


He's a silly, ignorant troll. Let him stay under his bridge.


Just the opposite. He's from the UP.

Where's that? I've never heard of such a place.

"Casey Wilson" wrote in message ...

Hmmm. Mr. McNicoll, in the third message of this thread you said:
"That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km."
That was incorrect. But, of course, that error on your part didn't
count -- since it was based on ignorance.


Please help to releive me of my ignorance and explain how it was incorrect.

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...

"two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures."

I would think that you could read at least that much of the paragraph.


And you'd be right about that.



You're reading the failures as "given some luck and a few more tries,
they might have been able to do it," while I read it as "they tried to
do it and failed."


That explains it then, you're reading things that aren't there. Since
they didn't try to do it they clearly didn't fail to do it.

Well, maybe not so clear to everyone.

In article ,
(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message
. com...

"two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures."

I would think that you could read at least that much of the paragraph.

And you'd be right about that.

You're reading the failures as "given some luck and a few more tries,
they might have been able to do it," while I read it as "they tried to
do it and failed."

That explains it then, you're reading things that aren't there. Since
they didn't try to do it they clearly didn't fail to do it.

They had a hardware failure and a weather abort, which means they tried.
If they had *not* tried, there would not have been a hardware failure
and a weather report. This is straight cause and effect, not magic.

Well, maybe not so clear to everyone.

Certainly not you, of course.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Steve

Are you trying to tell everyone that a vehicle has gone into space,
been recovered and the same vehicle gone back within a two week period
"has been done before"????

Sounds like a new ball game to me.

Big John


On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:16:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Jim Weir" wrote in message
.. .

The point is the same point that Edmund Hillary and his small
civilian band had when they climbed Everest.


Not the same. Nobody had climbed Everest and returned before Hillary and
Norgay. The X-Prize competition is a race to be the "first" to do something
that's been done before.

Chad

Dump this troll. He isn't worth spending time on.

Big John

Now it's my time to get flamed by the troll )

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:07:18 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

...you haven't read the actual rules yet, have you?

Yup.

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

So the significant thing about the X-Prize is that it requires a three-place
craft?

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.

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

The two semi-qualifying (100 km+) X-15 flights took place over
a month apart, in the #3 airframe.

The point is the X-Prize does not require any new technology or capability.

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

Chad

Remember the X-15 dropped the rudder off to land. This would have
disqualified them

Blow this troll off.

Big John

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

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

The X-15 had turnaround times less than two weeks.

It did, after some lower and slower flights.

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

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

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

On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:06:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in Message-Id:
. net:


Manned suborbital spaceflight has been done before. The X Prize requires
that it be done with a privately financed flight vehicle.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 21a -- May 17, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"FIRST" PRIVATE MANNED SPACEFLIGHT A SUCCESS
Since we've been visiting space for more than 40 years it's almost
hard to believe that this kind of "first" was still open. Last
Thursday, Mike Melvill went into the record books as the first pilot
to take a privately funded aircraft into space. The 62-year-old test
pilot rode Scaled Composites' rocket plane SpaceShipOne to an altitude
of 40 miles (211,400 feet) after being dropped from its mother ship,
the White Knight, over the high desert just east of Los Angeles. He
then glided the unique craft to a landing at Mojave Airport. "Watching
the blue sky go completely black was the highlight of my career,"
Melvill told reporters.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187306

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 21a -- May 17, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"FIRST" PRIVATE MANNED SPACEFLIGHT A SUCCESS
Since we've been visiting space for more than 40 years it's almost
hard to believe that this kind of "first" was still open. Last
Thursday, Mike Melvill went into the record books as the first pilot
to take a privately funded aircraft into space. The 62-year-old test
pilot rode Scaled Composites' rocket plane SpaceShipOne to an altitude
of 40 miles (211,400 feet) after being dropped from its mother ship,
the White Knight, over the high desert just east of Los Angeles. He
then glided the unique craft to a landing at Mojave Airport. "Watching
the blue sky go completely black was the highlight of my career,"
Melvill told reporters.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#187306


Who considers 40 miles to be space?