Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

In article ,
Chad Irby writes:
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...

...for a tiny fraction of the cost, and having the ability to
repeat the feat in less than two weeks (which the government
program didn't manage).

So what's significant about it?

If I have to explain to you the significance of the tech behind a
reusable spaceplane, then why have you even bothered posting to this
thread to begin with?

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

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

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

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

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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

"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.

In article . net,
"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.