1581
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 07, 2013, 04:59:42 PM »
junker doesn't believe in variance.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1582
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 06, 2013, 05:03:46 PM »Go Seahawks. We better win it this season while all of our beasts are still on rookie contracts.Hopefully they keep home field, otherwise, they'll choke on the road.
Eh, I don't really buy into the 'hawks can't win on the road' thing. They're undeniably better at home (more like 13th man amirite?!?!?!), but I'm loving everything I see from this team. They're just young.
1583
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« 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.
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?
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?
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?
1584
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: December 06, 2013, 12:56:39 AM »
Go Seahawks. We better win it this season while all of our beasts are still on rookie contracts.
1585
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« 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?
1586
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Forum structure
« on: December 04, 2013, 04:34:38 AM »Can we consider my structure idea?
I think we only need two forums for FE.
A super serious one to discuss flat earth and bring credibility to the site, and a fun one where people can post dumb stuff and have fun about FET. Not CN. CN is for everything. FE Fun could be for zetetic maths and square earth theory and all the other stuff people love to post, without scolding them for posting here.
Additional.
Make the Flat Earth Debate forum a different text colour or something. Red font maybe. So its very obvious that is the main point of the site and has a marked step change in moderation and rules.
Condensing the 3 will stop moderators having to move everything which is confusing to someone who made their first post and it dissappeared, + it stops a discussion on gravity in Q&A and in FED and in General all happening at once.
It will also stop the main forums looking so empty until new users arrive. If the FE Debate forum gets so busy as to require splitting, do it due to demand. Not dogma.
I rather like this idea.
1587
Flat Earth Theory / SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« 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.
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.