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.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7041
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #1 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.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6501
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #2 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.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 07:43:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

sceptimatic

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #3 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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #4 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?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #5 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?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6501
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #6 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.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 08:30:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #7 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? 
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #8 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


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6501
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #9 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

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #10 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.

Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #11 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?

« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 04:48:40 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #12 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/
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6501
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #13 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

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #14 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.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #15 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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6501
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #16 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.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3801
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #17 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.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #18 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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5629
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« Reply #19 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.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.