[AATW]

A second private company have landed a craft on the moon

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9208qv1kzo

Or…pretended to?

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't understand the obsession with declaring NASA subcontractors as something other than NASA subcontractors. Does it feel more "correct" when they're "independent"?

[AATW]

I don't understand the obsession with declaring NASA subcontractors as something other than NASA subcontractors. Does it feel more "correct" when they're "independent"?

I don't know about obsession, but I don't really see how them being a sub-contractor is relevant.
It's another company, another set of people who have to be "in on it" if it's all being fake.
I don't understand the reticence of FE to investigate their claims.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't know about obsession, but I don't really see how them being a sub-contractor is relevant.
It's another company, another set of people who have to be "in on it" if it's all being fake.

Well, that's the thing - it isn't. It's just that America has turned more right-wing over time and it now prefers subcontracting over giving people government jobs. It changes preciously little, other than their tax status and public accountability.

I don't understand the reticence of FE to investigate their claims.

What claims? NASA has claimed to totally go to space for a few decades now. How is NASA claiming it again introducing a new claim?

Remember when Elon Musk was the RE sweetheart? How's that gone? You reckon this one is gonna go any better?

[William87]

I know you guys are in the UK, so you probably aren't very familar with how US government procurement process works. I've worked the legal and admin side of federal contracting for nearly 20 years.

Firefly isn't a "subcontractor" that just does what the government tells it to do. The work was competed under an IDIQ RFP, which was publically available. So the scope of work wasn't exactly top secret .


The IDIQ was competed under NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. 14 different companies hold prime contracts under the program all of whom are eligible to bid on individual task orders.   NASA issues an RFP with a scope of work and each company submits a proposal. Awards under this particular contract are performance based, which means NASA just tells the contractor what the ultimate outcome should be and leaves it up to the contractor to figure out how to do it.  The whole point of performance based contracting is allowing the contractor as much independence and flexibility in how the work is performed as possible. The whole reason NASA does it this way is to take advantage of research and technology that has already been commerically developed.  NASA itself, is doing very little of that  these days because it is cheaper to to "buy" the services.

The CLPS is also a commercial contract, which is defined by regulation as "services offered and sold competitively in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices".  The whole point of commercial contracting within the fed gov't is to use technology that isn't unique to government services and has already been developed independently.

There's any number of databases and websites you can go on that post the government solicitations.  For work like this, they can often be simmarized as "this is what we want to do and we are looking for companies who can already do it".  In fact, past performance is always a big part of the selection process. During the proposal stage,there is an extensive Q&A period and every question from a contractor or clarification from the governmetn is publoically posted. Once a contract is awarded, all modifications and dollar amounts are also publically available. When the contract is finished, there is a performance review.

The whole process is very transparent, very competitive and highly regulated.  There's a whole set of very extensive regulations called the FAR that contracting offiers must abide by when competing and issuing work.  Each agency also has its own supplement, which usually adds even more stringent requirements.

The idea that federal contracts are being handed out willy nilly and nobody really knows what work is being performed is nonsense.  If for no other reason, industry wouldn't put up with it because there is too much competition for federal dollars.  If anything is even the slightest bit fishy, somebody is filing a protest.

[Pete Svarrior]

You seem to be running in circles. In the same message, you said "they don't just do what the government tells them to do" and "they are hired for a very express purpose, which is to do what the government tells them to do".

Your main counterpoint seems to be that they're given a task and expected outcome, rather than a step-by-step process to mindlessly execute, but that's not particularly different from any other process of delegation.

You also choose to fight arguments that nobody has made - like "The idea that federal contracts are being handed out willy nilly and nobody really knows what work is being performed". You also go into great detail on the fact that we can find out how NASA subcontractors are chosen... which I don't think anyone questioned, have they?

[AATW]

How is NASA claiming it again introducing a new claim?

It's not a new claim, but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it", a new opportunity to inspect the claim.

Remember when Elon Musk was the RE sweetheart?

Not really. Obviously private enterprises making space travel more accessible opens the possibility for more people to experience it for themselves - again, more opportunities to test the claims. But we are nowhere near it being an experience that is accessible to all. It's still prohibitively expensive for most.
I was excited about the promised space hotels and moonbases when I was a kid. Turns out we never managed to find a cheap way of propelling stuff fast enough for it to be practical. Like we never cracked cold fusion.

But it's the same reason we don't have flying cars and flights across the Atlantic still take 7 hours or whatever. We dabbled with supersonic flights with Concorde but it was incredibly expensive, so instead they worked on ways to make the experience more pleasant. Better in-flight entertainment was an easier and cheaper problem to solve.
None of that means planes aren't real, any more than space travel being inaccessible to most means it isn't real. We have multiple technologies which very much rely on it being real.

How's that gone? You reckon this one is gonna go any better?

He seems to be president now. But no, it's not going to go better. The people who dismiss all the other claims about space travel as being fake will dismiss this as fake too.
It's just a bit lazy, which is kind of my point. If this is real then it has to change some FE models in which this would not be possible. Isn't that a claim worth investigating?

[Pete Svarrior]

It's not a new claim, but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it"

I'm sure the people at NASA have changed quite significantly over the last few decades, too. I really struggle to see the novelty.

a new opportunity to inspect the claim.

Inspect away! Who's stopping you?

Remember when Elon Musk was the RE sweetheart?

Not really.

Eh. No surprises there.

Isn't that a claim worth investigating?

Maybe. What do you propose? You just keep saying "inspect" and "investigate", but what specifically do you want us to do (presumably free of charge), and why aren't you doing it yourself if you want it so badly?

I think part of the problem is that you're asking us to veer away from Zeteticism. We're primarily interested in exploring the phenomena around us, and it sounds to me that you expect us to read a news article and emptily debate it. If that's the case, then you chose a forum of people who are explicitly not interested in that form of inquiry - a forum specificially dedicated to another form - and you're expressing frustration that they're not playing ball with you. Cue the usual analogy to someone gatecrashing a footie forum and complaining that no one's talking about trains.

Of couse, I could have misunderstood you. If I have, that's what the questions above are for.

[Action80]

We have multiple technologies which very much rely on it being real.

I could be wrong, but I think AATW cannot provide one instance of any piece of technology relying on space travel as a reason for existence (i.e., "The reason "whatchamacallit" exists is due to space travel.")

[Tom Bishop]

AATW needs to learn more and actually take a job with a government contractor. For the most part the contractors act as temp agencies who hire people out to work for government managers at government facilities. This is also how it works in the private industry for the contractors that Disney, IBM, Kraft, and other big companies use. Some types of contractors are actually independent, such as waste management services, but the main ones doing the work act as temps.

For Firefly, a big hint is that they list several government bases on their "locations" page. Another hint should be that advanced rockets aren't actually public products and require extreme secrecy since they could be used for ICMBs.

Also, even if you believe in the RE Theory narrative you have to be a retart to think that a company could send a lander to the moon after a few years of research without serious government help and oversight.

[Rushy]

Contractors are just the US government wearing a mask in order to avoid legal and fiscal responsibility. And, as Tom pointed out, Blue Ghost doesn't have any private facilities where they developed this supposed moon lander. Go figure.

[William87]

Your main counterpoint seems to be that they're given a task and expected outcome, rather than a step-by-step process to mindlessly execute, but that's not particularly different from any other process of delegation.

No, my main counterpoint is that the technology involved in getting to the moon and back is developed by, belongs to and is 100% controlled by the contractor, not the US government. 

This is from the SOW for the original RFP for the main IDIQ, where contractors basically compete for the right to compete on individual task orders

“The Contractor shall provide all resources and functions to perform the Commercial Lunar Payload Services identified within this Statement of Work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Contractor shall select launch opportunities, determine the overall Mission Architecture, and provide the end-to-end service including operations associated with the Launch Vehicle, Launch Site, Spacecraft, Lander, Mission Design and Analysis, Ground Systems, and Payload Support. “

 Its a payload delivery contract, the space equivalent of Fedx.  The contractor determines and controls virtually everything about the mission, except the freight.

You’re free to look up the solicitation for yourself at sam.gov The solicitation # is 80HQTR18R0011R, just choose Contract Opportunities and make sure you include “inactive” in the search since its already been awarded.  Its all public knowledge.  Hundreds of thousands of people have probably looked at it.  NASA isn’t trying to hide it or keep anybody from bidding if they open up a new solicitation. 

Maybe willynilly isn’t the right phrase, but suggesting the mission was anything different from what is reported implies the contractor is participating in a conspiracy to fake a moon landing. If that is what is happening, then contracts would have to be awarded discreetly with zero oversight or transparency, which is far from reality.

but it's a new company, a new set of people who have to be "in on it",

It isn’t just one new company or set of people.  The program started out with, I think, 5 contract holders.  There’s 14 now and the option to add more.  One of the other contractors is scheduled to make another lunar landing tomorrow. 

NASA][url]NASA[/url]

[William87]

AATW needs to learn more and actually take a job with a government contractor. For the most part the contractors act as temp agencies who hire people out to work for government managers at government facilities. This is also how it works in the private industry for the contractors that Disney, IBM, Kraft, and other big companies use. Some types of contractors are actually independent, such as waste management services, but the main ones doing the work act as temps.

I've worked for a government contractor for 20 years with a engineering and construction firm and you don't know what you are talking about.

It is true that some facilities like LANL, Argonne, and Lawrence Livermore  contract out the management of  facilities, they are primarily DOE facilites that focus on laboratory research, national security and nuclear programs and are a very small percentage of the total work  done under federal contracts.  They are contracted out because the work is highly specialized, technical and usually more academic in nature.

LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad which is composed of Battelle Memorial, a non-profit research compay, Texas A&M University and the University of California.  It's hardly a "temp agency".  Lawrence Livermore is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), which is a partnership between the University of California, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies, and AECOM (one of the largest engineering firms in the country).  Again, hardly a temp agency.  Lockheed Martin holds the largest $ of federal contracts.  They are hardly a temp agency.

GSA contracts out building and facility management services, not the managment of the actual facilities, under GSA schedules.  Like every other federal contracting opportunity, there is a vetting process called a responsibility determination and every government contractor has to be registered.  To maintain active registration you have to update and certify certain information on a yearly basis.  Financial records (including how much senior management makes in compensation, if you meet certain criteria), ownership changes, potential conflicts of interest , that you comply with certain federal regulations regarding what type of IT equipment you use and that it meets certain security requirements, socioeconomic regulations, hiring practices,  import/export regulations, that you're properly registered with and filing compliance reports the SBA, VETS, EEOC and any number of other agencies that track compliance. If you are a prime contractor, you have to report and meet certain goals for subcontracting  in about 9-10 different types of business entities. For certain types and dollar value contracts, you have to literally open your books up to be audited by the federal government and file yearly reports on all your accounting practices and report any changes.  Get new accounting software?  That's about a 10 page document that has to completed and submitted.

And all that can be before you even win any work. There's little to no negotiating room in contract terms because 95% of it is governed by federal law.  The Federal Acquistion Regulation.  Look it up. The amount of oversight during performance is best described as micromanagement.

Get the picture?  You make it sound like government contractors aren't much better than used car salesmen. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Alot of government work is highly specialized both in terms of the work and how it must be executed.  All of the largest, most respected engineering, construction and STEM firms (including mine) in the world have dedicated divisions doing only US government work because despite all the hoops you have to jump through, it is low risk, provided  you know the rules, it pays well and on time and is recession proof.  Companies looking to make a quick, easy buck need not apply, though.  If they manage to get through the vetting process, they won't last long before getting debarred.  Screw around enough and go to jail.

The difference between what you think you know and what you actually know would be funny, if it didn't border on delusional.  I can't fault you for not knowing what you don't know, but I do fault you for thinking that there isn't anything that you don't know.

[William87]

Also, even if you believe in the RE Theory narrative you have to be a retart to think that a company could send a lander to the moon after a few years of research without serious government help and oversight.

Try doing some basic research. The CEO was previously the CEO of Millennium Space Systems, was in senior management at Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. and in the U.S. Air Force.  His CV is right there on the website.  He’s hardly a graduate student. Also take a look at the rest  of the leadership.  This isn’t a bunch of guys working out of their parents’ basement.

For Firefly, a big hint is that they list several government bases on their "locations" page

 

Blue Ghost doesn't have any private facilities where they developed this supposed moon lander

 Their production and test facilities aren’t anywhere near government facilities.  It’s right there on the website.  It isn’t unreasonable that they use government launch facilities.  If your are in the business of building airplanes and want to fly it...you take it to an airport.  You don’t build your own.

Cedar Park, TX Headquarters and Spacecraft Facility Firefly’s north Austin headquarters and spacecraft production facility includes open engineering environments to rapidly innovate, two Mission Control Centers, and an ISO-8 cleanroom that accommodates multiple spacecraft.
Briggs, TX Launch Vehicle Production and Test Facilities Just 30 minutes north of headquarters, Firefly’s 200-acre Texas Rocket Ranch enables launch vehicle production, integration, and testing all in one convenient location. Here Firefly operates six test stands, automated fiber placement machinery, a 7-axis robotic powermill, and state-of-the-art engine production technology.

advanced rockets aren't actually public products and require extreme secrecy since they could be used for ICMBs

First,  A moon launch vehicle and an ICBM have completely different design specs.and capabilities.  It like saying you could use a cargo van to win a Formula 500 race.

Second, read the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR)

Third, there’s nothing secret about how rockets work. There are at least 14 different companies that have the capability of launching a rocket and landing on the moon.  How do I know this?  Because they all have contracts to do it.  Another one of them is doing it later today and there is nearly a dozen more missions scheduled this year.

[Action80]

William69 did a whole lot of writing claiming the contract is public, but mysteriously failed to directly link said contract.

Second, for being such a smart guy, he should understand that if a cargo van had a 2-cylinder, water-cooled engine, it is possible for it to win such a race.

Third, everyone knows rockets do not go to the moon.

[AATW]

a new opportunity to inspect the claim.

Inspect away! Who's stopping you?

Well, no-one. But I accept the claim. I've watched some video of the landing and it orbiting the moon but I don't feel the need to inspect it or micro-analyse every frame of it.
I don't have the skills to anyway - the people who call all this sort of stuff fake definitely don't either.
I am interested in all this stuff. I've seen a Shuttle launch - more by luck than judgement, just happened to be in Florida on holiday when one was going up.
I've visited the Kennedy space centre a few times, watched some documentaries about it all. I read "A Man On The Moon" - an excellent book about the Apollo programme and touches on the Gemini and Mercury ones that preceded it. I've read about how Jodrell Bank were tracking Apollo 11 - and an unmanned Russian mission that was trying to land first. I've read how the Australians were relaying signals from the Apollo craft to the US.
I've done what I practically can and based on the evidence I've seen I'm satisfied that it all happened. Rocket technology demonstrably exists, it's not like they're claiming to have teleported there. All the stuff I've seen about it being a hoax are based on ignorance or incredulity. All of it.

Maybe. What do you propose? You just keep saying "inspect" and "investigate", but what specifically do you want us to do (presumably free of charge), and why aren't you doing it yourself. I think part of the problem is that you're asking us to veer away from Zeteticism. We're primarily interested in exploring the phenomena around us, and it sounds to me that you expect us to read a news article and emptily debate it.

I've covered the why aren't I doing it above. I've suggested some things above which could be done.
Fair point about Zeteticism, but you must have some strategy for coming to beliefs about stuff you can't directly experience.
Mine is to evaluate the evidence. What other option is there?

and you're expressing frustration that they're not playing ball with you.

I'm just surprised that more effort isn't put in to this. OK, going in to space isn't that accessible, but you can go see rocket launches for yourself (easier for those in the US, admittedly). With decent optics you can see the ISS. Most FE people seem to just put it all in one big box marked "FAKE" and leave it at that.
I guess the reason I see this as something you'd want to be looking in to more is that it's a discriminator between the two models.
If there are things like GPS satellites and the ISS orbiting the earth, if there are things orbiting the moon and landing on it then I'd submit that the FE model as presented in the Wiki isn't possible.
I think you dispute that, and I'd be interested in your ideas about that, but most FE people seem to just call it all fake without putting much effort in to assessing the evidence.

[AATW]

We have multiple technologies which very much rely on it being real.

I could be wrong, but I think AATW cannot provide one instance of any piece of technology relying on space travel as a reason for existence (i.e., "The reason "whatchamacallit" exists is due to space travel.")

A fair amount of technology and products were developed because of the space race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

But my point above is that technologies like GPS and satellite TV only work because of satellites orbiting the earth.
As I said in my reply to Pete, the ISS can be seen from the ground and with decent optics you can make out its shape.

[Action80]

The list you provided only claims "space travel" as a reason for their development...like thermometers wouldn't exist unless space travel happened...

C'mon...

[AATW]

The list you provided only claims "space travel" as a reason for their development...like thermometers wouldn't exist unless space travel happened...

C'mon...

It's claimed that a certain type of thermometer was developed as part of the research for the space race - obviously thermometers existed before space travel existed.

But my point was more the other way around - technologies like GPS exist and work because of the space race. The ISS can be seen from the ground. Have a look.

[Tom Bishop]

LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad which is composed of Battelle Memorial, a non-profit research compay, Texas A&M University and the University of California.  It's hardly a "temp agency".  Lawrence Livermore is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), which is a partnership between the University of California, Bechtel National, BWX Technologies, and AECOM (one of the largest engineering firms in the country).  Again, hardly a temp agency.  Lockheed Martin holds the largest $ of federal contracts.  They are hardly a temp agency.

Do they answer to the instructions and oversight of the parent organization? If so then it's not truly an independent contractor who has complete freedom to choose how to do the work. They are basically temp workers - disposable workers from a third party company who operate the main business under managerial instruction of the parent organization and are used for various legal and financial reasons. They may even have 401K plans and six figure salaries, but are used because they are more legally disposable than direct hires nonetheless.

You stated: "LANL, for example, is managed by a company called Triad" - Can Triad decide to expand their business to the pornographic film industry and get away with filming a pornographic movie on publicly funded Los Alamos National Laboratory facilities? Absolutely not. It is not their facility and they are likely operating with oversight. So I recommend that you just keep quiet about this.