Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

On Sat, 15 May 2004 03:46:54 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Actually, I believe they were the first to achieve powered, sustained,
controlled, heavier-than-air-flight, which was properly documented and
recorded.


If anybody had achieved it before the Wrights you can be sure they'd have
documentation.

Feel free to check history and get your facts straight.

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...

And that was also, in fact, the Big Deal behind teh Orteig Prize.
Transatlantic flights had been done for nearly a decade before
Lindberg (Or Byrd, or Nungesser & Coli, ir Wooster) entered into the
picture.


The Orteig prize was not for the first transatlantic flight, it was for the
first non-stop flight between New York City and Paris.



While not reoutine, there had been a number of crossings,
but of either so limited value (Alcock & Browm - a great flight, mind,
but so razor-edged that it wasn't in any wise anything but a valiant
first attempt)


Alcock & Brown won the Daily Mail prize with that flight, the first between
North America and the UK.

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news

Feel free to check history and get your facts straight.


I'm intimately familiar with the history, what "facts" are you disputing?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote...

If it's so mundane, why hasn't anyone claimed the prize yet?

It hasn't been claimed because it hasn't been done.

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

On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:05:46 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:

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.
[snip]
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.

Wrong guy. George Leigh Mallory said "because it is there", not
Edmund Hillary.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:37:32 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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

Not after the high-altitude flights, though, and the average gap between
"hard" flights of the same airframes was a month and a half.

Some of that was the requirement to analyze the data from one flight
before doing the next. It wasn't a mechanical problem.

They also had a tendency to need major parts of the airframe (tail and
wing surfaces) replaced or refurbished after the more demanding flights.

Only rarely. You make it sound routine, but it wasn't. It was
actually very uncommon.

Not to mention they were doing this with a much smaller payload.

It was built to be an experimental vehicle, not to win the X-Prize.
If it had needed the bigger payload, it would have had it.

We're talking about a vehicle nearly a half century old, flown to very
conservative flight rules for research. Retrospect only works about
so well.

If FRC had had a requirement to fly two high-altitude flights within
14 days, I am quite confident it could have. This is because, in
part, one of the X-15 ops engineers told me so.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

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.

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

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?

Not much. A few instruments and one person. And the refurbishment part
was a real show-stopper.

You said you read the rules - why don't you know this, then?

What is it you think I don't know?

Pretty much everything, so far.

Except for the whole "carry a payload and be reusable without a long
turnaround time" bit.

The X-15 carried a payload and was reusable without a long turnaround time.

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

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

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.

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:37:32 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Not to mention they were doing this with a much smaller payload.

It was built to be an experimental vehicle, not to win the X-Prize.
If it had needed the bigger payload, it would have had it.

I'm sorry, but the only way they could have put the extra payload (sized
to fit two extra humans) into the X-15 was to completely redesign the
whole thing from the ground up. There was *no* extra room in that
plane, and the extra mass to height would have needed even *more* size
for fuel and structure.

The X-15 was an amazing craft, but it was limited by its size and mass.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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