Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

In article ,
(Prowlus) writes:
Rusty Barton wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:30:08 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/



SpaceShipOne re-entry - Flight 13P



Speaking of Re-entry ain't the front of the craft a bit unprrotected
in that department?

Reentry isn't really that big a deal for an X-prize contender.
depending on the flight profile used, Maximum Mach Number would be in
teh region of Mach 5. Not an everysay occurance, but also a much mre
pleasant environment than, say, a reentry from orbit.

Think X-15 (Which was flying the same profile in 1963) rather than
Space Shuttle. There's a big difference between the two.

This is not a slap at Rutan or Scaled Composites - They're doing a
damned good job, running an extremenly professional program, and
theu're my favorites for the X-Prize - or whatever the new name is,
nad it'll be a real landmark. But it's not going to be performing
anything at all like a system that will be going into orbit, or doing
anything other than carrying a couple of people to 100 Km & back.

The jump from X-Prize to Space Travel is like the Ortieg Prize
(Lindberg) to the Pan Am Clippers. (And the relationship of the
X-Prize to the Orteig Prize is not a coincidence) The one-time
expedition (It was too involved to call it a stunt) was do-able in
1927. The useful stuff didn't happen until 1939.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
"C J Campbell" writes:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...
Where's the similarity? The Wrights were the first to achieve powered,
sustained, controlled heavier-than-air flight. Nobody had accomplished
that

before the Wrights on December 17, 1903. But manned suborbital flight HAS
been accomplished before, four times before, and it was last done over
forty
years ago. If manned suborbital spaceflight had any real usefulness why
did
it stop?


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

Most definitely _not_ the case (Or to quote Mary Shafer, "Wrong,
wrong, wrongitty wrong!")
The two suborbital Mercury flights were not my re-usable spacecraft,
But they weren't the only spacecraft used.

On July 19, 1963, Joe Walker, flying X-15 66672, reached an altitude
of 347,800'. (Flight 3-21-3, Mission # 90 in the X-15 program.

On August 22, 1963, Walker, again flying 66672, reached an altitude of
354,200'. (Flight 3-22-36, Mission # 91 in the X-15 program.

Are you trying to say that the X-15 wasn't reusable? That'll come as
a big surprise to the people who got 199 flights out of 3 aircraft.

Note that the August 22 flight was originally scheduled to be flown on
Aug 6, 1963, but was aborted before launch due to a systems problem
(Computer overheat). There was an attempt to refly on Aug 13, 1963
that was aborted after an APU wouldn't start. Another reply attempt
of Aug 15 was aborted due to weather. So the second flight could very
easily have occurred on Aug 6.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

What was the point of the first civilian flight across the Atlantic?


To win the £10,000 Daily Mail prize for the first flight between the
US/Canada/Newfoundland and Great Britain or Ireland.

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.

"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.

"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.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

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.


Why is that an issue? Reaching the altitude is all they're trying to do.

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

The problem is that merely reaching the altitude is only a
part of the problem. The real issue is achieving orbital velocity

No, it's not.

http://www.xprize.org/teams/guidelines.html

"3. The flight vehicle must be flown twice within a 14-day period. Each
flight must carry at least one person, to minimum altitude of 100 km
(62 miles). The flight vehicle must be built with the capacity (weight
and volume) to carry a minimum of 3 adults of height 188 cm (6 feet 2
inches) and weight 90 kg (198 pounds) each. Three people of this size
or larger must be able to enter, occupy, and be fastened into the
flight vehicle on Earth's surface prior to take-off, and equivalent
ballast must be carried in-flight if the number of persons on-board
during flight is less than 3 persons."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

The point is the same point that Edmund Hillary and his small civilian band had
when they climbed Everest. Sure, Patton's Third Army could have done it by
sheer muscle power and expensive engineering, but Hillary did it with finesse.

The point is the same point that swimming across the English Channel had. Boats
had been doing it for centuries. Swimmers did it on sheer guts and willpower.

The point is the same point that every glider pilot who has gone diamond
distance or altitude has. Thousands have gone before them, but they have to do
it by themselves. And that IS a big deal to the person doing it. You don't
have to think so, nor would I force you to. You are entitled to your opinion
and I to mine.

So far as I am concerned Rutan's brave little band has balls of brass for trying
it.

You do it...

because...

it is there.


Jim



"Steven P. McNicoll"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-
-Just what is the point of the whole X-Prize competition anyway?

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...

The point is the same point that Edmund Hillary and his small
civilian band had when they climbed Everest.


Not the same. Nobody had climbed Everest and returned before Hillary and
Norgay. The X-Prize competition is a race to be the "first" to do something
that's been done before.