Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

On Fri, 14 May 2004 22:44:42 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

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.

The X-15 program didn't have a cast of thousands. It also didn't cost
a couple hundred million. In fact, it didn't even have a cast of a
thousand, now that I think about it. Maybe two or three hundred
people, for all three vehicles, at most. The cost was in the
millions, of course, but not hundreds of millions.

I'd be surprised if the X-15 program could be duplicated now for
anything close to original cost and manpower.

And I don't think that that is a Good Thing(tm), either.

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"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?

Because without reaching orbit you cant do anything useful.

So much for sounding rockets. Let's shut down Wallops Island and White
Sands...

Reaching the altitude is all they're trying to do.

Thats obvious

Keith

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

In article ,
(B2431) writes:
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.

But it did carry about 1200 pounds of sensors, data recoding
equipment, and telemetry equipment in a pressurized bay behind the
cockpit. That was it's job - to fly a bit over a half a ton of
measuring gear out to where the measurements got interesting. YOu
don't think that the data from those flights was rediced from stuff
the pilot was scribbling in his notebook, do you?

I don't see any X-Prize contenders carrying 1,000# of Data Acq along
with them.

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

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

"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.

Precisely. I think that _that's_ been clear from the very beginning.
But winning the Orteig Prize also didn't mean that commercial air
travel over the Atlanntic was feasible, either. That took another 10
years.



While not routine, 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.

The first non-stop flight between North America and the U.K. The
NC-4's final destination was Southampton.

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

In article ,
Chad Irby writes:
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?

There ain't a whole lot of tech, there, Chad - Burt's taking a very
low-speed approach, (Rather Grand Fenwickian, in fact) with a low
thrust, long burning rocket motor, and a fairly lightweight, high drag
reentry vehicle. Peak speeds are around Mach 2 on ascent, and
somewhere around Mach 1.9 on the re-entry. There's nothing
particularly exotic about those speeds. Heating is low - around 100
Deg C, and an Aluminum or Composite airframe can deal with those
temperatures and dynamic pressures without a whole lot of trickery.

He's also designed a self-stabilizing shape, (In some ways not too
different from the behavior of a badminton birdie) that doesn't need
sophisticated systems, such as adaptive flight control systems or
reaction controls, to set and hold its attitude. While it's a good
design, it's not significant in advancing technology. It also can't
be expanded much beyond the X-Prize requirements. You aren't going to
see an orbital Spaceship !, or a Semi-Ballistic Spaceship 1 Hypersonic
Transport.

It's a very clever design very highly optimized to do only one thing -
meet teh X-Prize requirements.

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

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

I don't see any X-Prize contenders carrying 1,000# of Data Acq along
with them.

How much would equivalent-capability gear weigh these days?

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

It's a very clever design very highly optimized to do only one thing -
meet teh X-Prize requirements.

Sounds very like Rutan's M.O. throughout his career.

In article ,
Steve Hix writes:
In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

I don't see any X-Prize contenders carrying 1,000# of Data Acq along
with them.

How much would equivalent-capability gear weigh these days?

Well, in the case of teh instruments and recorders, quite a bit less,
(How's that for an exact figure!) and with a much lower cooling
burden, as well. The telemetry stuff will also be a bit lighter, but
not as much - transmitters are still pretty hefty.

Of course, if you were building a 21st Century X-15, and you had 1000#
(or even 450 Kg) of avaialable payload, you'd fill it up with even
more stuff. Equipment expands to fill the available volume & weight,
after all.

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

In article ,
Steve Hix writes:
In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

It's a very clever design very highly optimized to do only one thing -
meet the X-Prize requirements.

Sounds very like Rutan's M.O. throughout his career.

Sure. And that's why he as often as not, succeeds. He specifies his
objectives very carefully, and doesn't deviate at all from them if he
can prevent it. And he knows his stuff, so his approaches to meet
that specification are sound.
Sometimew they don't catch on - the Beech/Raytheon Starship flew like
a dream, but sold like a Lead Blimp. But more often than not, he gets
it right. After all, it seems like Long-Ezes are buzzing around like
dragonflies, while the Moller Skycars fly only in the Press Release.

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