|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
May 15th 04, 01:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
"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 
|
|
#82
May 15th 04, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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.
|
|
#83
May 15th 04, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Pete" wrote in message "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote "John T" wrote in message What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital or not)? This one: http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/ or did you mean manned? None, but that's irrelevant. That *is* the relevant point. No, that's not the relevant point, this is: 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! Vaughn
|
|
#84
May 15th 04, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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?
|
|
#85
May 15th 04, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly.
|
|
#86
May 15th 04, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "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. But it also doesn't mean that it *was* possible. Since it didn't happen, then the burden of proof is on *your* side. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly.
|
|
#87
May 15th 04, 03:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat that a government agency accomplished decades earlier? ....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). -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly.
|
|
#88
May 15th 04, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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? You said you read the rules - why don't you know this, then? What is it you think I don't know? 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.
|
|
#89
May 15th 04, 03:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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?
|
|
#90
May 15th 04, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...
The point is the X-Prize does not require any new technology or capability. If it's so mundane, why hasn't anyone claimed the prize yet?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there! | Thomas J. Paladino Jr. | Military Aviation | 150 | May 22nd 04 07:20 PM |
| Spaceship 1 hits 212,000 feet!!!!!! | BlakeleyTB | Home Built | 10 | May 20th 04 10:12 PM |
| Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing | zxcv | Military Aviation | 55 | April 4th 04 07:05 AM |
| Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
| Use of 150 octane fuel in the Merlin (Xylidine additive etc etc) | Peter Stickney | Military Aviation | 45 | February 11th 04 04:46 AM |
Linear Mode
