![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. 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. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chad Irby" wrote in message .com... But - and we've told you this a couple of times so far - IT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE X-15 PROGRAM. So what? It obviously had the capability to do so. If flying two 100 km+ flights within a two week period was thought to have been a significant achievement forty years ago they surely would have done it. Well, according to you, and only you. Well, then, please explain what would have been gained by doing it. 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. Illogical. Since the craft demonstrated the ability to achieve altitudes above 100 km and was turned in less than two weeks a number of times it is a virtual certainty that they could have flown two such flights within a two week period if they felt there was some significance in doing so. The most logical reason for not doing it is simply that there was no special significance attached to two such flights in two weeks. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Chad Irby writes: 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. And it also wasn't germane to the X-15 program. The X-15 was a research program, charged with exploring flight at sppeds of over Mach 3 and Altitudes over 200,000'. It was also charged with determining if controlled ascents adn lifting re-entries were possible. And that's what they did. Time was taken between flights not only to prep the Spaceplane, but to eveluate the data to determine what direction the next set of tests should take. However, granting that - here's the list of altitude flights by X-15 #3 66672, (Which, it should be pointed out, wasn't the ablative coated X-15A-II 66671. Date (1963) Elapsed since Altitude Comment previous flight 18 June 0 Days 223,700' Pilot: Rushworth 27 June 9 Days 285,000 Rushworth, (over 50 miles) U.S. Astronaut qualification 19 Jul 22 Days 347,800 Pilot: Walker (Over 100 Km) Intl Atro qualification 6 Aug 17 Days Abort Weather Abort & Computer overheat 13 Aug 7 Days Abort APU doesn't start 15 Aug 2 Days Abort weather Abort 22 Aug 7 Days 354,200 Walker: second Intl Astro Qual All X-15 operations postponed due to weather for 6 weeks after this flight. So, we've got 2 high altitude flights separated by 9 days, a program change (New pilot) and after fhe first 100 Km flight, the weather turns unsuitable, (Remember, they need good weather over the entire Wendover Range) and they're shooting through the holes in the weather to get the next flight. One abort was due to a system problem, which was corrected in 2 days, and the weather crudded up enough just after to prevent further flights for 6 weeks. I'd say that if somebody had really wanted to fly 2 over 100 Km X-15 flights somewhere around 10 days apart, they'd have certainly been able to do it. But their job description was to prodice useful data and perform research, not a demonstration to win a prize. 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. Not at all - it was certainly possible weather willing. It's entire possible that Spaceship One will meet similar problems as well - Rutan's good, but he can't control the weather. 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 flew useful flights as closely together as they could. My table above only tracks one aerospacecraft - there were 3 X-15s, and in the time period covered, X-15 #1 66670, flew 3 flights. They didn't, therefore they couldn't. Horse****, pure and simple. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Chad Irby writes: In article , (Peter Stickney) wrote: However, granting that - here's the list of altitude flights by X-15 #3 66672, (Which, it should be pointed out, wasn't the ablative coated X-15A-II 66671. Date (1963) Elapsed since Altitude Comment previous flight 18 June 0 Days 223,700' Pilot: Rushworth 27 June 9 Days 285,000 Rushworth, (over 50 miles) U.S. Astronaut qualification 19 Jul 22 Days 347,800 Pilot: Walker (Over 100 Km) Intl Atro qualification 6 Aug 17 Days Abort Weather Abort & Computer overheat 13 Aug 7 Days Abort APU doesn't start 15 Aug 2 Days Abort weather Abort 22 Aug 7 Days 354,200 Walker: second Intl Astro Qual All X-15 operations postponed due to weather for 6 weeks after this flight. So, we've got 2 high altitude flights separated by 9 days, Two-thirds of the height of the max alt flights needed under X-Prize. 285 is 2/3 of 328 ? Around here we use Base 10 Numbers, Podnah. How 'bout 285 is 88% of the altitude needed. If you look at what was done, adn how it was done, there wasn't much difference, or any different preparation between an X-16 flight to 88 Km (50 miles), and 100 Km. It's a matter of engine run time and flight profile. What we have is two "qualifying" flights in July/August, separated by a month, two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures. So, by your own admission, they couldn't do it. No, they _didn't do it. There wer also weather delays between the first 100 Km flight and the second attempt. Weather and Equipment problems are Bad Luck - NASA, or Burt Rutan, or Raymond Orteig himself can't do anything about them. They will affect all progrems, including Spaceship One. There was nothing in the X-15's mission that _required_ that type of turnaround. You've been contending that it wasn't possible. I've been pointing out that it was possible. It just wasn't important. I'd say that if somebody had really wanted to fly 2 over 100 Km X-15 flights somewhere around 10 days apart, they'd have certainly been able to do it. But, in the actual records, they *couldn't*. Computer overheat, vulnerability to weather, bad APU... nope, they couldn't manage it, even with the less-stringent "rules" in effect. At this point, on this subject, I'd have to say that you are being either blindly irrational or deliberately obtuse. C'mon Chad, you're smarter than that. If the Rutan craft doesn't manage to do the two flights in two weeks because of some weather issues, will you argue that they could have done it? Sure. And knowing Burt Rutan, he'll keep trying until he does. Nobody has limited teh X-Prize teams to only one try. -- Pete Stickney A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. -- Daniel Webster |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chad Irby" wrote in message .com... What we have is two "qualifying" flights in July/August, separated by a month, two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures. So, by your own admission, they couldn't do it. Please explain how not doing it proves they couldn't do it. But, in the actual records, they *couldn't*. Computer overheat, vulnerability to weather, bad APU... nope, they couldn't manage it, even with the less-stringent "rules" in effect. Nonsense. The X-15 achieved turnaround times of less than two weeks and was flown over 100 km, that proves they could have flown it twice over 100 km within two weeks if they had chosen to do so. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message .com... What we have is two "qualifying" flights in July/August, separated by a month, two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures. So, by your own admission, they couldn't do it. Please explain how not doing it proves they couldn't do it. "two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures." I would think that you could read at least that much of the paragraph. 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." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |