Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

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


Exciting stuff!

Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test site.

Won't be long now I guess.

[Casey Wilson]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
.. .
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/
>
>
> Exciting stuff!
>
> Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test site.
>
> Won't be long now I guess.
>
Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize. The rumor I heard was they
only put on half a load of propellant, today. My guess is they will go all
out within two weeks.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
> qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize.
>

That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km.

[Casey Wilson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
> > qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize.
> >
>
> That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km.

Nope, it would give them a 4,000 foot pad. Go back to sleep, McNicoll.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Casey Wilson" > said:
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >
>> > Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
>> > qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize.
>> >
>>
>> That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km.
>
> Nope, it would give them a 4,000 foot pad. Go back to sleep, McNicoll.

Are you saying that 200,000 feet + 120,000 feet is more than 100 km, or
are you saying that they went above 200,000 feet? It's not clear to me,
and that's confusing because 100 km is 328083.99 feet.

$ units
500 units, 54 prefixes
You have: 100 km
You want: feet
* 328083.99
/ 3.048e-06
You have: ^D
$

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I must go down to do C again, to the ANSI C and the vi
And all I ask is a shell script and a tar to store her by
"C Fever", Paul Martin

[alexy]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, "Casey Wilson" > said:
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>> "Casey Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>> >
>>> > Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
>>> > qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize.
>>> >
>>>
>>> That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km.
>>
>> Nope, it would give them a 4,000 foot pad. Go back to sleep, McNicoll.
>
>Are you saying that 200,000 feet + 120,000 feet is more than 100 km, or
>are you saying that they went above 200,000 feet? It's not clear to me,
>and that's confusing because 100 km is 328083.99 feet.

I second that, and figured someone was being intentionally obtuse.
Reading the article, you find that they actually "passed 200,000
feet", specifically to 212,000. But apparently just saying that would
not be consistent with whatever little battle is going on here.
>
>$ units
>500 units, 54 prefixes
>You have: 100 km
>You want: feet
> * 328083.99
> / 3.048e-06
>You have: ^D
>$

--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.

[Rusty Barton]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 20:30:08 GMT, "Thomas J. Paladino Jr."
> wrote:

>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/
>
>
>Exciting stuff!
>
>Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test site.
>
>Won't be long now I guess.
>

Here are some pictures of todays flight on the Scaled Composites
website:


http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/photos_text.htm


Image of flight 13P boost from Chase aircraft video

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/video/13p_boost_alpha.jpg


Image of flight 13P boost from Edwards AFB ground radar facility

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/video/13p_boost.jpg



SpaceShipOne at apogee Note: RCS thruster firing on left wing.
Flight 13P

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/video/13p_rcs_tail.jpg


Image of transonic descent in feather configuration from Edwards AFG
ground radar facility Flight 13P

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/video/13p_feather.jpg


SpaceShipOne re-entry - Flight 13P

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/video/13p_feather_tail.jpg


- Rusty Barton

[Dav1936531]

>From: Rusty Barton
>
>
>Here are some pictures of todays flight on the Scaled Composites
>website:
>- Rusty Barton

Hehehehe.....those guys are nuts!!!!!!
Dave

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Dav1936531) wrote:

> >From: Rusty Barton
> >
> >
> >Here are some pictures of todays flight on the Scaled Composites
> >website:
> >- Rusty Barton
>
> Hehehehe.....those guys are nuts!!!!!!
> Dave

We need more nuts like them.

[B2431]

>From: "Casey Wilson"
>
>"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
.. .
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/
>>
>>
>> Exciting stuff!
>>
>> Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test site.
>>
>> Won't be long now I guess.
>>
> Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
>qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize. The rumor I heard was they
>only put on half a load of propellant, today. My guess is they will go all
>out within two weeks.

Close, but no cigar. Besides the error in your math the X-prize requires that 3
people be in the vehicle in both flights and that the flights be no more than 7
days apart.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Larry]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Casey Wilson"
> >
> >"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/
> >>
> >>
> >> Exciting stuff!
> >>
> >> Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test
site.
> >>
> >> Won't be long now I guess.
> >>
> > Only 120,000 more feet straight up and they've made the first
> >qualifying flight for the $10 million X-Prize. The rumor I heard was
they
> >only put on half a load of propellant, today. My guess is they will go
all
> >out within two weeks.
>
> Close, but no cigar. Besides the error in your math the X-prize requires
that 3
> people be in the vehicle in both flights and that the flights be no more
than 7
> days apart.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Is there any other group with comparable results or a "close second"?

Larry

[B2431]

>From: "Larry"
>
>Is there any other group with comparable results or a "close second"?
>
>Larry

There are a few other in the works. I don't think they are anywhere near SC.
There were a few hopeful starts like the Clipper that used rotors to slow
descent. They had a few successful partial scale flights before the thing fell
over on landing.

One thing's for sure Rutan doesn't mind strange looking vehicles. This one
looks like something out of Flash Gordon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Larry]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Larry"
> >
> >Is there any other group with comparable results or a "close second"?
> >
> >Larry
>
> There are a few other in the works. I don't think they are anywhere near
SC.
> There were a few hopeful starts like the Clipper that used rotors to slow
> descent. They had a few successful partial scale flights before the thing
fell
> over on landing.
>
> One thing's for sure Rutan doesn't mind strange looking vehicles. This one
> looks like something out of Flash Gordon.
Yes it does.

I was admiring the tail- it's fully functional, yet does the job with a lot
less 'structure' than other aircraft.

Larry




> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "Larry"
>Date: 5/14/2004 12:06 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Larry"
>> >
>> >Is there any other group with comparable results or a "close second"?
>> >
>> >Larry
>>
>> There are a few other in the works. I don't think they are anywhere near
>SC.
>> There were a few hopeful starts like the Clipper that used rotors to slow
>> descent. They had a few successful partial scale flights before the thing
>fell
>> over on landing.
>>
>> One thing's for sure Rutan doesn't mind strange looking vehicles. This one
>> looks like something out of Flash Gordon.
>Yes it does.
>
>I was admiring the tail- it's fully functional, yet does the job with a lot
>less 'structure' than other aircraft.
>
>Larry
>
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The portholes are a tad strange too. If it works more power too him. All I
want to know is can I get a ride?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
.. .
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/
>
>
> Exciting stuff!
>
> Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test site.
>

That last third of the flight is going to be tough. It took 55% fuel just to
reach 211,000 feet. Most of the remainder will be needed just to carry a
full load of fuel that high. Plus, there was only one person on board. To
get the X Prize, they have to carry three people.

Not only that, they have been managing only one Spaceship One flight every
couple of months (lately about one a month). They have made only three
powered flights. What do they need for the X Prize -- something like one
every two weeks, isn't it?

It may take a little while for them to get it all together, but they do
appear to be a lot closer.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> C J Campbell > wrote:

> That last third of the flight is going to be tough.

I'm sure the first two thirds will be pretty tough as well.

> It took 55% fuel just to reach 211,000 feet. Most of the remainder
> will be needed just to carry a full load of fuel that high.
> Plus, there was only one person on board. To
> get the X Prize, they have to carry three people.

Don't worry about their mileage Mr. Cambell, I'm sure Burt Rutan
has a better idea of the fuel requirements than you do.

> Not only that,

Gaaaaasssssssp....... You have more comments.

> they have been managing only one Spaceship One flight every
> couple of months (lately about one a month).

So what. Will NASA be able to match that this year

> They have made only three powered flights.

So what...... That's three more than you will ever make now isn't it.

> What do they need for the X Prize -- something like one
> every two weeks, isn't it?

Beats me but I'll bet that Burt Rutan has a much better handle on what
the requirements are than you do..... So don't sweat the little details
that you will personally never have to be responsible for.

> It may take a little while for them to get it all together, but they do
> appear to be a lot closer.

How condescendingly generous you are.

[B2431]

>From: Shiver Me Timbers
>Date: 5/14/2004 2:38 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> C J Campbell > wrote:
>
>> That last third of the flight is going to be tough.
>
>I'm sure the first two thirds will be pretty tough as well.
>
>> It took 55% fuel just to reach 211,000 feet. Most of the remainder
>> will be needed just to carry a full load of fuel that high.
>> Plus, there was only one person on board. To
>> get the X Prize, they have to carry three people.
>
>Don't worry about their mileage Mr. Cambell, I'm sure Burt Rutan
>has a better idea of the fuel requirements than you do.
>
>> Not only that,
>
>Gaaaaasssssssp....... You have more comments.
>
>> they have been managing only one Spaceship One flight every
>> couple of months (lately about one a month).
>
>So what. Will NASA be able to match that this year
>
>> They have made only three powered flights.
>
>So what...... That's three more than you will ever make now isn't it.
>
>> What do they need for the X Prize -- something like one
>> every two weeks, isn't it?
>
>Beats me but I'll bet that Burt Rutan has a much better handle on what
>the requirements are than you do..... So don't sweat the little details
>that you will personally never have to be responsible for.
>
>> It may take a little while for them to get it all together, but they do
>> appear to be a lot closer.
>
>How condescendingly generous you are.
>

Do you have a point to make or do you just feel like criticizing?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
> .. .
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4970837/
> >
> >
> > Exciting stuff!
> >
> > Rutan's SpaceShipOne hit 200,000 feet today over their Mojave test site.
> >
>
> That last third of the flight is going to be tough. It took 55% fuel just
to
> reach 211,000 feet. Most of the remainder will be needed just to carry a
> full load of fuel that high. Plus, there was only one person on board. To
> get the X Prize, they have to carry three people.
>
> Not only that, they have been managing only one Spaceship One flight every
> couple of months (lately about one a month). They have made only three
> powered flights. What do they need for the X Prize -- something like one
> every two weeks, isn't it?
>
> It may take a little while for them to get it all together, but they do
> appear to be a lot closer.

http://www.xprize.org/

The news over here (UK) said it may be achieved some time later this year,
maybe August or September. It said the Rutan project was the leader, but
there are another two not too far behind.

Starchaser Industries weren't mentiond in the leading three, so I don't know
if they've fallen behind.
http://www.starchaser.co.uk/

Paul

[Prowlus]

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?

[C J Campbell]

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
> > C J Campbell > wrote:
>
> > That last third of the flight is going to be tough.
>
> How condescendingly generous you are.

Somebody step on your tail? It really is going to be tough. If Rutan were
attempting something easy, it wouldn't be worth all that attention, would
it? What, are you trying to belittle his accomplishments or what he is
trying to do?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> 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?

Its only doing about 2500 mph

Keith

[Drewe Manton]

Shiver Me Timbers > wrote in news:140520040137084136%
:

> How condescendingly generous you are.
>

How generously condescending you are.

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

[C J Campbell]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Prowlus" > wrote in message
> om...
> > 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?
>
> Its only doing about 2500 mph

During this last flight it only reached Mach 2.5, and that was at 150,000
feet on the way up. Maximum speed on re-entry was only Mach 1.9. It looks
like Spaceship One goes through a lot more stress going up than it takes
coming back down.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Somebody step on your tail? It really is going to be tough. If
> Rutan were attempting something easy, it wouldn't be worth all
> that attention, would it? What, are you trying to belittle his
> accomplishments or what he is trying to do?
>

Just what is the point of the whole X-Prize competition anyway? I
understand the requirements, but why do it all? The Rutan Voyager flight
wasn't particularly useful either, but it was something that hadn't been
done before.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Somebody step on your tail? It really is going to be tough. If
> > Rutan were attempting something easy, it wouldn't be worth all
> > that attention, would it? What, are you trying to belittle his
> > accomplishments or what he is trying to do?
> >
>
> Just what is the point of the whole X-Prize competition anyway? I
> understand the requirements, but why do it all? The Rutan Voyager flight
> wasn't particularly useful either, but it was something that hadn't been
> done before.

Someone might have said the same thing to the Wrights.

The idea is to prove that privately financed space travel is both feasible
and reasonable. No government has managed to do what Rutan and the others
are attempting. The prize has the additional advantage of attracting media
attention so that, once it has been won, public interest in space tourism
will be generated.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Just what is the point of the whole X-Prize competition anyway? I
> understand the requirements, but why do it all?

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

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Someone might have said the same thing to the Wrights.
>

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 idea is to prove that privately financed space travel is both feasible
> and reasonable. No government has managed to do what Rutan and
> the others are attempting. The prize has the additional advantage of
> attracting media attention so that, once it has been won, public
> interest in space tourism will be generated.
>

So the ultimate goal is passenger hops as a commercial venture?

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Someone might have said the same thing to the Wrights.
> >
>
> 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.

>
> >
> > The idea is to prove that privately financed space travel is both
feasible
> > and reasonable. No government has managed to do what Rutan and
> > the others are attempting. The prize has the additional advantage of
> > attracting media attention so that, once it has been won, public
> > interest in space tourism will be generated.
> >
>
> So the ultimate goal is passenger hops as a commercial venture?

Yes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> The earlier flights were not done in a re-usable spacecraft.
>

So what?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > C J Campbell > wrote:
> >
> > > That last third of the flight is going to be tough.
> >
> > How condescendingly generous you are.
>
> Somebody step on your tail? It really is going to be tough. If Rutan were
> attempting something easy, it wouldn't be worth all that attention, would
> it? What, are you trying to belittle his accomplishments or what he is
> trying to do?

One word: ENVY

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steve Hix]

In article et>,
"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Jim Weir]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Chad Irby]

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

> "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.

A suborbital flight, and repeat it with the same vehicle in a 14 day
period?

Funny, I can't remember hearing of such a thing.

I think you don't understand the actual rules or intent of the Ansari
X-Prize.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Guy Alcala]

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>

Well, no. The 1953 expedition did it along military logistic lines, as did the
earlier Himalayan expeditions to the great peaks. The leader of the expedition was
Brigadier Hunt, and the planning required to move supplies and people up the
mountain was analogous to supplying a 6-8 week military campaign, with Sherpas
acting as porters. After it was done that way well into the '70s, smaller, lighter
weight expeditions started to try and climb Everest and other big Himalayan peaks
'alpine-style', i.e. the climbers themselves carried all their food and gear with
them and climbed in a more or less continuous push from bottom to top. Alpine-style
is quicker, lighter, faster, and cheaper (one Japanese expedition in the '70s
employed over 700 porters getting their gear to base camp, with a couple of hundred
on the mountain itself).

Increased knowledge of extreme altitudes and improved technique and equipment made
such climbs possible. Perhaps the ultimate in finesse and style on Everest was set
by Reinhold Messner's solo climb without oxygen via the North Ridge in the early
'80s. He did have a little support; his girlfriend went to his base camp with him,
and waited for him there. OTOH, even he was mostly climbing a known route. However,
except for the last several hundred yards, so were Hillary and Tenzing, as Tenzing
had been to around the South Summit @ 28,700 ft. (IIRR; possibly they didn't get
that high) the year before with (IIRC) Raymond Lambert, as part of the Swiss
expedition. Bourdillon and Evans had certainly gotten to the South Summit before
retreating, a few days before Hillary and Tenzing made the second attempt that went
the rest of the way.

The 'tourist' climbs of the South Col route nowadays are done in the old style,
because most of the people involved lack the climbing skills and conditioning to do
it on their own. Expert climbers do old or new routes alpine style.

Guy

[John T]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
> The X-Prize competition is a race to be the "first" to
> do something that's been done before.

What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital or not)?
That's the largest part of the "not been there nor done that" aspect. The
two-week turnaround is part of the attempt to demonstrate a viable reusable
craft which would encourage commercialization of the activity.

The goal of the X-Prize, as I understand it, is to promote commercial access
to and use of space with a focus on space tourism. There are private launch
facilities, but none of them are for manned spacecraft. All manned space
flight is performed by government agencies that many consider to be far more
wasteful than a commercial enterprise would be.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> A suborbital flight, and repeat it with the same vehicle in a 14 day
> period?
>
> Funny, I can't remember hearing of such a thing.
>

The capability was there. Individual X-15s were flown within two week
periods a number of times and the craft was flown above 100 km.


>
> I think you don't understand the actual rules or intent of the Ansari
> X-Prize.
>

You'd be wrong abut that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
> or not)?
>

None, but that's irrelevant.


>
> That's the largest part of the "not been there nor done that" aspect.
>

Why?


>
> The two-week turnaround is part of the attempt to demonstrate a
> viable reusable craft which would encourage commercialization of
> the activity.
>

The X-15 had turnaround times less than two weeks.

[Chad Irby]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > A suborbital flight, and repeat it with the same vehicle in a 14 day
> > period?
> >
> > Funny, I can't remember hearing of such a thing.
>
> The capability was there. Individual X-15s were flown within two week
> periods a number of times and the craft was flown above 100 km.

....you haven't read the actual rules yet, have you?

The X-15 carried one guy (the rules for the X-Prize require that the
craft has to be able to carry three, although it only has to have the
equivalent ballast for the actual prize flight).

The two semi-qualifying (100 km+) X-15 flights took place over a month
apart, in the #3 airframe.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Mike Beede]

In article t>, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > A suborbital flight, and repeat it with the same vehicle in a 14 day
> > period?
> >
> > Funny, I can't remember hearing of such a thing.
> >
>
> The capability was there. Individual X-15s were flown within two week
> periods a number of times and the craft was flown above 100 km.

So now it's not "it's already been done," it's "it *could* have been already
done?" I think it's time to give up. The X-15 was a really cool plane, but
it wouldn't qualify for the X-Prize even if it was operational today. It
couldn't carry passengers.

It's a shame the orbital followons weren't funded, or space travel would
have looked very different for the last forty years.

Mike Beede

[Chad Irby]

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

> The X-15 had turnaround times less than two weeks.

It did, after some lower and slower flights.

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

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

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> ...you haven't read the actual rules yet, have you?
>

Yup.


>
> The X-15 carried one guy (the rules for the X-Prize require that the
> craft has to be able to carry three, although it only has to have the
> equivalent ballast for the actual prize flight).
>

So the significant thing about the X-Prize is that it requires a three-place
craft?


>
> The two semi-qualifying (100 km+) X-15 flights took place over
> a month apart, in the #3 airframe.
>

The point is the X-Prize does not require any new technology or capability.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Beede" > wrote in message
...
>
> So now it's not "it's already been done," it's "it *could* have
> been already done?"
>

Yes, manned suborbital flight has already been done.


>
> I think it's time to give up.
>

Do what you must.


>
> The X-15 was a really cool plane, but
> it wouldn't qualify for the X-Prize even if it was operational today. It
> couldn't carry passengers.
>

You're missing the point. The X-Prize does not require any new technology
or capability. Manned suborbital spaceflight was accomplished and abandoned
over forty years ago.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>
> It did, after some lower and slower flights.
>
> Not after the high-altitude flights, though, and the average gap between
> "hard" flights of the same airframes was a month and a half.
>

That it didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

[John T]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
>
> Why?

Just because.

I don't think there's any sort of "Wow! NOBODY's done this before!" aspect
to this. Of *course* men have flown in space. The only difference here -
and the challenge of the task - is to do it with private money.

Why is that a challenge? Because traditionally space travel has only been
done at the expense of billions of dollars and huge government
bureaucracies. The X-Prize is out to demonstrate that space travel doesn't
have to remain the domain of governments.

I personally like the idea of non-government entities in space. Why? "Just
because," mostly. The fact that they're doing this without tax money is a
bonus - and I'm generally supportive of space programs.

My opinion is that the major advances in space technology from this point
forward are going to come from the private sector. Space tourism is just
the start. When companies figure out how to use microgravity profitably to
manufacture crystals and special alloys, we'll start to see real advances
and lower costs for space technology. Then perhaps manned exploration of
the solar system.

That's a l-o-n-g way in the future, though. I'll be lucky to see much of it
fully realized in my lifetime.

But I'm a dreamer - much like Rutan and the others vying for the X-Prize.
The $10M pot isn't going to cover the costs of the attempt much less
generate a profit.

They're dreamers saying "why *not*."

More power to them.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>
> Just because.
>
> I don't think there's any sort of "Wow! NOBODY's done this
> before!" aspect to this.
>

Actually, based on responses in this thread there seems to be quite a bit of
that!

[Pete]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ws.com...
> >
> > What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
> > or not)?
> >
>
> None, but that's irrelevant.

That *is* the relevant point. Sure, it's been done before. Not by a private
corporation, though.

Maybe this will foster alternatives to NASA, ESA, and the Russians.

Pete

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> >
> > "John T" > wrote in message
> > ws.com...
> > >
> > > What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
> > > or not)?
> > >
> >
> > None, but that's irrelevant.
>
> That *is* the relevant point.
>

No, that's not the relevant point, this is:

>
> Sure, it's been done before.
>

It's been done before. It won't be a first.

[Vaughn]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Pete" > wrote in message
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> > > "John T" > wrote in message
> > > > What non-government entity has reached outer space (sub-orbital
> > > > or not)?

This one: http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/ or did you mean manned?


> > > None, but that's irrelevant.
> > That *is* the relevant point.
> No, that's not the relevant point, this is:

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!

Vaughn

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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?

[N329DF]

>What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat that a
>government agency accomplished decades earlier?
>

The fact that they are doing it without tax money and a huge outfit like NASA
behind them is VERY significant.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[B2431]

>From: "C J Campbell"
>
>
>"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
>> > C J Campbell > wrote:
>>
>> > That last third of the flight is going to be tough.
>>
>> How condescendingly generous you are.

The last line was written by you, campell.

<snip>

> It really is going to be tough.

That's what the man said before you attacked him.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 5/14/2004 3:26 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>> In article et>,
>> "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

The X-prize doesn't require orbital flight. Only that it reach a certain hight
with 3 persons aboard and is repeated with the same craft within a specified
period.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

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

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > ...you haven't read the actual rules yet, have you?
>
> Yup.

Then you aren't paying attention to what you're reading, then.

> So the significant thing about the X-Prize is that it requires a three-place
> craft?

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.

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

> > The two semi-qualifying (100 km+) X-15 flights took place over
> > a month apart, in the #3 airframe.
>
> The point is the X-Prize does not require any new technology or capability.

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

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

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > It did, after some lower and slower flights.
> >
> > Not after the high-altitude flights, though, and the average gap
> > between "hard" flights of the same airframes was a month and a
> > half.
>
> That it didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

But it also doesn't mean that it *was* possible.

Since it didn't happen, then the burden of proof is on *your* side.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[B2431]

>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>> A suborbital flight, and repeat it with the same vehicle in a 14 day
>> period?
>>
>> Funny, I can't remember hearing of such a thing.
>>
>
>The capability was there. Individual X-15s were flown within two week
>periods a number of times and the craft was flown above 100 km.
>
>
>>
>> I think you don't understand the actual rules or intent of the Ansari
>> X-Prize.
>>
>
>You'd be wrong abut that.

Actually based on your X-15 comment YOU would be wrong. The X-prize requires at
least 3 seats on board.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

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

> What is significant about a private corporation duplicating a feat
> that a government agency accomplished decades earlier?

....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).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?


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

What is it you think I don't know?


>
> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually based on your X-15 comment YOU would be wrong.
> The X-prize requires at least 3 seats on board.
>

What was in my X-15 comment that suggested I didn't know the X-Prize
required a 3-seat vehicle?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[John R Weiss]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>
> The point is the X-Prize does not require any new technology or
capability.

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

[Peter Stickney]

In article m>,
"John T" > writes:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net
>>
>> Why?
>
> Just because.
>
> I don't think there's any sort of "Wow! NOBODY's done this before!" aspect
> to this. Of *course* men have flown in space. The only difference here -
> and the challenge of the task - is to do it with private money.
>
> Why is that a challenge? Because traditionally space travel has only been
> done at the expense of billions of dollars and huge government
> bureaucracies. The X-Prize is out to demonstrate that space travel doesn't
> have to remain the domain of governments.

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. 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) or required a system and infrastructure equivalant to
the Shuttle R.34 and the Graf Zeppelin) The Orteig Prize was large
enough to get civilians involved, rather than governments, and allow
the civilians to finance "responsible", rather than daredevil,
projects.

If the U.S. or Soviet Governments had seen any need for a 3-seat
Spaceplane, they were perfectly capable of building one in the early
1960s. They didn't need one. The X-Prize is serving to jumpstart the
civilian side at teh most basic (and most attainable level).

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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. 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:Stfpc.51641$xw3.3123300@attbi_s04...
>
> If it's so mundane, why hasn't anyone claimed the prize yet?
>

It hasn't been claimed because it hasn't been done. A better question is
why was the prize offered?

[N329DF]

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

Maybe because I am getting tired of funding everything. The private sector can
do more and cheaper than the govt if given the chance. Look at what Boeing has
done to commericial airtransport. We would not have a 747, or 777 if the Govt
was running the show.
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:24:26 -0400, Peter Stickney wrote:

> 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.
>

Agreed. A shuttle is coming in at Mach 25+ from a much higher altitude.
It basically free falls, using gravity as it's engine, not to mention its
base speed of Mach 25+ before it even starts to "fall" back towards Earth.
The frictional forces at those speeds compared to the speed that
SpaceShipOne will be flying is night and day. No comparison.

[Greg Copeland]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 01:26:06 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 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?

Can't believe you guys are feeding this troll.

The answer is obvious and been stated many times already.

He's trolling. Period.

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 22:41:29 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
>>
>> A suborbital flight, and repeat it with the same vehicle in a 14 day
>> period?
>>
>> Funny, I can't remember hearing of such a thing.
>>
>
> The capability was there. Individual X-15s were flown within two week
> periods a number of times and the craft was flown above 100 km.
>
>
>>
>> I think you don't understand the actual rules or intent of the Ansari
>> X-Prize.
>>
>
> You'd be wrong abut that.

So he openly admits that he's trolling. Nuff said.

[Greg Copeland]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 02:44:02 +0000, John R Weiss wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote...
>>
>> The point is the X-Prize does not require any new technology or
> capability.
>
> If it's so mundane, why hasn't anyone claimed the prize yet?

Doh! How dare you attempt to confuse a troll with such an excellent
question. Shame on you! ;)

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 14:31:20 +0000, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Someone might have said the same thing to the Wrights.
>>
>
> 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?
>

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can't believe you guys are feeding this troll.
>
> The answer is obvious and been stated many times already.
>

Well, since nobody has provided an answer it's obviously far from obvious.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

[Greg Copeland]

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

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> 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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Feel free to check history and get your facts straight.
>

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

[John R Weiss]

"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...

[Mary Shafer]

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

[Mary Shafer]

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

> In article et>,
> "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

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Chad Irby]

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.

[Steve Hix]

In article t>,
"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.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > "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.

[Steve Hix]

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

> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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.

[Steve Hix]

In article et>,
"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?

[Steve Hix]

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.

[B2431]

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

[B2431]

>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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> But - and we've told you this a couple of times so far - IT NEVER
> HAPPENED IN THE X-15 PROGRAM.
>

So what? It obviously had the capability to do so. If flying two 100 km+
flights within a two week period was thought to have been a significant
achievement forty years ago they surely would have done it.


>
> Well, according to you, and only you.
>

Well, then, please explain what would have been gained by doing it.


>
> 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.
>

Illogical. Since the craft demonstrated the ability to achieve altitudes
above 100 km and was turned in less than two weeks a number of times it is a
virtual certainty that they could have flown two such flights within a two
week period if they felt there was some significance in doing so. The most
logical reason for not doing it is simply that there was no special
significance attached to two such flights in two weeks.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> But it couldn't carry 3 people as the X-prize requires.
>

I see. The X Prize will have caused the tripling of seating capacity of
manned suborbital spacecraft, and in just over forty years. You're right,
that is a monumental achievement.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Chad Irby > writes:
> 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.

And it also wasn't germane to the X-15 program. The X-15 was a
research program, charged with exploring flight at sppeds of over Mach
3 and Altitudes over 200,000'. It was also charged with determining
if controlled ascents adn lifting re-entries were possible.
And that's what they did. Time was taken between flights not only to
prep the Spaceplane, but to eveluate the data to determine what
direction the next set of tests should take.

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,
a program change (New pilot) and after fhe first 100 Km flight, the
weather turns unsuitable, (Remember, they need good weather over the
entire Wendover Range) and they're shooting through the holes in the
weather to get the next flight. One abort was due to a system
problem, which was corrected in 2 days, and the weather crudded up
enough just after to prevent further flights for 6 weeks.
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 their job description was to prodice useful data
and perform research, not a demonstration to win a prize.

>
>> 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.

Not at all - it was certainly possible weather willing. It's entire
possible that Spaceship One will meet similar problems as well -
Rutan's good, but he can't control the weather.

> 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 flew useful flights as closely together as they could.
My table above only tracks one aerospacecraft - there were 3 X-15s,
and in the time period covered, X-15 #1 66670, flew 3 flights.

> They didn't, therefore they couldn't.

Horse****, pure and simple.

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

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> Why are you dodging the question?

Why are you talking so much.

[Chad Irby]

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

> "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.

Except for the rules of the X-Prize, the details of the X-15, and pretty
much everything else.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But it couldn't carry 3 people as the X-prize requires.
> >

> I see. The X Prize will have caused the tripling of seating capacity of
> manned suborbital spacecraft, and in just over forty years. You're right,
> that is a monumental achievement.

The significant part, which you so blithely dismissed, is that
it is being done by private industry. No government funding, no
trying to "beat the Ruskies" to manned spaceflight. Just because
the richest government in the world could afford to do it 40 years
ago does not mean a private project could have. Certainly no
privately funded project has done so yet. I know you say that
isn't significant, but it very much is.


Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> The significant part, which you so blithely dismissed, is that
> it is being done by private industry. No government funding, no
> trying to "beat the Ruskies" to manned spaceflight. Just because
> the richest government in the world could afford to do it 40 years
> ago does not mean a private project could have. Certainly no
> privately funded project has done so yet. I know you say that
> isn't significant, but it very much is.
>

Prove it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> Except for the rules of the X-Prize, the details of the X-15, and pretty
> much everything else.
>

Well, if that's true, you'll be able to cite the statements I made that are
incorrect. Please take a shot at establishing some credibility and do so.

[N329DF]

>Subject: Re: Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 5/15/04 9:04 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: . net>
>
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.com...
>>
>> Except for the rules of the X-Prize, the details of the X-15, and pretty
>> much everything else.
>>
>
>Well, if that's true, you'll be able to cite the statements I made that are
>incorrect. Please take a shot at establishing some credibility and do so.


Am I the only one to think this, is this guy acting/sounding like tarver ? I
mean you tell him the fact, give him proof and he still does not get it.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 05:28:39 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> 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.

You misunderstand. If carrying a crew of three in the X-15 had been
necessary, the X-15 would have been designed to do so from the
beginning. The X-Prize contenders knew that they had to carry three,
so the vehicles are designed to do so.

Saying that the X-15 can't meet the X-Prize rules, promulgated four
decades after the X-15 was designed, is an irrational statement. Of
course it can't. Even if it had carried three people and flown twice
to the target altitude in less than two weeks, it couldn't meet the
X-Prize rules ever. It was funded with government money and flown by
a government agency.

It is clear, however, that the X-15 demonstrated the technology
required to fly a manned vehicle to the target altitude in the time
period required. Adding seats for two more people, neither of whom
will actually fly in the vehicle, is a minor challenge compared to
that. After all, we flew the enlarged and extended X-15-2 to a speed
record and fitting the extra two crew into it wouldn't have messed
with the loft lines.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

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

> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > 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.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 10:54:58 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>The cost was in the millions, of course, but not hundreds of millions.

What would the cost be adjusted for four decades of inflation?

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Chad Irby]

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

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

> Well, if that's true, you'll be able to cite the statements I made
> that are incorrect. Please take a shot at establishing some
> credibility and do so.

Every time I've mentioned it so far, you've gotten a sudden case of
amnesia, with a side-dose of "I didn't say that."

**** off.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(N329DF) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!
> >From: "Steven P. McNicoll"

> >Well, if that's true, you'll be able to cite the statements I made
> >that are incorrect. Please take a shot at establishing some
> >credibility and do so.
>
> Am I the only one to think this, is this guy acting/sounding like
> tarver ? I mean you tell him the fact, give him proof and he still
> does not get it.

No, Tarver would have made up some new words by now, and told us that
the Rutan craft won't work because it doesn't have strakes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> You misunderstand. If carrying a crew of three in the X-15 had been
> necessary, the X-15 would have been designed to do so from the
> beginning. The X-Prize contenders knew that they had to carry three,
> so the vehicles are designed to do so.

The only way they could have managed to design the X-15 to carry three
people was, well, they did that with the Dyna-Soar.

> Saying that the X-15 can't meet the X-Prize rules, promulgated four
> decades after the X-15 was designed, is an irrational statement.

Nope, claiming that it *could* meet the X-Prize rules is an irrational
statement. Telling someone it couldn't is what we use to *counter* that
guy's statement.

The X-15 was a very significant and important craft. We're still taking
advantage of the things it taught us. It was not an Arndt-like
ubercraft that could do anything if you added pieces on or redefined the
problems 40 years later.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > The significant part, which you so blithely dismissed, is that
> > it is being done by private industry. No government funding, no
> > trying to "beat the Ruskies" to manned spaceflight. Just because
> > the richest government in the world could afford to do it 40 years
> > ago does not mean a private project could have. Certainly no
> > privately funded project has done so yet. I know you say that
> > isn't significant, but it very much is.
> >

> Prove it.

Uh, prove what? That you don't think it's significant?
You have said as much. If you can't see the signifigant
difference between government funded and private
I'm not going to try to "prove" it to you, because you
are just being deliberately obtuse.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

[Keith Willshaw]

"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.

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

Thats obvious

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

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

I'm aware of the rules of the X prize. Lots of posters in this thread have
made
comparisons with NASA and alluded to civilian space flight.
You need to achieve orbital velocity to do that.


Keith

[B2431]

>From: (N329DF)
>Date: 5/15/2004 11:45 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!
>>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>>Date: 5/15/04 9:04 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>>Message-id: . net>
>>
>>
>>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>
>>> Except for the rules of the X-Prize, the details of the X-15, and pretty
>>> much everything else.
>>>
>>
>>Well, if that's true, you'll be able to cite the statements I made that are
>>incorrect. Please take a shot at establishing some credibility and do so.
>
>
>Am I the only one to think this, is this guy acting/sounding like tarver ? I
>mean you tell him the fact, give him proof and he still does not get it.


More like marron. Tarver would have resorted to abuse and vulgar language by
now.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Mary Shafer > wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 22:44:42 -0700, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > 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.

[Steve Hix]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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
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. 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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Steve Hix]

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?

[Steve Hix]

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.

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
.com...
>
> Every time I've mentioned it so far, you've gotten a sudden case of
> amnesia, with a side-dose of "I didn't say that."
>
> **** off.
>

If you knew of a single statement of mine that was incorrect you'd have
cited it. Your level of credibility has been established.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because without reaching orbit you cant do anything useful.
>

Have you followed all of this thread? That's my point.


>
> Thats obvious
>

Is it? Your message suggested you were not aware of that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>
> So much for sounding rockets. Let's shut down Wallops Island
> and White Sands...
>

I don't think the X Prize was offered in order to find a replacement for
sounding rockets.

[Jim Weir]

Would you mind showing how I attributed that little snippet to Hillary? I made
no attribution at all, and only mentioned Hillary several paragraphs above.

Jim


Mary Shafer >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->> You do it...
->>
->> because...
->>
->> it is there.
->
->Wrong guy. George Leigh Mallory said "because it is there", not
->Edmund Hillary.
->
->Mary

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>
> The first non-stop flight between North America and the U.K. The
> NC-4's final destination was Southampton.
>

The Daily Mail prize did not require a non-stop flight, but it did require
that any intermediate stoppage be made only on water. The NC-4 didn't
qualify for the Daily mail prize because it stopped at Horta and Lisbon. It
wouldn't have qualified even if it hadn't stopped in the Azores, as the
Daily Mail prize required a flight between any point in the US, Canada, or
Newfoundland and any point in Great Britain or Ireland.

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"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.

[Casey Wilson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> .com...
> >
> > Every time I've mentioned it so far, you've gotten a sudden case of
> > amnesia, with a side-dose of "I didn't say that."
> >
> > **** off.
> >
>
> If you knew of a single statement of mine that was incorrect you'd have
> cited it. Your level of credibility has been established.
>

Hmmm. Mr. McNicoll, in the third message of this thread you said:
"That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km."
That was incorrect. But, of course, that error on your part didn't
count -- since it was based on ignorance.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> 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.

"You can never have too much memory/drive space/..."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Casey Wilson" > wrote in message >...
>
> Hmmm. Mr. McNicoll, in the third message of this thread you said:
> "That would leave them about 8000 feet short of the requisite 100 km."
> That was incorrect. But, of course, that error on your part didn't
> count -- since it was based on ignorance.
>

Please help to releive me of my ignorance and explain how it was incorrect.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
>
> "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.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > "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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:06:39 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

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



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 10, Number 21a -- May 17, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"FIRST" PRIVATE MANNED SPACEFLIGHT A SUCCESS
Since we've been visiting space for more than 40 years it's almost
hard to believe that this kind of "first" was still open. Last
Thursday, Mike Melvill went into the record books as the first pilot
to take a privately funded aircraft into space. The 62-year-old test
pilot rode Scaled Composites' rocket plane SpaceShipOne to an altitude
of 40 miles (211,400 feet) after being dropped from its mother ship,
the White Knight, over the high desert just east of Los Angeles. He
then glided the unique craft to a landing at Mojave Airport. "Watching
the blue sky go completely black was the highlight of my career,"
Melvill told reporters.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/238-full.html#187306

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AVflash Volume 10, Number 21a -- May 17, 2004
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "FIRST" PRIVATE MANNED SPACEFLIGHT A SUCCESS
> Since we've been visiting space for more than 40 years it's almost
> hard to believe that this kind of "first" was still open. Last
> Thursday, Mike Melvill went into the record books as the first pilot
> to take a privately funded aircraft into space. The 62-year-old test
> pilot rode Scaled Composites' rocket plane SpaceShipOne to an altitude
> of 40 miles (211,400 feet) after being dropped from its mother ship,
> the White Knight, over the high desert just east of Los Angeles. He
> then glided the unique craft to a landing at Mojave Airport. "Watching
> the blue sky go completely black was the highlight of my career,"
> Melvill told reporters.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/238-full.html#187306
>

Who considers 40 miles to be space?

[Jim Weir]

Add one more pilot to my "Balls Of Brass" book, right in there with Yeager and
Glenn.

Jim



Last
->Thursday, Mike Melvill went into the record books as the first pilot
->to take a privately funded aircraft into space.

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

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Jim Weir > wrote:

> Add one more pilot to my "Balls Of Brass" book, right
> in there with Yeager and Glenn.

Not only that Jim.... Since he will probably be the main pilot on a
continuing basis there might also be a day when he has been
upstairs to space more times than anyone else.

Curious question to the group...... Who holds the record right now for
the most number of trips upstairs to spaceville.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:48:48 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
. net>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> AVflash Volume 10, Number 21a -- May 17, 2004
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "FIRST" PRIVATE MANNED SPACEFLIGHT A SUCCESS
>> Since we've been visiting space for more than 40 years it's almost
>> hard to believe that this kind of "first" was still open. Last
>> Thursday, Mike Melvill went into the record books as the first pilot
>> to take a privately funded aircraft into space. The 62-year-old test
>> pilot rode Scaled Composites' rocket plane SpaceShipOne to an altitude
>> of 40 miles (211,400 feet) after being dropped from its mother ship,
>> the White Knight, over the high desert just east of Los Angeles. He
>> then glided the unique craft to a landing at Mojave Airport. "Watching
>> the blue sky go completely black was the highlight of my career,"
>> Melvill told reporters.
>> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/238-full.html#187306
>>
>
>Who considers 40 miles to be space?
>

Ummm... AvWeb maybe?

How many miles high do you consider to be space?


Here's the rest of the article:

Now, unless some of the other competitors have some tricks up
their sleeve, Thursday's flight solidifies the Scaled team's lead
in the race to win the X PRIZE, a $10 million award to the first
private concern to launch passengers to an altitude of 100
kilometers (about 60 miles), recover them safely and then do it
all over again within two weeks. Although Scaled President Burt
Rutan has never discussed the cost of his firm's venture, it's
almost certainly a lot more than the prize money will cover.
Billionaire Paul Allen is funding the effort. The goal of the X
PRIZE is to promote safe and reliable private space flights to
create a space tourism industry in the next 15 years.

--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Shiver Me Timbers > writes:
>> Jim Weir > wrote:
>
>> Add one more pilot to my "Balls Of Brass" book, right
>> in there with Yeager and Glenn.
>
> Not only that Jim.... Since he will probably be the main pilot on a
> continuing basis there might also be a day when he has been
> upstairs to space more times than anyone else.

He hasn't been there yet, either for International recognition (100
Km/62 St. Miles) or U.S.A.F. Atronaurt wings qualification (50 St
Mi./ 88 Km). I don't doubt that Scaled Composites will get there,
but it's not Miller Time yet.

To put it into our X-15 persoective, by the end of teh X-15's program
with 199 flights, 41 of those flights had exceeded the altitude
reached so far by Spaceship One. I don't have teh counts by
individual pilot totted up yet, but I'd say that Joe Walker flew at
least 6 of those, and Joe Engle may have flown more.

> Curious question to the group...... Who holds the record right now for
> the most number of trips upstairs to spaceville.

Dr. Frank Chang-Diaz and Jerry Ross are currently tied with 7.
Note that Chang-Diaz has a total of 66.76 days in free-fall, and 3
EVAs for a total of 19.77 Hrs of spacewalking.
Ross yas a total time of 58.04 days in free-fall, and 9 EVAs for 58.45
Hrs of spacewalking.

The leader right now for total time is orbit goes to Sergei Avdeyev,
with 3 flights for a total of 747.59 days iin free-fall. He's got 10
EVAs for a total of 41.98 Hrs of spacewalking.

Lots more useful stuff at teh Encyclopedia Astronautica at:
hrrp://www.astronautix.com

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"N329DF" > wrote in message
...
>
> Am I the only one to think this, is this guy acting/sounding like
> tarver ? I mean you tell him the fact, give him proof and he still
> does not get it.
>

I have not disputed any fact.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Uh, prove what?
>

Prove your assertion, that the significant part is that it is being done by
private industry.


>
> That you don't think it's significant?
> You have said as much. If you can't see the signifigant
> difference between government funded and private
> I'm not going to try to "prove" it to you, because you
> are just being deliberately obtuse.
>

The way you talk one might think this was a matter of opinion.

[pacplyer]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote<snip>

> Well, since nobody has provided an answer it's obviously far from obvious.

pacplyer responds:
Then I will answer it for you Steven since you are obviously a student
of history, but cannot learn from it. Burt Rutan intends to go into
orbit and to planets next. This sub-orbital flight is just a first
step. The reason for debut of the X-prize was the same reason for
debuting small rafts to float between islands, or debuting affordable
private aircraft to explore remote parts of the earth. Not to achieve
a statistical first, but to find new areas to multiply. That's all
humans have ever done. NASA may never be adequately funded to do it
("they can put a man on the moon, but they can't feed my nine welfare
children; who are still multiplying!") So like GA, we'll have to do it
ourselves in the private sector to get any quality out of the venture.
(recall Henry Ford and his illogical notion of the affordable private
auto; absurd!) So, given that the planetary systems in our galaxy are
nearly countless, the winner of the X-prize will achieve a kind of
early immortality in history as he sets the table for a new golden age
of human migration. You just can't see it now because you're probably
fixated on the present problems of transit between these systems.
Radiation, weightlessness etc. Recall Columbus. His government
wouldn't spend the money for human voyage since they thought it was
pointless, so he had to look elsewhere. The hurdles of long-haul were
considered insurmountable obstacles in those embryonic days. Was his
first voyage trans-Atlantic? No. He gained experience on trips of
no-consequence (that were achieved by others before) hugging the
coastline of the Mediterranean.

Who cares about the X-15? It's an expensive high speed relic of the
cold war. Nobody can afford one. Rutan's concept is a low-speed
vehicle that is practical and will no doubt lead to low-cost orbital
development. Forty-year-old brute-force technology figures little in
furthering the dream of spaceflight for the masses. The X-prize is
designed to get the common man out in the water; but still in sight of
land. Why can't you see something so obvious that everyone else can
plainly see?

pacplyer