Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

"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.

"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.

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

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why are you dodging the question?

Why are you talking so much.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Subject: 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
r.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.

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