Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

"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.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

"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.

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.

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.