Rutan hits 200k feet! Almost there!

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.

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.

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.

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.


And that design might not have worked, or worked as well, or had other
problems. The same could be said about a crew of 100.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"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

"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

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

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

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

"Vaughn" wrote in message
news
Sorry, but I have to go with Pete here, the relevent point is that
it is being done by a small private corporation...and they are making
it look easy!

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

They don't need a cast of thousands and a couple hundred million to do
it.

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

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

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

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

The problem is that merely reaching the altitude is only a
part of the problem. The real issue is achieving orbital velocity
and the Rutan aircraft doesnt achive much more than 15%
of the velocity required to put something in orbit.


Why is that an issue?

Because without reaching orbit you cant do anything useful.

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

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

Thats obvious

Keith

In article ,
Chad Irby writes:
In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

However, granting that - here's the list of altitude flights by X-15
#3 66672, (Which, it should be pointed out, wasn't the ablative coated
X-15A-II 66671.

Date (1963) Elapsed since Altitude Comment
previous flight
18 June 0 Days 223,700' Pilot: Rushworth
27 June 9 Days 285,000 Rushworth, (over 50 miles)
U.S. Astronaut
qualification
19 Jul 22 Days 347,800 Pilot: Walker (Over
100 Km) Intl Atro
qualification
6 Aug 17 Days Abort Weather Abort &
Computer overheat
13 Aug 7 Days Abort APU doesn't start
15 Aug 2 Days Abort weather Abort
22 Aug 7 Days 354,200 Walker: second
Intl Astro Qual

All X-15 operations postponed due to weather for 6 weeks after this
flight.

So, we've got 2 high altitude flights separated by 9 days,

Two-thirds of the height of the max alt flights needed under X-Prize.

285 is 2/3 of 328 ? Around here we use Base 10 Numbers, Podnah.
How 'bout 285 is 88% of the altitude needed.
If you look at what was done, adn how it was done, there wasn't much
difference, or any different preparation between an X-16 flight to 88
Km (50 miles), and 100 Km. It's a matter of engine run time and
flight profile.

What we have is two "qualifying" flights in July/August, separated by a
month, two hardware failures and a couple of weather failures. So, by
your own admission, they couldn't do it.

No, they _didn't do it. There wer also weather delays between the
first 100 Km flight and the second attempt.
Weather and Equipment problems are Bad Luck - NASA, or Burt Rutan, or
Raymond Orteig himself can't do anything about them. They will affect
all progrems, including Spaceship One. There was nothing in the
X-15's mission that _required_ that type of turnaround. You've been
contending that it wasn't possible. I've been pointing out that it
was possible. It just wasn't important.

I'd say that if somebody had really wanted to fly 2 over 100 Km X-15
flights somewhere around 10 days apart, they'd have certainly been
able to do it.

But, in the actual records, they *couldn't*. Computer overheat,
vulnerability to weather, bad APU... nope, they couldn't manage it, even
with the less-stringent "rules" in effect.

At this point, on this subject, I'd have to say that you are being
either blindly irrational or deliberately obtuse. C'mon Chad, you're
smarter than that.


If the Rutan craft doesn't manage to do the two flights in two weeks
because of some weather issues, will you argue that they could have done
it?


Sure. And knowing Burt Rutan, he'll keep trying until he does.
Nobody has limited teh X-Prize teams to only one try.

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

In article .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