Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

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.


That it didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

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

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.

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

Why?

Just because.

I don't think there's any sort of "Wow! NOBODY's done this before!" aspect
to this. Of *course* men have flown in space. The only difference here -
and the challenge of the task - is to do it with private money.

Why is that a challenge? Because traditionally space travel has only been
done at the expense of billions of dollars and huge government
bureaucracies. The X-Prize is out to demonstrate that space travel doesn't
have to remain the domain of governments.

I personally like the idea of non-government entities in space. Why? "Just
because," mostly. The fact that they're doing this without tax money is a
bonus - and I'm generally supportive of space programs.

My opinion is that the major advances in space technology from this point
forward are going to come from the private sector. Space tourism is just
the start. When companies figure out how to use microgravity profitably to
manufacture crystals and special alloys, we'll start to see real advances
and lower costs for space technology. Then perhaps manned exploration of
the solar system.

That's a l-o-n-g way in the future, though. I'll be lucky to see much of it
fully realized in my lifetime.

But I'm a dreamer - much like Rutan and the others vying for the X-Prize.
The $10M pot isn't going to cover the costs of the attempt much less
generate a profit.

They're dreamers saying "why *not*."

More power to them.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

Just because.

I don't think there's any sort of "Wow! NOBODY's done this
before!" aspect to this.


Actually, based on responses in this thread there seems to be quite a bit of
that!

In article om,
"John T" writes:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net

Why?

Just because.

I don't think there's any sort of "Wow! NOBODY's done this before!" aspect
to this. Of *course* men have flown in space. The only difference here -
and the challenge of the task - is to do it with private money.

Why is that a challenge? Because traditionally space travel has only been
done at the expense of billions of dollars and huge government
bureaucracies. The X-Prize is out to demonstrate that space travel doesn't
have to remain the domain of governments.

And that was also, in fact, the Big Deal behind teh Orteig Prize.
Transatlantic flights had been done for nearly a decade before
Lindberg (Or Byrd, or Nungesser & Coli, ir Wooster) entered into the
picture. While not reoutine, there had been a number of crossings,
but of either so limited value (Alcock & Browm - a great flight, mind,
but so razor-edged that it wasn't in any wise anything but a valiant
first attempt) or required a system and infrastructure equivalant to
the Shuttle R.34 and the Graf Zeppelin) The Orteig Prize was large
enough to get civilians involved, rather than governments, and allow
the civilians to finance "responsible", rather than daredevil,
projects.

If the U.S. or Soviet Governments had seen any need for a 3-seat
Spaceplane, they were perfectly capable of building one in the early
1960s. They didn't need one. The X-Prize is serving to jumpstart the
civilian side at teh most basic (and most attainable level).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
or not)?


None, but that's irrelevant.

That *is* the relevant point. Sure, it's been done before. Not by a private
corporation, though.

Maybe this will foster alternatives to NASA, ESA, and the Russians.

Pete

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
or not)?


None, but that's irrelevant.

That *is* the relevant point.


No, that's not the relevant point, this is:


Sure, it's been done before.


It's been done before. It won't be a first.

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.