So I would like to know where is the flaw in this argument. I hope someone will indicates me my mistake!Define "private" in your "argument" and you will see your mistake yourself.
It would be easier if you just tell us what mistake was made, rather than asking the person who made the mistake to try and figure it out on theor own. The person who made the mistake is unlikely to suddenly un-make it, since you've provided them with no new information.So I would like to know where is the flaw in this argument. I hope someone will indicates me my mistake!Define "private" in your "argument" and you will see your mistake yourself.
The signals are deployed through an assortment of terrestrial methods, such as ground based antennas and stratellite dirigibles.Please explain how the angle of satellite dishes proves the location of satellites.
A contracting company building a rocket for NASA isn't evidence of anything. The rockets used are real.
The signals are deployed through an assortment of terrestrial methods, such as ground based antennas and stratellite dirigibles.
A contracting company building a rocket for NASA isn't evidence of anything. The rockets used are real.
The signals are deployed through an assortment of terrestrial methods, such as ground based antennas and stratellite dirigibles.
A contracting company building a rocket for NASA isn't evidence of anything. The rockets used are real.
The signals are deployed through an assortment of terrestrial methods, such as ground based antennas and stratellite dirigibles.
A contracting company building a rocket for NASA isn't evidence of anything. The rockets used are real.
Even if this is just words written on the Internet, I can assure you that rocket engine and rocket as well as satellites are real. I see them almost everyday.Who are the clients of this "private" company?
If the Earth was flat as you think, all this work, as well as all the money spent to engage so many people into this lie, would be a pure loss.Oh, I get it!
Oh, I get it!
No "private" company benefits from lost money!
Yes, space tourism is right around the corner. That's what they've been saying since the 1960s. Any day now...any day now...But this time it's totally for real!
Yes, it was totally for real for the 7 tourists who (claim to) have gone to space already.Yes, space tourism is right around the corner. That's what they've been saying since the 1960s. Any day now...any day now...But this time it's totally for real!
(claim to)You pretty much wrote my response for me.
Yes, in much the same way you claim to be an FE'er. :P(claim to)You pretty much wrote my response for me.
From: Space launch market competition. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition#Launch_contract_competitive_results)
Launch contract competitive results
Before 2014
Arianespace has dominated the commercial launch market for many years. "In 2004, for example, they held over 50% of the world market."
- 2010: 26 geostationary commercial satellites were ordered under long-term launch contracts.
- 2011: Only 17 geostationary commercial satellites went under contract during 2011 as an "historically large capital spending surge by the biggest satellite fleet operators" began to tail off, something that had been anticipated to follow the various satellite fleets being substantially upgraded.
- 2012: As of September 2012, the major launch providers globally were Arianespace (France), International Launch Services (United States) which markets the Russian Proton launch vehicle, and Sea Launch of Switzerland which markets the Russian-Ukrainian Zenit rocket. In late 2012, each of them had manifests that were "full or nearly so for both 2012 and 2013."
- 23 geostationary orbit communications satellites were placed under firm contract during 2013.
2014
A total of 20 launches were booked in 2014 for commercial launch service providers. 19 were for flights to geostationary orbit (GEO), one was for a low-Earth orbit (LEO) launch.
Arianespace and SpaceX each signed nine contracts for geostationary launches, while Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was awarded one. United Launch Alliance signed one commercial contract to launch an Orbital Sciences Corporation Cygnus spacecraft to the LEO-orbiting International Space Station following the destruction over the pad of an Orbital Antares vehicle in October 2014. This was the first year in some time that no commercial launches were booked on the Russian (Proton-M) and Russian-Ukrainian (Zenit) launch service providers.
For perspective, eight additional satellites in 2014 were booked "by national launch providers in deals for which no competitive bids were sought."
Overall in 2014 Arianespace took 60% of commercial launch market share.
2015
Overall in 2015, Arianespace signed 14 commercial-order launch contracts for geosynchronous-orbit commsats, while SpaceX received only 9, with International Launch Services (Proton) and United Launch Alliance signing one contract each. In addition, Arianespace signed their largest launch contract ever—for 21 LEO launches for OneWeb using the Europeanized Russian Soyuz launch vehicle launching from the ESA spaceport—and two Vega smallsat launches.
In a 2015 US competition for a (no earlier than 2017 but possibly planned for 2018 as of November 2015) US military launch to loft the first of the third-generation GPS III satellites into orbit, ULA—after having held a government-sanctioned monopoly on US military launches for the previous decade—declined to even submit a bid, thereby leaving the likely contract award winner to be SpaceX, the only other domestic US-provider of launch services to be certified as usable by the US military.
Private rocket companies are called government contractors. They are semi-private for-profit entities which have the power to sponsor people for secret and top secret clearances.
Do you really think the government would give a purely private firm access to ICBM technologies such as orbital rockets? I don't think so. They are going to give it to a government contractor which is basically controlled by the government at all levels.
Private rocket companies are called government contractors. They are semi-private for-profit entities which have the power to sponsor people for secret and top secret clearances.What about these guys?
Do you really think the government would give a purely private firm access to ICBM technologies such as orbital rockets? I don't think so. They are going to give it to a government contractor which is basically controlled by the government at all levels.Do you really think that the government can stop someone from figuring out the technology on their own?
To be fair, Copenhagen suborbitals don't build orbital rockets, hence the name. Their profile is not only private, but a mission to be the first amateurs to launch a man into space (+100km).Private rocket companies are called government contractors. They are semi-private for-profit entities which have the power to sponsor people for secret and top secret clearances.What about these guys?
https://copenhagensuborbitals.com/Do you really think the government would give a purely private firm access to ICBM technologies such as orbital rockets? I don't think so. They are going to give it to a government contractor which is basically controlled by the government at all levels.Do you really think that the government can stop someone from figuring out the technology on their own?