The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Pballance on April 17, 2019, 11:55:04 PM
-
Elon musk is a very important figure in current society but I suspect will be much more important in the future. His company’s like Tesla are the future of cars and are hugely helping to save the planet and my main focus space x is currently revolutionising the space industry and the actual future of our species its self. Many flat earth believers say that only astronauts go to space and so no civilian eyes ever get to see the truth. Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
-
Look at it this way, Qantas has a daily non-stop from Santiago to Sydney, 13h20m, 11,000km. Seemingly an impossible thing on the AE FE map. Perhaps 1000’s and 1000’s of people have taken this flight over time. If a non-local FEr wanted to take the flight to see if it’s real or not, time, effort and money would be involved. In the absence of seeing for oneself, a bunch of folks in the FE community still claim that the flight is faked, re-routed or perhaps doesn’t even exist.
Now extrapolate that to an extremely expensive, maybe even dangerous civilian space tourism program. No amount of video/still imagery or personal testimony from a space passenger would even remotely sway your average FEr.
-
Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
I've been hearing we are very close to civilian space travel for nearly my entire life. And yet, it never materializes. Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
-
Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
I've been hearing we are very close to civilian space travel for nearly my entire life. And yet, it never materializes. Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
It begs the question, if, let's say, Virgin Galactic starts sending the the few hundred already booked passengers up above the Karman line with the 5 minutes of weightlessness and a view of the the "curve" as promised, would that make a difference in FE belief? Or would my original response still hold true?
-
Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
I've been hearing we are very close to civilian space travel for nearly my entire life. And yet, it never materializes. Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
I've been hearing about moon bases and robot butlers too.
Just because not every future prediction comes true, that doesn't mean it's a smoking gun of a big conspiracy about space travel or robots or whatever.
Some problems just proved harder to solve than others.
How often do you see stories about how we'll be zipping across the Atlantic in a couple of hours? Hasn't happened, has it? Does that mean transatlantic travel is a hoax?
-
[/quote]
I've been hearing we are very close to civilian space travel for nearly my entire life. And yet, it never materializes. Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
[/quote]
I would say we are absolutely the closest ever in human history to civilian flight into space. Especially with Elon musks latest achievements with falcon heavy and the current rapid development of star ship. Within a decade I would say civilians will be launched.
-
Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
I've been hearing we are very close to civilian space travel for nearly my entire life. And yet, it never materializes. Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
Except that a number of (very rich) civilians have already traveled in space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_flight_participant#List_of_space_flight_participants
Here's where you can book your own space adventure: http://www.spaceadventures.com/
-
It begs the question, if, let's say, Virgin Galactic starts sending the the few hundred already booked passengers up above the Karman line with the 5 minutes of weightlessness and a view of the the "curve" as promised, would that make a difference in FE belief? Or would my original response still hold true?
Am I one of the few hundred of people?
I've been hearing about moon bases and robot butlers too.
Just because not every future prediction comes true, that doesn't mean it's a smoking gun of a big conspiracy about space travel or robots or whatever.
Some problems just proved harder to solve than others.
How often do you see stories about how we'll be zipping across the Atlantic in a couple of hours? Hasn't happened, has it? Does that mean transatlantic travel is a hoax?
I'm not really sure how any of this is relevant to Elon Musk lying about space travel. Please stay on topic.
I would say we are absolutely the closest ever in human history to civilian flight into space. Especially with Elon musks latest achievements with falcon heavy and the current rapid development of star ship. Within a decade I would say civilians will be launched.
And in a decade we'll only be a decade away.
Except that a number of (very rich) civilians have already traveled in space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_flight_participant#List_of_space_flight_participants
Here's where you can book your own space adventure: http://www.spaceadventures.com/
Less than a dozen claims of success on that wikipedia page, and the other link requires they vet you and doesn't even name a price. So no, I can not book a space adventure. Only the elite can see behind the curtain. I promise in the future we'll let everyone see behind the curtain. Just not yet. But trust us on what we say is behind the curtain.
-
Except that a number of (very rich) civilians have already traveled in space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_flight_participant#List_of_space_flight_participants
Here's where you can book your own space adventure: http://www.spaceadventures.com/
Less than a dozen claims of success on that wikipedia page...
Why should it take more than one success to prove it possible?
... and the other link requires they vet you and doesn't even name a price.
What's wrong with vetting potential customers? And I would think that prices would depend on a great many things, including your desired experience.
So no, I can not book a space adventure. Only the elite can see behind the curtain. I promise in the future we'll let everyone see behind the curtain. Just not yet. But trust us on what we say is behind the curtain.
In the early years of computers, they were limited to the elite. Why should the early years of space tourism be any different?
-
Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
How do you arrive at that label for Musk?
Customers pay his car company for electric cars. Do they get electric cars? They do, same as customers of Ford, GM, etc get fuel-driven cars when they pay for them
SpaceX has a documented history of launching commercial satellites for paying customers. Do you dispute that the customers get a deployed satellite at the end of the day?
-
Tesla are not world leaders in electric cars. They aren't world leaders in autonomous cars either.
Space X got all its technology from NASA. Much like Boeing and Lockheed do. Its a way to get tax payers to pay for the R&D of a private corporation ... anywhere else in the world we call it state aid and its illegal.
Musk is the most in bed with government person i can think of. He gets government technology, he gets FED printed dollar bills as the FED buys up his stock so that the FED monetises its paper and Tesla has unlimited cash flowing in. Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks in history. Why? Because private investors know that Tesla isn't going to amount to much. They all know its going to collapse. It makes no money, the battery technology actually belongs to Panasonic and the cars themselves aren't very good. They have lots of build quality issues. But the price remains high because the FED stands behind Tesla filling it to the gills with its printing press. However, a change in policy from the FED (it actually used to be illegal for the FED to buy stocks) and you'd see Tesla go to the wall in a matter of minutes. That's what the short-sellers are betting on.
So, should a man so utterly dependant on the government for all his businesses be likely to whistle blow on something like a flat earth? Not a chance. He's going to do whatever the government tells him.
-
How is Tesla not world leaders in electric and autonomy. They produce long range, insanely quick, and very close to full self driving for like 40k. Tesla is funded by Elon’s own personal funds and several private investors. And they continue to invest because they know that Tesla is gonna get bigger and bigger as time goes until it’s the next apple for example. And you can’t say space x get their tech from nasa. I don’t see nasa landing their rockets. Space x actually developed their own engines and had to develop the insanely complex software to land their rockets. The money space x gets from nasa is the money which they pay them to for example launch payload to the iss. It’s a private company and you say Elon will do what ever nasa tells him..... Evidence? Can you show anything that Elon is NASA’s dog?
-
Why should it take more than one success to prove it possible?
Sciences requires repeatability and independently verifiable facts. This has neither.
What's wrong with vetting potential customers?
Nothing is inherently wrong with it, but since it's not open to the public, it's no different than space travel that's been claimed by NASA in the past. It's not conclusive of anything.
In the early years of computers, they were limited to the elite. Why should the early years of space tourism be any different?
In present day, I have a half dozen computers ranging from powerful to hella powerful. If space tourism gets to the point I have numerous options in my own home to go to space, then I will accept this comparison makes any sense.
-
How is Tesla not world leaders in electric and autonomy.
Well, because their products are shit.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/262510-new-report-self-driving-cars-ranks-tesla-dead-last
https://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/report--gm-leading--tesla-last-in-autonomous-car-race-117038
https://www.fastcompany.com/40516928/gm-is-leading-the-self-driving-car-race-while-tesla-lags-far-behind-report-says
Tesla is funded by Elon’s own personal funds and several private investors.
Investors who want that money back.
https://www.thedrive.com/tech/24261/elon-musk-and-10-billion-of-debt-why-tesla-will-go-bankrupt-in-2019
And you can’t say space x get their tech from nasa.
Ok, what if Bill Nye says it and Neil De Grasse Tyson agrees?
https://youtu.be/uoU6-ekF2a4?t=1364
Space x actually developed their own engines and had to develop the insanely complex software to land their rockets.
The Merlin uses a pintle injector (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pintle_injector), a design first used in the Lunar Module Descent Engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_propulsion_system), developed from original work at Caltech and JPL. Its design was publicised as U.S. Patent 3,699,772. (https://patents.google.com/patent/US3699772)
To this day SpaceX are still being given nasa tech.
https://www.inverse.com/article/15272-nasa-releases-rocket-and-aircraft-patents-for-spacex-and-blue-origin-to-sink-teeth-into
It’s a private company and you say Elon will do what ever nasa tells him..... Evidence? Can you show anything that Elon is NASA’s dog?
I said SpaceX is the US government's dog. Not NASA's.
SpaceX is all about getting that juicy tax payer money
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/spacex-urges-lawmakers-to-commercialize-deep-space-exploration/
And Tesla is all about juicy Federal Reserve money.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4109240-tesla-monster-fed-created-may-ultimately-destroy
Neither are good businesses.
Now, look at all the sources I gave you. I backed everything i said with evidence. I don't want an Elon musk fanboy ranting reply. I want hard evidence for every single statement you make because Elon Musk fanboys are tiresome and deluded.
-
Why should it take more than one success to prove it possible?
Sciences requires repeatability and independently verifiable facts. This has neither.
The science of manned space flight has been repeated for over 60 years by three different countries. Also, space tourism is not a science, it's a product.
What's wrong with vetting potential customers?
Nothing is inherently wrong with it, but since it's not open to the public, it's no different than space travel that's been claimed by NASA in the past. It's not conclusive of anything.
"Open to the public" and "vetting potential customers" are not mutually exclusive. The seven privately-funded space tourists who went to Mir or the ISS were most certainly part of "the public".
In the early years of computers, they were limited to the elite. Why should the early years of space tourism be any different?
In present day, I have a half dozen computers ranging from powerful to hella powerful. If space tourism gets to the point I have numerous options in my own home to go to space, then I will accept this comparison makes any sense.
Agreed. We simply haven't reached that point yet. That doesn't make the comparison any less valid. Air travel is another example where it took a while to become affordable to the general public. Space travel is just taking longer because of the high level of technology required and safety concerns.
-
The only reason someone would spend thousands of dollars merely to see the curvature of the Earth, is because they feel some desperate need to prove it to themselves that the Earth is round.
Do "normal" people need to see that?
The only person with that desperate need would be a Flat Earther, but even then I don't think any Flat Earther would waist their life savings merely to disprove themselves, when in turn they'd probably just think it all a trick.
It wouldn't even be "FUN" even if it were true. You would merely be handing over every penny you own in exchange for visual confirmation that you are doomed by the abyss of space, at the mercy of a selfish race, carelessly destroying their own planet, with nowhere to escape to and likely to die in an asteroid impact.
I mean you have to question why people would pay for this.
Sure, a ride on a spaceship to a far off world, or maybe to whizz around Saturn... but even if that ever happens, unless you open the air lock and step outside how do you know it's real?
What is the point?
I bet you the living Elvis if they ever actually bring space travel to the market it will only be once they have invented artificial gravity to cover up the pantomime.
Besides it's got to be boring as hell. Not only is it pitch black for 99.99999999% of the voyage but a hellraisingly dangerous expedition. You will spend your whole time either bored out of your mind or utterly scared to death. In fact probably both.
What a mentally ill waist of money.
-
We can stay away from Tesla it’s not that related to the topic of flat earth(i still see Tesla as a very good company as they are commercially producing close self driving cars that are improving everyday). First off you’re correct that space x is using the idea of the pintle injector however my point is that space x isn’t using engines lifted off another rocket. They have engineered them themselves and have unique elements to them.
Next you say that Elon is the governments dog...... once again evidence? You can’t just say it
And why wouldn’t nasa fund a company who could potentially launch their missions for at a much lower price than they can and at the moment and why wouldn’t they want a company who is revolutionising the space launch industry as we know it doing well.
And you talk about how they are using nasa tech. Surely none of this matters if the rockets are fake and are just going to crash into The sea or hit the fake ceiling above us. I’m yet to understand how someone can believe in such nonsense.
-
Government contractors actually do little more than send their workers to work on government bases under the direction of government managers and directors, with government clearances. They are more like temp agencies than anything, used for liability reasons and because they are easy to fire. Anyone who has ever worked for the DoD can attest. The only involvement the workers get from their company is a paycheck and benefits. When the contract changes to another company the workers don't even change cubicles.
Think about it. The government wouldn't hand out bomber and warship plans to any company to build on their own... in this case the technologies are what are essentially ICBM plans. It's a controlled environment and the technologies are likely considered on the level of weapons of mass destruction or at least of a very sensitive nature.
-
Government contractors actually do little more than send their workers to work on government bases under the direction of government managers and directors, with government clearances. They are more like temp agencies than anything, used for liability reasons and because they are easy to fire. Anyone who has ever worked for the DoD can attest. The only involvement the workers get from their company is a paycheck and benefits. When the contract changes to another company the workers don't even change cubicles.
I think the likes of Lockeed Martin & Boeing (and JPL-Though it's sort of a hybrid CalTech managed, gov't funded entity) would disagree with your off-the-cuff assertion/opinion. Both are steeped in design. Not just providing bodies to crunch numbers and weld pieces together in clean rooms.
LM is right now pitching NASA on a moon launch for 2024. Lots of elements to the puzzle involving plenty.
"If NASA wants to use Lockheed's architecture, the space agency will likely need to start funding it now."
https://www.axios.com/lockheed-martin-take-nasa-to-moon-57ce90f8-f9d3-427e-9b1d-eef808b4e350.html
And it's not just contractors. NASA has 17,000+ FTE's across a multitude of disciplines:
(https://i.imgur.com/6sZC5jP.png?1)
-
I think the likes of Lockeed Martin & Boeing (and JPL-Though it's sort of a hybrid CalTech managed, gov't funded entity) would disagree with your off-the-cuff assertion/opinion. Both are steeped in design. Not just providing bodies to crunch numbers and weld pieces together in clean rooms.
LM is right now pitching NASA on a moon launch for 2024. Lots of elements to the puzzle involving plenty.
Do you really believe that the government would let a private company build and have plans for bombers and other weapons without any government oversight or management, on their own facilities?
"Here you go, here is last year's design. Make some improvements and have at it!"
Is that how it works?
Anyone who has ever worked for a government contractor knows that they are working for the government and its managers, not the contracting agency.
"If NASA wants to use Lockheed's architecture, the space agency will likely need to start funding it now."
https://www.axios.com/lockheed-martin-take-nasa-to-moon-57ce90f8-f9d3-427e-9b1d-eef808b4e350.html
axios.com probably doesn't know that the government owns all property rights to the technologies that it funds. Who could believe that NASA is giving Lockeed and SpaceX billions of dollars to let them own it? Something that can be double-purposed as an ICBM, no less?
-
I think the likes of Lockeed Martin & Boeing (and JPL-Though it's sort of a hybrid CalTech managed, gov't funded entity) would disagree with your off-the-cuff assertion/opinion. Both are steeped in design. Not just providing bodies to crunch numbers and weld pieces together in clean rooms.
LM is right now pitching NASA on a moon launch for 2024. Lots of elements to the puzzle involving plenty.
Do you really believe that the government would let a private company build and have plans for bombers and other weapons without any government oversight or management, on their own facilities?
"Here you go, here is last year's design. Make some improvements and have at it!"
Is that how it works?
Not sure where you got all that from. How do you believe the F-35 was designed and built? Of course there is oversight. No one ever said otherwise. But you make it seem like some people in the DoD design/architect the entirety of the plans for a weapons system/NASA system, then cut it all up into tiny pieces and carefully hand just a sliver to a drone contractor locked in a cubicle to simply execute. You obviously have never been involved in the development process of anything.
Anyone who has ever worked for a government contractor knows that they are working for the government and its managers, not the contracting agency.
Sure. I'm not seeing an issue here. Same in the private sector. You've obviously never done any contract work either.
"If NASA wants to use Lockheed's architecture, the space agency will likely need to start funding it now."
https://www.axios.com/lockheed-martin-take-nasa-to-moon-57ce90f8-f9d3-427e-9b1d-eef808b4e350.html
axios.com probably doesn't know that the government owns all property rights to the technologies that it funds. Who could believe that NASA is giving Lockeed and SpaceX billions of dollars to let them own it? Something that can be double-purposed as an ICBM, no less?
Sure axios does. Everyone knows that. Same in the private sector. There are also things called contracts that lay out the terms of rights and relationships, IP and such. None of this is a mystery let alone even remotely conspiratorial. It's called business.
-
Government contractors actually do little more than send their workers to work on government bases under the direction of government managers and directors, with government clearances. They are more like temp agencies than anything, used for liability reasons and because they are easy to fire. Anyone who has ever worked for the DoD can attest. The only involvement the workers get from their company is a paycheck and benefits. When the contract changes to another company the workers don't even change cubicles.
Very nice, but SpaceX is not that sort of government contractor. The government is a SpaceX customer. The Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon cargo and crew capsules are all designed, fabricated launched by SpaceX employees. The government is simply contracting for SpaceX launch services.
Think about it. The government wouldn't hand out bomber and warship plans to any company to build on their own...
The government doesn't design bombers or warships. The government tells contractors that they want a bomber or a warship with certain capabilities. The contractor will then submit their design to meet needs and build it if they get the contract.
... in this case the technologies are what are essentially ICBM plans. It's a controlled environment and the technologies are likely considered on the level of weapons of mass destruction or at least of a very sensitive nature.
Ummm... Tom. Have you heard that over the last 10 years or so, the space launch industry has exploded with dozens of new companies all over the world designing and building their own rockets to launch small to medium sized satellites? Established defense contractors are no longer the only ones building "what are essentially ICBMs".
-
Ummm... Tom. Have you heard that over the last 10 years or so, the space launch industry has exploded with dozens of new companies all over the world designing and building their own rockets to launch small to medium sized satellites? Established defense contractors are no longer the only ones building "what are essentially ICBMs".
Can you link us to these companies? I am sure that you know that it is illegal to launch rockets above a certain class into civilian or military airspace without government approval. This is not a private venture. There are no "orbital rockets plans for sale" websites, or any possible place to buy that sort of thing.
If you are of the belief the government would give out rocket technologies to purely private companies to do with as they wish, you would be in error.
-
Ummm... Tom. Have you heard that over the last 10 years or so, the space launch industry has exploded with dozens of new companies all over the world designing and building their own rockets to launch small to medium sized satellites? Established defense contractors are no longer the only ones building "what are essentially ICBMs".
Can you link us to these companies?
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies#Launch_vehicle_makers
I am sure that you know that it is illegal to launch rockets above a certain class into civilian or military airspace without government approval. This is not a private venture.
Did you know that it's illegal to drive a motor vehicle with out a government approved driver's license? Needing government approval does not make something more or less of a private venture.
There are no "orbital rockets plans for sale" websites, or any possible place to buy that sort of thing.
No, but there are orbital rocket launch services for sale web sites. Here's one of them:
https://vector-launch.com/launch-with-vector/
If you are of the belief the government would give out rocket technologies to purely private companies to do with as they wish, you are in error.
Sorry Tom, but it looks like the cat is already out of the bag.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/book/10.2514/4.866197
Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines
David H. Huang; Dieter K. Huzel
eISBN: 978-1-60086-619-7
print ISBN: 978-1-56347-013-4
https://doi.org/10.2514/4.866197
Dates/copyright year: January 1, 1992
1992 Copyright © 1992 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
Download the Full PDF
-
Driving is not a public freedom, markjo. Not everyone can drive large trucks and heavy machinery. Cars are dangerous to yourself and others, and your license to drive will be taken away if the government chooses.
Your example shows that the government does say what happens in regards to rockets and space, and can impose as many restrictions and requirements as they wish.
Your example of a book with rocketry principles (which you apparently can't even buy unless you are a member of that organization or an affiliated institution) is hardly comparable to rocket technology and the substantial research and engineering design and testing needed to get to orbit. You may as well tell us that anyone can build a nuclear weapon because there are some reaction equations on Wikipedia.
-
Driving is not a public freedom, markjo. Not everyone can drive large trucks and heavy machinery. Cars are dangerous to yourself and others, and you license to drive will be taken away if the government chooses.
Your example shows that the government does say what happens in regards to rockets and space, and can impose as many restrictions and requirements as they wish.
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation. That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.
Your example of a book with rocketry principles (which you apparently can't even buy unless you are a member of that organization) is hardly comparable to rocket technology and the substantial research and engineering design and testing needed to get to orbit.
First of all, you can buy that book on Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Liquid-Propellant-Progress-Astronautics-Aeronautics/dp/1563470136/ref=asc_df_1563470136/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312126345020&hvpos=1o4&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1768190702724228377&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1022898&hvtargid=pla-491446975174&psc=1). Secondly, it isn't hard to find other books on rocket design, navigation, etc. Gaining the required knowledge is relatively easy. Actually fabricating and building the rocket is the hard part (although 3D printing technology (https://www.relativityspace.com/stargate) is making that a lot easier too).
You may as well tell us that anyone can build a nuclear weapon because there are some reaction equations on Wikipedia.
As with rockets, learning how to build a nuclear bomb is relatively easy. Getting access to the appropriate fissile materials and actually building the bomb is the hard part.
BTW, one hardly needs rockets or nuclear bombs to create an improvised or otherwise low tech WMD. We've already seen how much of a bang fertilizer and diesel fuel in the back of a truck can make and none of those components are particularly hard to get a hold of.
-
Driving is not a public freedom, markjo. Not everyone can drive large trucks and heavy machinery. Cars are dangerous to yourself and others, and your license to drive will be taken away if the government chooses.
Your example shows that the government does say what happens in regards to rockets and space, and can impose as many restrictions and requirements as they wish.
Your example of a book with rocketry principles (which you apparently can't even buy unless you are a member of that organization or an affiliated institution) is hardly comparable to rocket technology and the substantial research and engineering design and testing needed to get to orbit. You may as well tell us that anyone can build a nuclear weapon because there are some reaction equations on Wikipedia.
What exactly is your argument here? That governments can impose as many restrictions and requirements as they wish on private industry? Gov't agencies like the FAA, the FCC, the EPA, the FDA, the ATF...? Sure they can. How is that relevant?
-
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation. That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.
Regulation means that the government controls it. The government controls space. Your idea of private space industry is just that, an idea. An idea that the government controls.
Hence your argument loops back around to an appeal to the integrity of the government. When you say "private space companies" we must add "who are instructed by government" to that sentence.
-
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation. That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.
Regulation means that the government controls it. The government controls space. Your idea of private space industry is just that, an idea. An idea that the government controls.
Hence your argument loops back around to an appeal to the integrity of the government. When you say "private space companies" we must add "who are instructed by government" to that sentence.
Which government?
-
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation. That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.
Regulation means that the government controls it. The government controls space. Your idea of private space industry is just that, an idea. An idea that the government controls.
Hence your argument loops back around to an appeal to the integrity of the government. When you say "private space companies" we must add "who are instructed by government" to that sentence.
Regulation means that the government controls it. The government controls space sky. Your idea of private space airline industry is just that, an idea. An idea that the government controls.
Hence your argument loops back around to an appeal to the integrity of the government. When you say "private space airline companies" we must add "who are instructed by government" to that sentence.
Again, whatever your point is is neither here nor there. So what?
-
Almost every industry is subject to some sort of government regulation. That doesn't preclude the idea of private industry.
Regulation means that the government controls it.
But to what degree does the government control SpaceX?
-
Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
I've been hearing we are very close to civilian space travel for nearly my entire life. And yet, it never materializes. Just because knockoff Tony Stark is the latest conman to promise it doesn't make me any more convinced.
It’s happened. Just cost too much. People have paid millions. It absolutely will happen. I’m not saying u can buy a gift card from Walmart to go to space, but for a lot of people it will become affordable to at the least do once. At that time I’ll start a crowdfunding for any flat earther to take the ride and see once and for all that the earth is not flat.
-
Many flat earth believers say that only astronauts go to space and so no civilian eyes ever get to see the truth. Surely once space x starts launching regular old civilians this entire concept will be finished and the flat earth will finally be put to rest.
Actually, SpaceX is the wrong company to be betting on. Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are much closer to sending paying customers to space (depending on where you consider space to begin). Virgin Galactic has already sent several people above 50 miles (a somewhat controversial definition for space) on test flights and hopes to start launching paying customers in a few months. Blue Origin has a number of successful unmanned test flights above 100km (the more traditional definition of space) and expects manned flights by the end of the year. SpaceX is still in the development stage of its Starliner/Super Heavy, so I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Whether or not they sell civilian Crew Dragon flights is currently unknown.