Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

"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.

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.