Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

So that is a large part of what makes it different from the single-shot
suborbital flights of the past.


As another poster has already pointed out, two of the four previous manned
suborbital space flights were done with reusable craft.

Yeah, I forgot about the X-15. And I used to have a photo of the X-15
signed by Joe Engle. My bad.

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

The earlier flights were not done in a re-usable spacecraft.

So what?

So that is a large part of what makes it different from the single-shot
suborbital flights of the past.

Not to mention the thousands of man-hours and cast of thousands needed
to turn around the shuttle.

One step on the road to non-government, gold-plated, decades-long
development projects type spaceflight.

The problem is that merely reaching the altitude is only a
part of the problem. The real issue is achieving orbital velocity
and the Rutan aircraft doesnt achive much more than 15%
of the velocity required to put something in orbit.

That's not the point of this particular exercise.

Lindbergh didn't take any passengers, or significant cargo, either.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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?

They don't need a cast of thousands and a couple hundred million to do
it.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"N329DF" wrote in message
...

The fact that they are doing it without tax money and a huge
outfit like NASA behind them is VERY significant.

Why?

Pointing out that other things might not require tax money and a
NASA-like support organization to do.

Is there any particular reason that you're more than usually contentious
today?

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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?

One pilot.

From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
Date: 5/14/2004 9:53 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: .net


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

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.

But it couldn't carry 3 people as the X-prize requires.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: Chad Irby
Date: 5/14/2004 11:30 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"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?

If I have to explain to you the significance of the tech behind a
reusable spaceplane, then why have you even bothered posting to this
thread to begin with?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Chad, I am beginning to suspect mcnicoll is maron.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:nLgpc.51990$iF6.4739265@attbi_s02...

I could have sworn you were claiming the requisite trip had been done
before...


Manned suborbital spaceflight has been done before. The X Prize requires
that it be done with a privately financed flight vehicle.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...

Not from your posts, since *everyone* in this thread has corrected you
multiple times.


Negative. Nobody has corrected me on any factual content.



Not much. A few instruments and one person.


How big were the instruments? How heavy?



And the refurbishment part
was a real show-stopper.


How so?



Pretty much everything, so far.


But you can't cite anything specific.



Complete rubbish. You don't seem to know anything about the
X-Prize *or* the X-15.


What parts did I get wrong?

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...

If I have to explain to you the significance of the tech behind a
reusable spaceplane, then why have you even bothered posting to this
thread to begin with?


Why are you dodging the question?