The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: garygreen on December 04, 2013, 04:28:29 AM

Title: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 04, 2013, 04:28:29 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/12/03/live-spacexs-first-commercial-satellite-launch/

SpaceX has launched its first commercial satellite.  The argument I've commonly encountered in SpaceX threads is that their only client is NASA (or something to that effect).

SpaceX just put a rocket into orbit that they designed and built themselves, the Falcon 9.  The rocket housed a satellite designed and built by a publicly-traded, non-state enterprise (Orbital Sciences).  The satellite is being used by a private Dutch telecom firm.

http://www.orbital.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_Corporation

http://www.ses.com/4232583/en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_World_Skies

So a bunch of private entities got together and put a satellite into orbit.  I feel like that's pretty compelling evidence that the Earth is, in fact, round.  I guess I don't have a more specific topic to debate than: The Earth is round.  My bad.

I tried to find a good video, but I could only find old ones.  Oh well.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2013, 04:57:21 AM
It isn't that their client is NASA, it's that they're essentially NASA under a different name. Commercial companies can't just launch things into space on their own terms, even if space travel were real.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2013, 07:38:40 AM
The above poster is correct. Just like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the space projects are being built by NASA under a different name.

It's a congressional mandate that federal agencies use contractors for most roles and proejcts. Private contractors are seen as superior and more cost efficient than government sponsored engineering. The FBI, DOJ, FDA, CIA, NSA, and all other three and four letter agencies use contractors en mass. There are significantly more people who work for the government through contractors than there are government employees. At places like NASA and NOAA, the only people working directly for NASA are the managers and security.

But this is not to say that the government has no control over its contractors. Government contractors are basically temp agencies. The contracted employees work on site at the government base, under the direction of the government civil servant, answerable directly to the government. They have secret government clearances and take polygraph tests. The only interaction the typical engineer has with his parent company is receiving his paycheck.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: sceptimatic on December 04, 2013, 02:25:36 PM
It's no different to your gas and electric companies, etc, all privatised, or so we are led to believe.
It's a case of taking the focus from the people that actually run it all, which is one set power.

It's easier this way because they can play one off the other and if anything goes untoward..the buck can stop at anyone of the fake companies, leaving the main power unaffected in the public eyes.
It's clever, because it makes every fake company accountable for their actions, as in, they get fined or whatever for mishaps, greed, potential hazards caused and then they disappear into oblivion and along comes another one to take their place...another alias.

The public are pacified and it all starts again. It's all about taking your hard earned pennies away for the supposed greater good.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on December 04, 2013, 03:16:39 PM
So are orbital technologies, the contracting dutch telecom company and SpaceX are all NASA contractors and defacto conspiracy members?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 05, 2013, 06:54:54 AM
The above poster is correct. Just like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the space projects are being built by NASA under a different name.

It's a congressional mandate that federal agencies use contractors for most roles and proejcts. Private contractors are seen as superior and more cost efficient than government sponsored engineering. The FBI, DOJ, FDA, CIA, NSA, and all other three and four letter agencies use contractors en mass. There are significantly more people who work for the government through contractors than there are government employees. At places like NASA and NOAA, the only people working directly for NASA are the managers and security.

But this is not to say that the government has no control over its contractors. Government contractors are basically temp agencies. The contracted employees work on site at the government base, under the direction of the government civil servant, answerable directly to the government. They have secret government clearances and take polygraph tests. The only interaction the typical engineer has with his parent company is receiving his paycheck.

Do you have evidence that this is true of SpaceX?

I think that there is an abundance of evidence to support that SpaceX is radically different than you describe; that it is a genuine, private aerospace company originating from a single wealthy businessman; and, that creates and builds rockets.  If I presented you with such evidence, that SpaceX is a private firm that employs actual engineers to design and build actual rockets, would you consider it and take it seriously?

If so, what kind of evidence would you consider legitimate?  What kind of evidence do you think would be suitable to support the position I described?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2013, 08:23:34 AM
The above poster is correct. Just like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, the space projects are being built by NASA under a different name.

It's a congressional mandate that federal agencies use contractors for most roles and proejcts. Private contractors are seen as superior and more cost efficient than government sponsored engineering. The FBI, DOJ, FDA, CIA, NSA, and all other three and four letter agencies use contractors en mass. There are significantly more people who work for the government through contractors than there are government employees. At places like NASA and NOAA, the only people working directly for NASA are the managers and security.

But this is not to say that the government has no control over its contractors. Government contractors are basically temp agencies. The contracted employees work on site at the government base, under the direction of the government civil servant, answerable directly to the government. They have secret government clearances and take polygraph tests. The only interaction the typical engineer has with his parent company is receiving his paycheck.

Do you have evidence that this is true of SpaceX?

I think that there is an abundance of evidence to support that SpaceX is radically different than you describe; that it is a genuine, private aerospace company originating from a single wealthy businessman; and, that creates and builds rockets.  If I presented you with such evidence, that SpaceX is a private firm that employs actual engineers to design and build actual rockets, would you consider it and take it seriously?

If so, what kind of evidence would you consider legitimate?  What kind of evidence do you think would be suitable to support the position I described?

SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology. The government doesn't let that stuff into the public domain. They don't let private companies go willy nilly, building classified technology in unsecured and uncontrolled environments without direct civil servant oversight.

SpaceX company was specifically created to cater to NASA. The impracticality of a truly private space program without governmental oversight is three fold. Not only is it impossible to build orbital rockets legally, it's also impossible to breach military airspace without prior clearance and scrutiny. It's also impractical to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building a rocket when you don't even know if NASA is going to buy your services or not; whether they would continue using their own rockets, or outsource their space program to another country with launch capability, such as the ESA. Clearly, the deal was struck with NASA before the fact.

Lastly, SpaceX has its offices on government land and the launches are conducted from military bases, which is an overt indication of its status.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 06, 2013, 02:45:35 PM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified? 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 06, 2013, 03:35:50 PM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

ALL OF IT> IT'S SECRET SQUIRREL!!!

unless you own a shed and live in Stockport:

http://www.rocketeers.co.uk/?q=node/333

Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2013, 03:46:11 PM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

The advanced rocketry necessary to get into space is, as a whole, a controlled technology. It is classified, and as such, the government does not allow public publication of this technology, or private development. After all, a Saturn V is 98% identical to an ICBM
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 06, 2013, 04:07:28 PM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

The advanced rocketry necessary to get into space is, as a whole, a controlled technology. It is classified, and as such, the government does not allow public publication of this technology, or private development. After all, a Saturn V is 98% identical to an ICBM

well the simple answer is that it needs a hell of a lot of thrust and a decent guidance system..

The latter was the main thing that held back rocketry for a long while.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 06, 2013, 04:40:52 PM
To be clear at the top, I'm not challenging the notion that aerospace is a heavily regulated industry/enterprise/whatever.  I'm only challenging the idea that regulation is proof of de facto state control.  Every business is regulated.  I can't open a corner bakery without the government oversight and regulation, but that doesn't mean that my bakery is run by the government.

SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology. The government doesn't let that stuff into the public domain. They don't let private companies go willy nilly, building classified technology in unsecured and uncontrolled environments without direct civil servant oversight.

Do you have evidence that this is true?  I've found an abundance of technical specifications on both the design and construction of the F-1 rocket engine, for example.  I also cannot find any examples of a law or regulation that prohibits the design or construction of rocket engines (notwithstanding regulations on the components or materials used, like hazardous materials and such), but I'd happily consider any sources you provide.

What evidence would you consider valid proof to the contrary?  Technical specifications?  Personal testimony?  Something else?

SpaceX company was specifically created to cater to NASA. The impracticality of a truly private space program without governmental oversight is three fold. Not only is it impossible to build orbital rockets legally, it's also impossible to breach military airspace without prior clearance and scrutiny. It's also impractical to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into building a rocket when you don't even know if NASA is going to buy your services or not; whether they would continue using their own rockets, or outsource their space program to another country with launch capability, such as the ESA. Clearly, the deal was struck with NASA before the fact.

Lastly, SpaceX has its offices on government land and the launches are conducted from military bases, which is an overt indication of its status.

Elon Musk claims that he started the company of his own volition after selling PayPal for oodles of billions of dollars.  That you personally think investing <10% of that wealth in an unproven aerospace company is too risky is hardly evidence of anything.  You're not a self-made billionaire entrepreneur.

Beyond that, nothing you've said is evidence that SpaceX isn't a private firm or that engineers employed by SpaceX didn't design and create its own rocket engines and launch vehicles.  I will happily try and provide you with evidence that they did, but first I want to know what sort of evidence you think would be legitimate and sufficient to establish (or at least indicate) the truth of the matter.  Personal testimony?  Technical documents?  Demonstrations of novel technologies and vehicles?  Journalistic inquiry?  Something else?

Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 06, 2013, 06:28:43 PM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

The advanced rocketry necessary to get into space is, as a whole, a controlled technology. It is classified, and as such, the government does not allow public publication of this technology, or private development. After all, a Saturn V is 98% identical to an ICBM
Tell that to Copenhagen Suborbitals.  After all, their rocket is 98% identical to an ICBM too.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2013, 02:27:36 AM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

The advanced rocketry necessary to get into space is, as a whole, a controlled technology. It is classified, and as such, the government does not allow public publication of this technology, or private development. After all, a Saturn V is 98% identical to an ICBM
Tell that to Copenhagen Suborbitals.  After all, their rocket is 98% identical to an ICBM too.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

It's also 100% still-in-development
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2013, 06:28:37 AM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

The advanced rocketry necessary to get into space is, as a whole, a controlled technology. It is classified, and as such, the government does not allow public publication of this technology, or private development. After all, a Saturn V is 98% identical to an ICBM
Tell that to Copenhagen Suborbitals.  After all, their rocket is 98% identical to an ICBM too.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

It's also 100% still-in-development

That has nothing to do with whether or not the technology is classified and highly regulated.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2013, 08:00:16 AM
SpaceX can't be truly private since rockets which can reach orbit are a classified technology.
Exactly which parts of this technology are classified?

The advanced rocketry necessary to get into space is, as a whole, a controlled technology. It is classified, and as such, the government does not allow public publication of this technology, or private development. After all, a Saturn V is 98% identical to an ICBM
Tell that to Copenhagen Suborbitals.  After all, their rocket is 98% identical to an ICBM too.
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/

It's also 100% still-in-development
Yes, and a good chunk of that development includes live the firing of some pretty large and powerful rocket engines.  You know, the kind of rocket engines that you claim are supposed to be classified.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2013, 03:56:03 PM
That has nothing to do with whether or not the technology is classified and highly regulated.

It might be possible to build a rocket off-shore where american law does not apply, in countries uncooperative with the US, and launch it from international waters, as these guys are want to do.

However, it appears that this project is still in its research phase and not a real technology. Not-yet-real rocket technologies do not merit use as  evidence for the reality of space travel any more than posting a link to someone researching the possibility of time travel is evidence for the reality of time travel.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2013, 04:53:30 PM
That has nothing to do with whether or not the technology is classified and highly regulated.

It might be possible to build a rocket off-shore where american law does not apply, in countries uncooperative with the US, and launch it from international waters, as these guys are want to do.

However, it appears that this project is still in its research phase and not a real technology. Not-yet-real rocket technologies do not merit use as  evidence for the reality of space travel any more than posting a link to someone researching the possibility of time travel is evidence for the reality of time travel.
No, but amateurs live firing large, powerful rocket engines does suggest that these technologies are not as highly classified as you claim.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 07, 2013, 05:49:26 PM
There's also a large difference between the American government information on it specifically being classified and them actively preventing other people from doing their own research.

All government documents have a level of classification but that doesn't mean nobody else can do the exact same things independently.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2013, 06:11:37 PM
That has nothing to do with whether or not the technology is classified and highly regulated.

It might be possible to build a rocket off-shore where american law does not apply, in countries uncooperative with the US, and launch it from international waters, as these guys are want to do.

However, it appears that this project is still in its research phase and not a real technology. Not-yet-real rocket technologies do not merit use as  evidence for the reality of space travel any more than posting a link to someone researching the possibility of time travel is evidence for the reality of time travel.

The reality if space travel was not the specific topic being debated. If you wish to concede that not all private space technology companies are NASA contractors, we can easily turn to the reality of space travel. Otherwise you are just making a straw man.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2013, 07:40:15 PM
No, but amateurs live firing large, powerful rocket engines does suggest that these technologies are not as highly classified as you claim.

Incorrect. Such rocket technology is still classified under American law, wherever they do it from.

If prostitution is legal in New Zealand, it does not nullify the fact that prostitution is illegal in the US.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2013, 07:44:27 PM
That has nothing to do with whether or not the technology is classified and highly regulated.

It might be possible to build a rocket off-shore where american law does not apply, in countries uncooperative with the US, and launch it from international waters, as these guys are want to do.

However, it appears that this project is still in its research phase and not a real technology. Not-yet-real rocket technologies do not merit use as  evidence for the reality of space travel any more than posting a link to someone researching the possibility of time travel is evidence for the reality of time travel.

The reality if space travel was not the specific topic being debated. If you wish to concede that not all private space technology companies are NASA contractors, we can easily turn to the reality of space travel. Otherwise you are just making a straw man.

The one 'private space technology' company given as an example of a space company which does not have ties with NASA does not have a working rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2013, 11:23:59 PM
No, but amateurs live firing large, powerful rocket engines does suggest that these technologies are not as highly classified as you claim.

Incorrect. Such rocket technology is still classified under American law, wherever they do it from.
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2013, 07:57:45 AM
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Model_rocket_motor_classification). Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 08, 2013, 12:23:32 PM
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Model_rocket_motor_classification). Anything past O requires government oversight.

"High-Power rockets in the United States, are only federally regulated in their flight guidelines by the FAA"

the FAA, because they regulate pretty much anything big that flies, they're not a fan of you flying stuff into planes, it makes for depressing headlines.

All you need is a license, a flight plan and proof your contraption is safe, same as a helicopter, plane, or zeppelin.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 08, 2013, 05:01:30 PM
Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Model_rocket_motor_classification). Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
You're right Tom, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is super-duper-tippy-top-hush-hush-secret. ::)
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-supp.html
http://hackaday.com/2011/09/01/engine-hacks-liquid-fuel-amateur-rocket-roundup/
http://www.gramlich.net/projects/rocket/
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-propellant-rocket-kit-ff8081811928eb610119331daa8d6729-p.html

BTW, the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters and several ICBMs and IRBMs use similar solid rocket technology that amateur rocket enthusiasts use.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: MonkeyButz on December 10, 2013, 06:34:35 PM

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 11, 2013, 01:28:44 AM

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.

This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.
Actually, since the retirement of the shuttle, NASA has taken another look at the Saturn V in general and the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines in particular.  Currently they're working on further developing and upgrading them to the F-1B and J-2X designs for future launch systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2X
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: MonkeyButz on December 11, 2013, 01:46:47 PM
This just confirms what I was talking about.  They're using the existing rocket engines to engineer new ones.  Why would they bother working with the 40 year-old equipment, if the paper designs existed?  Also, it says that in the case of the J-2X, even though they started by looking an existing unit, "it became a clean sheet design".
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2013, 07:24:31 AM
"High-Power rockets in the United States, are only federally regulated in their flight guidelines by the FAA"

the FAA, because they regulate pretty much anything big that flies, they're not a fan of you flying stuff into planes, it makes for depressing headlines.

All you need is a license, a flight plan and proof your contraption is safe, same as a helicopter, plane, or zeppelin.

Incorrect. Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet. The FAA isn't going to let you go into military airspace with a device nearly identical to an ICBM based on a flight plan.

Quote
The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).

See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.

Would you care to cite this law, please?  To the best of my knowledge, rocket engines above a certain thrust level are regulated, but the technology itself not secret.

Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Model_rocket_motor_classification). Anything past O requires government oversight.

Since the engines in these professional rockets operate differently, it constitutes a different rocket technology. The Saturn V  rocket (A U class rocket) isn't using the same engine design as an O class rocket available to hobbiests. O class rockets are typically solid state or hybrid engines, while the Saturn V's rocket engine is a specially designed liquid rocket with special fuel injector pumps, heat exchangers, turbines, pressure tranducers, etc. -- all researched to a tune of many millions of dollars. It was not a matter of taking a high powered model rocket motor and scaling up.

The blueprints for the custom development of the Saturn V rocket engine are not available to the public, locked away as a state secret.
You're right Tom, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is super-duper-tippy-top-hush-hush-secret. ::)
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/f-1-supp.html
http://hackaday.com/2011/09/01/engine-hacks-liquid-fuel-amateur-rocket-roundup/
http://www.gramlich.net/projects/rocket/
http://store.fastcommerce.com/SystemeSolaire/liquid-propellant-rocket-kit-ff8081811928eb610119331daa8d6729-p.html

BTW, the space shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters and several ICBMs and IRBMs use similar solid rocket technology that amateur rocket enthusiasts use.

I did not say that liquid fuel technology was secret.

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2013, 07:34:27 AM
This is incorrect.  The blueprints for the Saturn V are not available because they were destroyed during a routine NASA housecleaning (though I imagine that explanation will seem like part of the conspiracy to some).  With all of the advances in technology since the late '60's, you wouldn't really want to duplicate one anyways.

Yes, "routine housecleaning" I'm sure.

What about all of the other blueprints for other non-Saturn V rockets which have gone into orbit, where are those? Lost in "routine housecleaning" as well?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 12, 2013, 10:10:17 AM
Incorrect. Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet. The FAA isn't going to let you go into military airspace with a device nearly identical to an ICBM based on a flight plan.



See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.

as are planes. that's the FAA's job. they regulate things, they don't ban them outright. the CAA does the same thing over here in the UK but they still allow rockets and amateur rocket launches when they comply with the regulations. Same as you cant just build a helicopter and fly it around.
Just as you said, rockets past a certain threshold are restricted. See the wikipedia page on Model Rocket Motor Classification (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Model_rocket_motor_classification). Anything past O requires government oversight.
Engines classified beyond O are in the realm of amateur rocketry. In this context, the term amateur refers to the rocketeer's independence from an established commercial or government organization.[1]

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.
The governments specific designs and plans would be a state secret yes, independently made plans and designs would not. Just because the government keeps it's way of doing things secret doesn't mean others can't come up with them independently.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 12, 2013, 02:55:28 PM
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

Quote
Quote
The plans for NASA's specific rockets are kept confidential yes, but then are the plans for pretty much all commercial craft, that doesn't mean other people can't build planes, helicopters or rockets. You just can't build the governments specific rockets (unless you can somehow reverse engineer one).

See Markjo's post above. Rockets past a certain thrust power are regulated.
Also note that regulated does not necessarily mean secret.

Quote
I did not say that liquid fuel technology was secret.

A gasoline powered drilling machine which could drill through the earth and send a nuke to china would be a government secret. Inferior gasoline engines are not. The fact that the public has access to both gasoline and lesser drilling machines which could drill sewers and subway terminals is inconsequential. It is not the same technology.
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2013, 04:07:26 PM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 12, 2013, 04:16:15 PM
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 12, 2013, 04:31:51 PM
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.

The Concord's had a rated ceiling at 60,000 feet because anything beyond that is where Military Airspace begins. It general flew at around 59,000 feet.

Military Airspace is enforced at such altitudes because that is where it becomes difficult to shoot things down. It is the realm of MiGs and ICBMs.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 12, 2013, 04:46:44 PM
Military airspace starts at 65,000 feet.
Citation please.

since that's above the service ceiling of most aircraft I suspect it's a made up figure, even Concorde wasn't rated past 60,000.

Now the blackbird's been decommissioned I'm not sure the military has anything save the U2 that flies that high.

The Concord's had a rated ceiling at 60,000 feet because anything beyond that is where Military Airspace begins. It general flew at around 59,000 feet.

Military Airspace is enforced at such altitudes because that's where it becomes difficult to shoot anything down, at least in many years past. It is the realm of MiGs and ICBMs.

Concorde was rated at 60,000 feet because of how thin the air gets, there is at least one report of an sr17 being asked to move aside since a Concorde was coming through.

Since you mention MiG, their service ceilings are generally below 65,000 feet.

MiG29 - 59,000ft,

MiG35 - 57,400ft

Only the MiGs designed as interceptors can sneak over your 65,000 number with ceilings of 67,000ish feet so there would be no point making that military airspace, it's more like almost never used airspace since most military craft fly well below it most of the time.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2013, 05:02:44 PM
The altitude record for a manned fixed wing jet aircraft is 125,000ft by a MiG-25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Jet_aircraft
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: bj1234 on December 12, 2013, 05:16:10 PM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 12, 2013, 05:47:52 PM
The altitude record for a manned fixed wing jet aircraft is 125,000ft by a MiG-25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record#Jet_aircraft

yeah, but they never fly up there because it's dangerous, inefficient and just a pain in the arse.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on December 12, 2013, 05:50:15 PM
I have not been able to find any indication that altitudes over 60,000ft are military only airspace.  Just that it is Class E airspace which requires specific instrumentation and tracking requirements.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: squevil on December 12, 2013, 06:47:37 PM
Legislation says nobody can own space. Bet it's not really the case though.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 12, 2013, 08:10:02 PM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.
I'm sorry Tom, but I'm having a hard time figuring out just how your objections are relevant to this discussion.  Are you saying that NASA is the only organization that knows how to develop large rocket engines?  There are at least a dozen companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_manufacturers#Propulsion_manufacturers) that make rocket engines for the aerospace industry, including SpaceX. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 13, 2013, 06:10:10 AM
As I see it, Tom is making two arguments: 1) SpaceX can't be a genuine third-party because they are so heavily regulated by the government, and 2) SpaceX can't be a genuine third-party because no one but NASA can make rocket engines.

To the first point, the fact that SpaceX is heavily regulated is irrelevant.  The same can be said of every business in America.  I couldn't start a business designing and building my own airplanes without heavy government regulation from many different agencies over many different aspects of my business.  That wouldn't be evidence that my new airplane company is secretly being run by the FAA.

To the second point, you still haven't produced evidence that it's true, or that all orbital rocket technology is classified/illegal/whatever else.  You've only asserted it.  I can't find any example of such a law, and I can find lots of examples of rocket engine schematics and technical diagrams.  Here are a few of them that I found just for the F-1 engine:

Some of these pdfs are large-ish.
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/F-1_Engine.pdf
http://heroicrelics.org/info/f-1/r-3896-1a/F-1%20Rocket%20Engine%20Technical%20Manual%20Supplement%20(R-3896-1A)%20(small).pdf
http://agentdc.uah.edu/homepages/dcfiles/USSRC/F1EngiFamiTraiManu%20Section%201_072308152849.pdf

There is no reason to believe that SpaceX would be unable to (or prohibited from) design and build their own rocket engines.

I'm still curious to know what kind of evidence you think would be acceptable to get to the truth of the matter.  You can begin to convince me that you're correct by showing me the relevant law that prohibits SpaceX from doing what it alleges it does.  What evidence or source would you be willing to consider as valid evidence that SpaceX is a private entity?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2013, 08:46:36 AM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

The fastest vehicle (http://www.teamvesco.com/) in your list was propelled with a large turbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboshaft). The last I checked consumer cars didn't have turbines in them.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 13, 2013, 08:52:52 AM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2013, 09:07:24 AM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.

But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine? If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 13, 2013, 10:34:45 AM
But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine?

well the technology for that is very similar if not the same as a smaller turbine engine. Clearly a turbine engine and a piston engine are different things.


If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?

costs and the tolerances of the metals mostly. You can scale up but you'll get diminishing returns, if you look down the list you'll see 439mph from a turbocharged hemi. I would imagine a lot of the problems come from issues at either the crank or differential. Or with the gearbox.

Of course you'd never break the absolute record because you're putting power to wheels, the absolute records are held by what are essentially planes without wings, the jet technology there also scales up (inefficient way to do it but whatever), you CAN simply bolt more jets on instead of inventing more efficient better ones it just costs more.


So essentially your answer is it's an inefficient and expensive way to do it not that it can't be done.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: bj1234 on December 13, 2013, 11:46:58 AM
Your claim was that a gasoline engine could not be "scaled up" to achieve a speed of over 400 mph.  I gave you a list that contained internal combustion engine powered vehicles that have essentially done the exact thing that you are claiming is impossible. 
As for me saying the technology differs but the theory is the same, let me clear that up for you since it seems to have confused you some how.

A car from the 50s versus a modern day car.
Both run on internal combustion engines, same theory behind their opperation.  Inject gas and air, ignite it, the explosion causes the pistons to move which rotate the crankshaft.

Yet the technology in the two are different.  There are more sensors and electronics in the modern day car. Different manufacturing techniques. Different materials.  The list goes on.  Yet the same basic principles behind the internal combustion engine are the same.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on December 13, 2013, 02:34:37 PM
I think that you are using a creative definition for the word "technology".  As I have clearly shown, liquid fuel rocket engine technology is available to the public.  Of course the specific components vary depending on the fuel/oxidizer combination and the overall size of the engine, but the fundamental technology itself is essentially the same from a small reaction control thruster to to the mighty F-1B.  Generally, the biggest obstacle to building liquid fuel rockets is the actual manufacturing of the engine components, which requires some pretty high precision tools.

Gasoline and car engines are available to the public. However, this does not imply that you can take a consumer car engine, 'scale up', and achieve 400mph or 800mph. Your theory that all engines are the same and it was only a matter of NASA 'scaling up' is absurd. As requirements grow to achieve escape velocity, and as fuel and chassis weight increases, it becomes a substantially different situation requiring a substantially different technology.

There are plenty of internal combustion powered cars that can achieve over 400mph.  The theory behind engines is the same.  The Technology differs. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel-driven_land_speed_record

I am glad you agree. It is not the same technology.

Technology differs = Different Technology

if you look at the second on the list (the goldenrod) you'll note it IS exactly the same technology.

4 Chrysler hemi V8 engines, naturally aspirated, 409mph.

But what of the fastest on the list powered with the turbine? If this highly intelligent argument of "it's all the same, just scale up" works so well then what is stopping the Goldenrod from simply adding more engines until it broke the the land and air records for fastest vehicle on earth?
Tom, this is getting way off topic.  Let's try getting back to why you think that SpaceX wouldn't be able to (or allowed to) design and build their Merlin rocket engines from scratch.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 13, 2013, 04:21:38 PM
Yeah, I'm also pretty confused on what any of this business about car engines has to do with SpaceX's status as a private enterprise.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2013, 07:38:16 AM
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

Tom, this is getting way off topic.  Let's try getting back to why you think that SpaceX wouldn't be able to (or allowed to) design and build their Merlin rocket engines from scratch.

SpaceX is allowed to build space rockets because they are in league with NASA and the government. They have facilities at government military and research bases and launch from government launch pads, for crying out loud.

A space program I start in my basement is not allowed to build space rockets because not only is FAA and military clearance required, space rockets are regulated as weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons.

According to ITAR and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, both Launch Vehicles and Rockets are weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

 
Quote
The following articles, services and related technical data are designated as defense articles and defense services pursuant to sections 38 and 47(7) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2794(7)).


Quote
Category IV-Launch Vehicles, Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines

    *(a) Rockets (including but not limited to meteorological and other sounding rockets), bombs, grenades, torpedoes, depth charges, land and naval mines, as well as launchers for such defense articles, and demolition blocks and blasting caps. (See § 121.11.)

    *(b) Launch vehicles and missile and anti-missile systems including but not limited to guided, tactical and strategic missiles, launchers, and systems.

   (c) Apparatus, devices, and materials for the handling, control, activation, monitoring, detection, protection, discharge, or detonation of the articles in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this category. (See § 121.5.)

    *(d) Missile and space launch vehicle powerplants.

    *(e) Military explosive excavating devices.

    *(f) Ablative materials fabricated or semi-fabricated from advanced composites (e.g., silica, graphite, carbon, carbon/carbon, and boron filaments) for the articles in this category that are derived directly from or specifically developed or modified for defense articles.

    *(g) Non/nuclear warheads for rockets and guided missiles.

   (h) All specifically designed or modified components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment for the articles in this category.

   (i) Technical data (as defined in § 120.21 of this subchapter) and defense services (as defined in § 120.8 of this subchapter) directly related to the defense articles enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (h) of this category. (See § 125.4 of this subchapter for exemptions.) Technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of any defense articles enumerated elsewhere in this category that are designated as Significant Military Equipment (SME) shall itself be designated SME.

From the annex we we see that controlled rocket technology is defined as solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec), as well as rocket systems capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km:

Quote
Missile Technology Control Regime Annex.

    Some of the items on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex are controlled by both the Department of Commerce on the Commodity Control List and by the Department of State on the United States Munitions List. To the extent an article is on the United States Munitions List, a reference appears in parentheses listing the U.S. Munitions List category in which it appears. The following items constitute all items on the Missile Technology Control Regime Annex which are covered by the U.S. Munitions List:

Item 1-Category I

    Complete rocket systems (including ballistic missile systems, space launch vehicles, and sounding rockets (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(a) and (b)) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missile systems see § 121.1, Cat. VIII (a), target drones and reconnaisance drones (see § 121.1, Cat. VIII (a)) capable of delivering at least a 500 kg payload to a range of at least 300 km.

Item 2-Cateogry I

    Complete subsystems usable in the systems in Item 1 as follows:

   (a) Individual rocket stages (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(h));

   (b) Reentry vehicles (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(g)), and equipment designed or modified therefor, as follows, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for non-weapon payloads;

   (1) Heat shields and components thereof fabricated of ceramic or ablative materials (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(f));

   (2) Heat sinks and components thereof fabricated of light-weight, high heat capacity materials;

   (3) Electronic equipment specially designed for reentry vehicles (see § 121.1, Cat. XI(a)(7));

   (c) Solid or liquid propellant rocket engines, having a total impulse capacity of 1.1 x 10 N-sec (2.5 x 10 lb-sec) or greater (see § 121.1, Cat. IV, (h)).

   (d) "Guidance sets" capable of achieving system accuracy of 3.33 percent or less of the range (e.g., a CEP of 1 j,. or less at a range of 300 km), except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for missiles with a range under 300 km or manned aircraft (see § 121.1, Cat. XII(d));

   (e) Thrust vector control sub-systems, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for rocket systems that do not exceed the range/payload capability of Item 1 (see § 121.1, Cat. IV);

   (f) Warhead safing, arming, fuzing, and firing mechanisms, except as provided in Note (1) below for those designed for systems other than those in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Cat. IV(h)).

Many propellants are also declared as controlled weapons:

Quote
Propellants and constituent chemicals for propellants as follows: (see § 121.1, Cat. V(c) and § 121.12 and § 121.14).

   (a) Propulsive substances:

   (1 ) Hydrazine with a concentration of more than 70 percent and its derivatives including monomethylhydrazine (MMH) (see § 121.12(a)(22));

   (2 ) Unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDHM) (see § 121.12(a)(22));

   (3 ) Ammonium perchlorate (see § 121.12(a)(23));

   (4 ) Spherical aluminum powder with particle of uniform diameter of less than 500 x 10-m (500 micrometer) and an aluminum content of 97 percent or greater (see § 121.12(a)(1));

   (5 ) Metal fuels in particle sizes less than 500 x 10-m (500 Microns), whether spherical, atomized, spheroidal, flaked or ground, consisting of 97 percent or more of any of the following: zirconium, beryllium, boron, magnesium, zinc, and alloys of these (see § 121.12(a)(2));

   (6 ) Nitro-amines (cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramene (HMX) (see § 121.12(a)(11)), cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine (RDX)) (see 121.12(a)(35));

   (7 ) Perchlorates, chlorates or chromates mixed with powdered metals or other high energy fuel components (see § 121.12(a)(4);

   (8 ) Carboranes, decaboranes, pentaboranes and derivatives thereof (see § 121.12(a)(10);

   (9 ) Liquid oxidizers, as follows:

   (i) Nitrogen dioxide/dinitrogen tetroxide (see § 121.14.(g));

   (ii) Inhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA) (see § 121.12(f)(1);

   (iii) Compounds composed of flourine and one or more of other halogens, oxygen or nitrogen (see § 121.12(a)(9).

   (b) Polymeric substances:

   (2) Hydroxy-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) (see § 121.12(a)(38);

   (3) Glycidyl azide polymer (GAP) (see § 121.12(b)(1)).

   (c) Other high energy density propellants such as, Boron Slurry, having an energy density of 40 x 10 joules/kg or greater (see § 121.12(a)(3)).

   (d) Other propellant additives and agents:

   (1) Bonding agents as follows:

   (i) tris(1-(2-methyl)aziridinyl phosphine oxide (MAPO) (see § 121.12(b)(17));

   (ii) trimesol-1(2-ethyl)aziridine (HX-868, BITA) (see § 121.12(b)(13));

   (iii) "Tepanol" (HX-878), reaction product of tetraethylenepentamine, acrylonitrile and glycidol (see § 121.12.(b)(11));

   (iv) "Tepan" (HX-879), Reaction product of tet enepentamine and acrylonitrile (see § 121.12(b)(11));

   (v) Polyfunctional aziridene amides with isophthalic, trimesic, isocyanuric, or trimethyladipic backbone also having a 2-methyl or 2-ethyl aziridine group (HX-752, HX-872 and HX-877). (see § 121.12(b)(13)).

   (2) Curing agents and catalysts as follows:

   (i) Triphenyl bismuth (TPB) (see § 121.12(b)(23));

   (3) Burning rate modifiers as follows:

   (i) Catocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));

   (ii) N-butyl-ferrocene (see § 121.12(b)(5));

   (iii) Other ferrocene derivatives (see § 121.12(b)).

   (4) Nitrate esters and nitrato plasticizers as follows:

   (i) 1,2,4-butanetriol trinitrate (BTTN) (see § 121.12(b)(3));

   (5) Stabilizers as follows:

   (i) N-methyl-p-nitroaniline (see § 121.12(d)(1)).

Structural materials for rockets in Item 1 are also controlled:

Quote
Structural materials usable in the systems in Item 1, as follows:

   (a) Composite structures, laminates, and manufactures thereof, including resin impregnated fibre prepregs and metal coated fibre preforms therefor, specially designed for use in the systems in Item 1 and the subsystems in Item 2 made either with organix matrix or metal matrix utilizing fibrous or filamentary reinforcements having a specific tensile strength greater than 7.62 x 10 4 m (3 x 10 6 inches) and a specific modules greater than 3.18 x 10 6 m (1.25 x 10 8 inches), (see § 121.1, Category IV (f), and Category XIII (d));

   (b) Resaturated pyrolized (i.e. carbon-carbon) materials designed for rocket systems, (see § 121.1 Category IV (f));

   (c) Fine grain recrystallized bulk graphites (with a bulk density of at least 1.72 g/cc measured at 15 degrees C), pyrolytic, or fibrous reinforced graphites useable for rocket nozzles and reentry vehicle nose tips (see § 121.1, Category IV (f) and Category XIII;

   (d) Ceramic composites materials (dielectric constant less than 6 at frequencies from 100 Hz to 10,000 MHz) for use in missile radomes, and bulk machinable silicon-carbide reinforced unfired ceramic useable for nose tips (see § 121.1, Category IV (f));
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2013, 08:00:25 AM
Also controlled technologies:

Quote
(c) Global Positioning System (GPS) receiving equipment specifically designed, modified or configured for military use; or GPS receiving equipment with any of the following characteristics:

   (1) Designed for encryption or decryption (e.g., Y-Code) of GPS precise positioning service (PPS) signals;

   (2) Designed for producing navigation results above 60,000 feet altitude and at 1,000 knots velocity or greater;

Quote
Avionics equipment, "technology" and components as follows; designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1, and specially designed software therefor

...

(ii) At altitudes in excess of 18 km (60,000 feet), (see § 121.1, Category XV(d)(2)

Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 15, 2013, 10:56:31 AM
Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".

shoulda quit while you were "ahead", controlled NOT banned.

As evidence by the fact that many companies including British Telecom (used to anyway, they were a bit crap) use military laptops for their workforce.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 15, 2013, 11:00:21 AM
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

the difference is that no "car" can go 800mph.

It's not an engine issue, rockets however can go that fast when scaled up.

the only "cars" that do get into the region of 800mph are not in fact cars, they are rockets and other aircraft with unpowered wheels bolted on. You might as well use the fact that you cant scale a car engine up to allow a car to fly as evidence that car engines can't power planes.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: bj1234 on December 15, 2013, 02:43:01 PM
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.


Way to move the goal posts.  You claim was reach between 400 and 800mph.  We showed you that internal combustion engines have reached that range. 

Also, it doesn't matter one bit if a car can't reach a certain speed or not.

Your argument of
Car engines can't reach a speed of 800mph has no correlation whatsoever to rocket technology and what a rocket can achieve.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 15, 2013, 03:38:31 PM
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

Markjo and I both provided you with schematics and technical documents for the F-1 engine used in the Saturn V launch vehicle.  Your analogy is less persuasive than direct evidence of the thing you say can't exist.  It exists.  I put it right in front of your face.

SpaceX is allowed to build space rockets because they are in league with NASA and the government they have complied with government regulation and oversight. They have facilities at government military and research bases and launch from government launch pads, for crying out loud.

A space program I start in my basement is not allowed to build space rockets because not only is FAA and military clearance required, space rockets are regulated as weapons I haven't done any of those things.

Fixed.

I notice that SpaceX is now simply in league with NASA and not just a front for them.  Again, you're just saying that SpaceX is heavily regulated.  Indeed.  So is Chrysler.

There's also nothing odd about launching your vehicle from a NASA launch pad, especially if NASA is one of your customers.  1) They're already set up to do that sort of thing.  2) It's cheaper than building your own launch pad.  3) What are they supposed to do, fire the thing off in the middle of LA?

You're not grasping my point: all of this 'evidence' is exactly what we would expect from a legitimate, private aerospace firm.

According to ITAR and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, both Launch Vehicles and Rockets are weapons. Even meteorological and sounding rockets are weapons:

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p121.htm
https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

ITAR regulates exports.  That's it.  Every regulation you listed pertains to the export of those technologies and materials from US citizens to non-US citizens.  It doesn't prohibit the development or creation of rocket engines in the US.

That document does not prohibit a US citizen from starting a private aerospace firm.

And again, no one is arguing that SpaceX exists in a legal vacuum, exempted from all US laws and regulations.  SpaceX is heavily regulated.  Just like everyone else.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2013, 03:53:32 PM
Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".

shoulda quit while you were "ahead", controlled NOT banned.

As evidence by the fact that many companies including British Telecom (used to anyway, they were a bit crap) use military laptops for their workforce.

Firstly, British regulations are different than American regulations, and hardened computer chips may be free to everyone there. 'Military spec' there may also be different from military spec here.

Secondly, telecoms are all government contractors, and may have access to that sort of thing. I know that AT&T, at least, has significant business with the government.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2013, 04:22:41 PM
The analogy is apt for several reasons. As admitted, a car engine cannot simply be "scaled up" to reach 800mph. This makes the argument that rocket technology is already available to the public invalid. It necessarily does not follow that because small rockets are possible and exist, that a large one weighing hundreds of tons could exceed the speeds necessary to get into space or achieve escape velocity.

the difference is that no "car" can go 800mph.

It's not an engine issue, rockets however can go that fast when scaled up.

the only "cars" that do get into the region of 800mph are not in fact cars, they are rockets and other aircraft with unpowered wheels bolted on. You might as well use the fact that you cant scale a car engine up to allow a car to fly as evidence that car engines can't power planes.

What if a company claimed to have invented a car which could go 800 mph, but the technology was conveniently proprietary or out of reach fro others to reproduce?

Moller International has been claiming to have a working sky car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar) for many years now, and is only waiting on a few more big investments before they can begin production.

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other rocket designers are all government contractors, operating under government regulation, with facilities on government bases, under direct supervision of government managers. There is no implicit trust of transparency or independence.

In fact, the government uses most of these contracting companies as temp agencies. While you might work for Lockheed Martin by name, the actual work you do for, say the Department of Defense, is done on DOD facilities and under the direct supervision of the government manager. There may be a small Lockheed Martin structure, where you report to your Lockheed Martin supervisor, who then reports to the government manager, but the environment is the same. The government calls the shots, not your contracting company.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 15, 2013, 04:29:19 PM
For an example that these private rocket companies are operating on government bases, look no further than the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where the Atlas, Delta, and Saturn class rockets were built by Rocketdyne and other 'private' companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

Quote
SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets such as the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions.

Quote
Rocket engine development

North American Aviation (NAA) began its development of liquid propellant rocket engines after the end of WWII. The Rocketdyne division of NAA, which came into being under its own name in the mid-1950s,[citation needed] designed and tested several rocket engines at the facility. They included engines for the Army's Redstone (an advanced short-range version of the German V-2), and the Army Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) as well as the Air Force's counterpart IRBM, the Thor.[citation needed] Also included were engines for the Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), as well as the twin combustion chamber alcohol/liquid oxygen booster engine for the NAVAHO, a large, intercontinental cruise missile that never became operational. Later, Rocketdyne designed and tested the huge F-1 engine that was eventually used as one of a cluster of engines powering the Apollo booster, as well as the J-2 liquid oxygen/hydrogen upper stage engine also used on the Project Apollo spacecraft.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 15, 2013, 04:49:33 PM
This entire discussion is exactly why I started by asking you what kind of evidence would be sufficient to prove that this case is different so that we can cut to the chase and talk about that evidence.  You know, rather than making a bunch of inductive arguments, speculation, and argument by analogy.  But I forgot that those are your only modes of argument and logic.

Please, though, continue with analogies and inductive reasoning.  Those things suddenly become logically sound and strong arguments when you make them.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on December 15, 2013, 09:01:53 PM
Tom, what evidence do you think would speak directly to SpaceX's status as a private firm?  What evidence do you think would be sufficient to confirm that SpaceX is private?

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

Rocket engines can be reproduced by others.  You can go to engineering schools and learn how to build them.  You've only proven that the technology cannot be freely exported to other nations.

If, however, the claims are as dubious as you say, then what kind of evidence would be sufficient to settle one way or the other?  What kind of evidence do you think would be sufficient to confirm their claims?

SpaceX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other rocket designers are all government contractors, operating under government regulation, with facilities on government bases, under direct supervision of government managers. There is no implicit trust of transparency or independence.

In fact, the government uses most of these contracting companies as temp agencies. While you might work for Lockheed Martin by name, the actual work you do for, say the Department of Defense, is done on DOD facilities and under the direct supervision of the government manager. There may be a small Lockheed Martin structure, where you report to your Lockheed Martin supervisor, who then reports to the government manager, but the environment is the same. The government calls the shots, not your contracting company.

Can you provide evidence that any of these things are true of SpaceX?  What evidence do you think would be sufficient to confirm that SpaceX is a private firm?

None of this applies to anything that I talked about in the OP because SpaceX was hired by a private, foreign telecom firm.  That's the point of the OP.  A private company hired another private company to put a satellite into orbit.  It was a success.

That SpaceX was once hired by NASA is irrelevant.  There is a large body of evidence documenting their company's history as a private firm.

That SpaceX is regulated by the government is irrelevant.  So is GM.  So is every business in America.

All you've contributed to this thread so far is weak inductive reasoning.

e: my apologies for the double post.  i thought i was editing my previous post, but i guess i wasn't paying attention to what i was doing.  whoops.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: spank86 on December 15, 2013, 11:42:59 PM
Quote
Analog computers, digital computers, or digital differential analyzers designed or modified for use in the systems in Item 1 (see § 121.1, Category XI (a)(6), having either of the following characteristics:

   (a) Rated for continuous operation at temperature from below minus 45 degrees C to above plus 55 degrees C; or

   (b) Designed as ruggedized or "radiation hardened".

shoulda quit while you were "ahead", controlled NOT banned.

As evidence by the fact that many companies including British Telecom (used to anyway, they were a bit crap) use military laptops for their workforce.

Firstly, British regulations are different than American regulations, and hardened computer chips may be free to everyone there. I don't know or care to check out.

Secondly, telecoms are all government contractors, and may have access to that sort of thing. I know that AT&T, at least, has significant business with the government.

No, no we aren't government contractors, at least not in that sense and I'm the only one in about 40miles who even has security clearance. Of course telecoms operators sell to the government, governments tend to have phones but that's not usually quite like being a government contractor.
I suppose the Automobile Association (tow trucks) are in on the scam too since they also purchased the same laptops for a while.




What if a company claimed to have invented a car which could go 800 mph, but the technology was conveniently proprietary or out of reach fro others to reproduce?

well that would be pretty much what I would expect at this point, we have reached the point where most new advances are pretty complicated and if someone's just invented something then it stands to reason it would be propriatory, in what situation would it not (other than stupidity/charity)?

Moller International has been claiming to have a working sky car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_M400_Skycar) for many years now, and is only waiting on a few more big investments before they can begin production.

If the technology cannot be reproduced by others freely, and is controlled, then the claims that such things have been built, or can be built, are dubious.

unless of course you see the prototype flying around, which is what tends to happen sooner or later if these companies actually want money.

There are very few people asking for money and claiming to have already built something that they have no physical evidence of.

On the other hand there are a lot of charlatans around claiming that they can do things with money but have NO evidence (plus plenty with plans that would work no doubt).

I really don't see your point? The technology that can create badly working expensive "skycars" has been around for ages, what we're waiting for is something cheaper and a lot more efficient/controllable.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: pilot172 on April 11, 2014, 01:05:12 PM
of course America is the only country to have orbital capabilities no one else does right

1  Soviet Union[c] Sputnik 1 Sputnik-PS Baikonur, Soviet Union (today Kazakhstan) 4 October 1957
2  United States[d] Explorer 1 Juno I Cape Canaveral, United States 1 February 1958
3  France[f] Astérix Diamant A Hammaguir, Algeria 26 November 1965
4  Japan Ōsumi Lambda-4S Uchinoura, Japan 11 February 1970
5  China Dong Fang Hong I Long March 1 Jiuquan, China 24 April 1970
6  United Kingdom[g] Prospero Black Arrow Woomera, Australia 28 October 1971
— European Space Agency[h] CAT-1 Ariane 1 Kourou, French Guiana 24 December 1979
7  India Rohini D1 SLV Sriharikota, India 18 July 1980
8  Israel Ofeq 1 Shavit Palmachim, Israel 19 September 1988
—  Ukraine[c] Strela-3 (x6, Russian) Tsyklon-3 Plesetsk, Russia 28 September 1991
—  Russia[c] Kosmos 2175 Soyuz-U Plesetsk, Russia 21 January 1992
9  Iran [j] Omid Safir-1A Semnan, Iran 2 February 2009
10  North Korea Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2 Unha-3 Sohae, North Korea 12 December 2012
I copied that off Wikipedia and the woomera test site is open for rocket launches by the general public not everything is american
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on April 12, 2014, 05:17:49 AM
lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on April 12, 2014, 11:26:16 AM
lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite. 

I feel dumber for having read this.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on April 12, 2014, 01:42:46 PM
lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite.
What does one have to do with the other?  ???
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2014, 04:05:45 PM
lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite.

By this logic, NK can't do anything more complex than feeding its population.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: pilot172 on April 13, 2014, 11:13:38 AM
lol, North Korea can't even feed its people, let alone successfully launch a satellite. 

how about india, china and the soviet union now Russia, are they all incapable of launching rockets as well
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on April 14, 2014, 05:53:08 PM
They can all launch rockets.  They have also all found that sustained orbit is impossible. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on April 14, 2014, 06:25:20 PM
They can all launch rockets.  They have also all found that sustained orbit is impossible. 

Citation required.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: pilot172 on April 15, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
yes all 54 of indias satellites and all 140 of chinas satellites were all faked
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on April 17, 2014, 06:52:37 PM
They can all launch rockets.  They have also all found that sustained orbit is impossible. 

Citation required.

Are you saying that you don't think they can launch rockets? 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on April 17, 2014, 06:53:10 PM
yes all 54 of indias satellites and all 140 of chinas satellites were all faked

I did not say they are fake.  They are just not in orbit. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2014, 07:19:57 PM
yes all 54 of indias satellites and all 140 of chinas satellites were all faked

I did not say they are fake.  They are just not in orbit. 

Where are they then?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on April 17, 2014, 07:30:44 PM
yes all 54 of indias satellites and all 140 of chinas satellites were all faked

I did not say they are fake.  They are just not in orbit. 

Where are they then?

Are you completely new here?  I only ask because every question you ask is very basic.  Do you think I come here to answer questions about what color the grass is?  This is not yahoo answers, and I know you have been with us for years.  At least ask a question that challenges me and does not bore me.  I would expect this from a noob.  I know you have probably seen two dozen threads discussing what satellites may or may not be. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2014, 07:41:43 PM
yes all 54 of indias satellites and all 140 of chinas satellites were all faked

I did not say they are fake.  They are just not in orbit. 

Where are they then?

Are you completely new here?  I only ask because every question you ask is very basic.  Do you think I come here to answer questions about what color the grass is?  This is not yahoo answers, and I know you have been with us for years.  At least ask a question that challenges me and does not bore me.  I would expect this from a noob.  I know you have probably seen two dozen threads discussing what satellites may or may not be. 

I ask basic questions, because I want a basic answer.  An answer that I do not think has ever been given on this site.  It is good to get these things in writing so it can be referred to later.  Are you talking about stratellites?

Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on April 17, 2014, 07:44:00 PM
Statellites and pseudollites.  I know you've seen these threads before. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: markjo on April 17, 2014, 08:22:18 PM
They can all launch rockets.  They have also all found that sustained orbit is impossible. 

Citation required.

Are you saying that you don't think they can launch rockets?

I believe that he was asking for a citation for your statement about sustained orbit being impossible.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2014, 08:41:07 PM
They can all launch rockets.  They have also all found that sustained orbit is impossible. 

Citation required.

Are you saying that you don't think they can launch rockets?

I believe that he was asking for a citation for your statement about sustained orbit being impossible.

This.  Also there is no thread on pseudo or stratelites on tfes.org. As such noobs would have no idea what we are talking about.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 17, 2014, 09:26:49 PM
Also there is no thread on pseudo or stratelites on tfes.org.
That's not entirely true (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1150.msg14156#msg14156).
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on April 17, 2014, 10:27:03 PM
Fair enough. Thank you PP
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: BillyBob on April 26, 2014, 06:14:54 AM
When civilians are in space, you people will look like idiots.  Pardon my French. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Nonbeliever on May 23, 2014, 11:38:24 PM
When civilians are in space, you people will look like idiots.  Pardon my French.

Only a matter of time. Unfortunately, I predict those civilians will simply be branded as government agents and the farce will continue...
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rushy on May 23, 2014, 11:40:20 PM
People have talked about commercial space travel for over sixty years. It's funny how many companies have since come and gone trying to accomplish it. For example, Virgin Galactic has spent billions in attempts to go to space, but all they've managed to make is a fancy, luxury U-2. In fact, they've spent more than NASA originally spent going to the moon. How... interesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2014, 12:57:29 AM
It's almost like sending 15 layman into space is more difficult than sending 2 experts. Weird right?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rushy on May 24, 2014, 01:10:40 AM
It's almost like sending 15 layman into space is more difficult than sending 2 experts. Weird right?

You're comparing a passenger train to a freight train and saying the passenger train is harder to make? Preposterous. It should be infinitely easier for Virgin Galactic to go to space, its just unfortunate that it is impossible and no one was nice enough to tell them.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rama Set on May 24, 2014, 01:14:44 AM
It's almost like sending 15 layman into space is more difficult than sending 2 experts. Weird right?

You're comparing a passenger train to a freight train and saying the passenger train is harder to make? Preposterous. It should be infinitely easier for Virgin Galactic to go to space, its just unfortunate that it is impossible and no one was nice enough to tell them.

I no longer follow. Anyway this has now gone to the standard place of flimsily asserting that space travel is impossible. I will check in later when something interesting has been said.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rushy on May 24, 2014, 01:23:37 AM
I no longer follow.

NASA shuttles and rockets supposedly hold a lot more cargo and weight than 15 people combined (about 25 tons compared to 1.5 assuming 200 lbs per person), so your point that it is somehow harder for SpaceX or Virgin to get into space because they carry more people is nonsense.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Gulliver on May 24, 2014, 01:46:18 AM
People have talked about commercial space travel for over sixty years. It's funny how many companies have since come and gone trying to accomplish it. For example, Virgin Galactic has spent billions in attempts to go to space, but all they've managed to make is a fancy, luxury U-2. In fact, they've spent more than NASA originally spent going to the moon. How... interesting.
Please provide your evidence that Virgin Galactic has spent more than NASA originally spent going to the Moon. Be sure to account for inflation. Be sure to keep marketing expenditures separate.

Is there some reason you consider a "fancy, luxury U-2" comparable to SpaceShipOne, please tell us how many people a U-2 carries in your comparison.

Also if you want to argue that 200 pounds is a good estimate for carrying a person safely to and from space, I suggest you're forgetting a few things like air, water, food, safety equipment, and the extra fuel, and so much more.

Also if you're trying to imply that this is interesting due to FET's space conspiracy theory, I'd be happy to discuss conspiracy theory in the proper forum. Thanks.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Nonbeliever on May 24, 2014, 02:26:39 AM
You're comparing a passenger train to a freight train and saying the passenger train is harder to make? Preposterous. It should be infinitely easier for Virgin Galactic to go to space, its just unfortunate that it is impossible and no one was nice enough to tell them.

That brings up an interesting point- why did no one tell VG? I mean, if someone who isn't on government funding discovers that space travel is impossible, the cat's out of the bag, isn't it?
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rushy on May 24, 2014, 03:55:38 AM
Please provide your evidence that Virgin Galactic has spent more than NASA originally spent going to the Moon. Be sure to account for inflation. Be sure to keep marketing expenditures separate.

Is there some reason you consider a "fancy, luxury U-2" comparable to SpaceShipOne, please tell us how many people a U-2 carries in your comparison.

Also if you want to argue that 200 pounds is a good estimate for carrying a person safely to and from space, I suggest you're forgetting a few things like air, water, food, safety equipment, and the extra fuel, and so much more.

Also if you're trying to imply that this is interesting due to FET's space conspiracy theory, I'd be happy to discuss conspiracy theory in the proper forum. Thanks.

Well, I certainly could do most of this, but considering your tone I'm definitely going to pass on wasting my time on you.

That brings up an interesting point- why did no one tell VG? I mean, if someone who isn't on government funding discovers that space travel is impossible, the cat's out of the bag, isn't it?

Well, who would believe them? If they suddenly sprang up and said "space travel is impossible!" They would be mocked and berated.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Rushy on May 24, 2014, 04:07:49 AM
http://qz.com/212876/elon-musk-says-he-lost-a-multi-billion-dollar-contract-when-spacex-didnt-hire-a-public-official/


Elon Musk, owner of SpaceX, specifically complains that the NASA contract going to Lockheed Martin and Boeing (long time DoD contractors) is a result of corruption rather than true potential. How interesting that his company is yet again completely passed over.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: jroa on May 24, 2014, 04:36:14 AM
SpaceX gets most of their funding from NASA.  I suspect that SpaceX is simply a way for NASA to launder their money. 
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Gulliver on May 24, 2014, 05:02:16 AM
Well, I certainly could do most of this, but considering your tone I'm definitely going to pass on wasting my time on you.
So... I infer that you haven't done the research or the calculations before making your outlandish claim. You might want to consider having the evidence at hand before you make a claim in the future. Oh, and my tone is quite irrelevant. If you don't want to fail to meet simple challenges to back up your claims, you probably don't want to be posting in the "Flat Earth Debate" Forum.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 24, 2014, 09:21:33 AM
Oh, and my tone is quite irrelevant.
Actually, it's not. You're standing on the very thin line between just being rude and making personal attacks. The former will mean people won't want to talk to you (Really, we have better things to do than deal with an angry person on the Internet - for example, dealing with pleasant people on the Internet). The latter will have you in breach of the rules. As far as I know, you haven't breached the rules yet, but as friendly advice, you could really try not being such a cunt to everyone. It goes a long way.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Gulliver on May 24, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Oh, and my tone is quite irrelevant.
Actually, it's not. You're standing on the very thin line between just being rude and making personal attacks. The former will mean people won't want to talk to you (Really, we have better things to do than deal with an angry person on the Internet - for example, dealing with pleasant people on the Internet). The latter will have you in breach of the rules. As far as I know, you haven't breached the rules yet, but as friendly advice, you could really try not being such a cunt to everyone. It goes a long way.
Then I'll rephrase, my tone is not relevant to the debate point.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 24, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
Then I'll rephrase, my tone is not relevant to the debate point.
That's fair.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Thork on August 23, 2014, 06:32:42 PM
They aren't exactly filling me with confidence. I'm definitely not going to be first in the queue for a space ride.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28910812
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: garygreen on August 23, 2014, 11:06:20 PM
They aren't exactly filling me with confidence. I'm definitely not going to be first in the queue for a space ride.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28910812

SpaceX doesn't offer space rides.  It's not a space tourism company. 

If it did offer space rides, then it probably wouldn't offer them on test flights of new prototypes.  That would be a silly thing to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
Post by: Thork on August 24, 2014, 01:39:03 PM
SpaceX are promising an even more stupid flight of fancy. They are promising to repopulate other planets!

I mean, imagine that! We haven't even found another flat planet yet. Could you imagine trying to live on a giant ball? Its ludicrous.