Proof of a round earth?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 22, 2008, 01:15:31 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 08:54:11 AM

The same way that we know that this web site isn't a conspiracy run dis-information site full of FE "supporters" who's sole function is to make the idea of a flat earth seem preposterous.  In other words, we can't know for sure, but it does seem like a pretty safe bet that the privately funded space industry is what it appears to be.

So you admit that the estimated probability is not conclusive.

No.  I'm saying that it can be pretty tough to get some FE'ers to break character.

How is the average characteristics of FE proponents relevant to the ability to prove or disprove NASA's involvement with an alleged third party's actions?

Follow the link in my signature.

You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.

You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth.  Right?  Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 21, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Follow the link in my signature.

You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.

You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth.  Right?  Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.

Interesting.  Can you link me to the part of ENAG where he does this?

Do anyone of you know if this video has been proven fake?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Or this one: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

( http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html )

The second is the same thing.  And yet again, you are attempting to use video proof of something.

Would you like me to prove, using video, that a fat slug like alien from another galaxy would get excited at the thought of having a bipedal human dancing girl?  Or, maybe I should prove that people can live though anything except having their heads cut off with archaic weapons?

Video and pictures do not count as proof.  It is far too easy to edit and doctor them with just a bit of practice.

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Quote from: C-Ray on December 22, 2008, 03:01:06 PM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 21, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Follow the link in my signature.

You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.

You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth.  Right?  Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.

Interesting.  Can you link me to the part of ENAG where he does this?

That information was brought forth in an interview with Charles Johnson.  I'll see if I can find it, but a simple google search for Flat Earth will get you there too.  In the interview, after the death of his wife, he talks about how the formula was used to calculate the circumference of Flat Earth and how because of the discrepancy in the formula your "bendy light" theory was birthed to compensate.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on December 22, 2008, 03:04:08 PM

Quote from: C-Ray on December 22, 2008, 03:01:06 PM

Quote from: Cheryl Wiesbaden on December 21, 2008, 02:26:32 PM

Follow the link in my signature.

You are yet to provide any evidence that he was correct. You have apparently read a Wikipedia article and are now an expert on the subject so it should be easy.

You do realize that his calculation is what gives "Flat Earth Theory" their measurements of Flat Earth.  Right?  Your own president, now dead, used his calculations to come up with the circumference and diameter of Flat Earth.

Interesting.  Can you link me to the part of ENAG where he does this?

That information was brought forth in an interview with Charles Johnson.  I'll see if I can find it, but a simple google search for Flat Earth will get you there too.  In the interview, after the death of his wife, he talks about how the formula was used to calculate the circumference of Flat Earth and how because of the discrepancy in the formula your "bendy light" theory was birthed to compensate.

I'd love to read it.  It will be interesting to see exactly what method Charles Johnson used to read Rowbotham's corpse's mind.

But seriously, try to find it.  It sounds interesting.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing.  In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards.  Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?

He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it.  Why?

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 07:53:51 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing.  In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards.  Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?

He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it.  Why?

http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize

The Tier One project made two successful competitive flights, X1 on September 29, 2004 piloted by Mike Melvill to 102.9 km and X2 on October 4, 2004 piloted by Brian Binnie to 112 km. They thus won the prize, which was awarded on November 6, 2004. (Note: the winning team is referred to by several names at various times: Tier One, Scaled Composites, and Mojave Aerospace Ventures.)

I'm sorry, but what were you saying about 100KM?

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 07:53:51 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing.  In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards.  Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?

He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it.  Why?

Not sure how this got narrowed down to just one company, but FET in general says that space flight is impossible.  They say so because of the constant acceleration of FE make it impossible.  They however equate the fluctuation in gravitational influence to the heavenly bodies.  In theory if this is true then then the escape velocity of FE should eventually reach zero and you should be able to enter space.  If that is possible then the whole NASA is nothing but a conspiracy get's tossed out the door.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 23, 2008, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 07:53:51 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing.  In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards.  Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?

He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it.  Why?

http://space.xprize.org/ansari-x-prize

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_PRIZE

The Tier One project made two successful competitive flights, X1 on September 29, 2004 piloted by Mike Melvill to 102.9 km and X2 on October 4, 2004 piloted by Brian Binnie to 112 km. They thus won the prize, which was awarded on November 6, 2004. (Note: the winning team is referred to by several names at various times: Tier One, Scaled Composites, and Mojave Aerospace Ventures.)

I'm sorry, but what were you saying about 100KM?

Hm... let's see, which source do I trust better?  The pilot's own website, stating that he reached 100KM, or a wikipedia article that says something different?  Read my link again.  It is the Space.com site.

And even their report starts with:
"MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA The first non-governmental rocket ship flew to the edge of space today and was piloted to a safe landing on a desert airport runway here. "

( http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html )

To the edge of space.  At least they understand the difference between space flight and orbital maneuvers.

Wikipedia is a good site, sometimes.  Check their sources before you use them for any particular article.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 23, 2008, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 07:53:51 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing.  In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards.  Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?

He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it.  Why?

Not sure how this got narrowed down to just one company, but FET in general says that space flight is impossible.  They say so because of the constant acceleration of FE make it impossible.  They however equate the fluctuation in gravitational influence to the heavenly bodies.  In theory if this is true then then the escape velocity of FE should eventually reach zero and you should be able to enter space.  If that is possible then the whole NASA is nothing but a conspiracy get's tossed out the door.

Possibly.  I'm still researching that particular area, which is made a bit harder by my lack of math.  I have to get Greeneyes to do the math for me and she has schoolwork of her own.  As I said on another board, give me a few days.  I'm still researching.

Quote from: C-Ray on December 23, 2008, 12:30:52 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 23, 2008, 12:04:19 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 07:53:51 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Precision is very good when you're speaking or writing.  In fact, while he reached the edge of the atmosphere, he did not go past it by RE standards.  Or didn't you know that the Karman line at 100 klicks is considered to be the boundary between atmosphere and space?

He did not achieve his claim of space flight, and yet he uses the same misleading language that NASA does to describe it.  Why?

Not sure how this got narrowed down to just one company, but FET in general says that space flight is impossible.  They say so because of the constant acceleration of FE make it impossible.  They however equate the fluctuation in gravitational influence to the heavenly bodies.  In theory if this is true then then the escape velocity of FE should eventually reach zero and you should be able to enter space.  If that is possible then the whole NASA is nothing but a conspiracy get's tossed out the door.

Possibly.  I'm still researching that particular area, which is made a bit harder by my lack of math.  I have to get Greeneyes to do the math for me and she has schoolwork of her own.  As I said on another board, give me a few days.  I'm still researching.

I understand not trying to rush you.  I just saw my question getting pushed towards semantics about a single company.  Take your time.

Hm... let's see, which source do I trust better?  The pilot's own website, stating that he reached 100KM, or a wikipedia article that says something different?  Read my link again.  It is the Space.com site.

And even their report starts with:
"MOJAVE, CALIFORNIA The first non-governmental rocket ship flew to the edge of space today and was piloted to a safe landing on a desert airport runway here. "

( http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/SS1_touchdown_040621.html )

To the edge of space.  At least they understand the difference between space flight and orbital maneuvers.

Wikipedia is a good site, sometimes.  Check their sources before you use them for any particular article.

Did you check the dates?  The flight that you linked to was performed on June 21 and was the fist flight to 100KM or more (328,491 feet).  The two flights within one week to win the X-prize were flown on September 29 and on October 4 and achieved 102.9KM and 112KM respectively.

You can check out the test logs yourself:
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm

I don't think that anyone ever claimed that Space Ship One ever achieved sustained space flight anyways, so I'm not sure that I know what your point is.

I understand not trying to rush you.  I just saw my question getting pushed towards semantics about a single company.  Take your time.

I was replying to the poster about the videos that were posted... He asked a question about two videos he posted.  That was a separate discussion than the whole space flight question that you were asking about.  It just happened to be in the thread.

@Markjo:

You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight.  You asked if they had ever been discredited.  True?  In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted.  I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.

It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight.  As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.

@Markjo:

You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight.  You asked if they had ever been discredited.  True?  In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted.  I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.

It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight.  As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.

No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos.  I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements for the challenge.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 23, 2008, 12:52:51 PM

@Markjo:

You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight.  You asked if they had ever been discredited.  True?  In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted.  I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.

It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight.  As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.

No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos.  I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements for the challenge.

Hopefully by 2012 the Lunar X-Prize will be awarded.  That is assuming that one of the 16 teams can meet the requirements to win it.  Then how will FES react to space travel?

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 23, 2008, 12:52:51 PM

@Markjo:

You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight.  You asked if they had ever been discredited.  True?  In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted.  I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.

It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight.  As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.

No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos.  I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements.

My bad... you were the one discussing that bit with me, so I thought you had posted them.  Can we say oops?

Anyway, from what I see, the flights you posted for the x-prize did enter space.  Not by much, but they did so.  Admitted.  Now... you of course will show us how they plan to make a sustained flight?

Looking at the plans of their ship, it's very good work, but do they really believe that nothing can break through both of the double hull walls?

"You can think of the design of the cockpit with its dual seals and window panes as essentially a space worthy cockpit surrounded by a second outer space worthy shell. This redundancy eliminates the need for a space suit and allows the crew to operate and test the vehicle in comfort knowing that any major single failure will not result in loss of cabin pressure. "

(http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/faq.htm) The question was, why isn't the pilot in a space suit?

So, at Mach 3.06, anything that hits the outer hull is not going to penetrate to the secondary?  What is that thing made of and where do I get some for my car?

@ C-Ray:  I don't know.  By the time someone wins the Lunar prize, I'll be defending some other idea.  FE is fun, but by 2012 I'll have exhausted the debate possibilities of the topic.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Scaled Composites is a government contractor.

Did you check the dates?  The flight that you linked to was performed on June 21 and was the fist flight to 100KM or more (328,491 feet).  The two flights within one week to win the X-prize were flown on September 29 and on October 4 and achieved 102.9KM and 112KM respectively.

You can check out the test logs yourself:
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm

I don't think that anyone ever claimed that Space Ship One ever achieved sustained space flight anyways, so I'm not sure that I know what your point is.

Scaled Composites is a government contractor.

Quote from: markjo on December 22, 2008, 07:53:51 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:05:10 PM

As for the first video:  They claim to have achieved civilian space flight in 2004.  However, a closer look at the record shows that he did not even achieve orbit, reaching only suborbital height.  62 miles or 100 klicks above ground is impressive, but it is not space flight.  He did not reach escape velocity for either FE or RE.

What does escape velocity (or even orbital velocity) have to do with space flight?  It seems that the term space flight is pretty self explanatory (flying in space).  Scaled Composites never claimed sustained space flight or orbit so I don't see any reason to cry deception.  As I recall, the first two project Mercury space flights were similar sub-orbital hops as well.

Scaled Composites is a government contractor.

So is Microsoft.  What's your point?

Quote

Did you check the dates?  The flight that you linked to was performed on June 21 and was the fist flight to 100KM or more (328,491 feet).  The two flights within one week to win the X-prize were flown on September 29 and on October 4 and achieved 102.9KM and 112KM respectively.

You can check out the test logs yourself:
http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/logs-WK-SS1.htm

I don't think that anyone ever claimed that Space Ship One ever achieved sustained space flight anyways, so I'm not sure that I know what your point is.

Scaled Composites is a government contractor.

So is IBM.  What's your point?

Quote from: markjo on December 23, 2008, 01:08:38 PM

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 23, 2008, 12:52:51 PM

@Markjo:

You posted two videos claiming that they had achieved space flight.  You asked if they had ever been discredited.  True?  In checking on those videos, I found the information I posted.  I made a mistake, not noticing that you had changed to different flights, my bad.

It still stands that the videos posted are not space flight.  As for the other flights, I haven't looked into them yet.

No, Svenanders posted the links to the videos.  I posted a link to the X-Prize Foundation's page referring to the Ansari X-Prize and a linked quote to the Wikipedia article about the Ansari X-Prize, highlighting that both X-Prize flights exceeded the 100KM requirements.

My bad... you were the one discussing that bit with me, so I thought you had posted them.  Can we say oops?

No problem.  Just don't let it happen again. 

Anyway, from what I see, the flights you posted for the x-prize did enter space.  Not by much, but they did so.  Admitted.  Now... you of course will show us how they plan to make a sustained flight?

They don't. 

Looking at the plans of their ship, it's very good work, but do they really believe that nothing can break through both of the double hull walls?

"You can think of the design of the cockpit with its dual seals and window panes as essentially a space worthy cockpit surrounded by a second outer space worthy shell. This redundancy eliminates the need for a space suit and allows the crew to operate and test the vehicle in comfort knowing that any major single failure will not result in loss of cabin pressure. "

(http://scaled.com/projects/tierone/faq.htm) The question was, why isn't the pilot in a space suit?

So, at Mach 3.06, anything that hits the outer hull is not going to penetrate to the secondary?  What is that thing made of and where do I get some for my car?

Space Ship One and Space Ship Two are only designed for 100KM+ sub-orbital hops.  The Ansari X Prize only required a 100KM high flight twice in one week.  America's Space Prize is a separate competition that neither Scaled Composites nor Virgin Galactic seem to be interested in at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Space_Prize

With the rules of America's Space Prize being what they are and the 2010 deadline, I have a feeling that it will probably not be awarded this time around.

What's your point?

My point is that government contractors have classified contracts with the government, and its employees are really just government employees by proxy. They're given Top Secret Clearance and are right there in the government's secured facilities taking orders from government managers.

Government contractors claiming to send things into space isn't anything new. Lockheed Martin has been claiming to send satellites into space for decades.

Quote

What's your point?

My point is that government contractors have classified contracts with the government, and its employees are really just government employees by proxy. They're given Top Secret Clearance and are right there in the government's secured facilities taking orders from government managers.

Government contractors claiming to send things into space isn't anything new. Lockheed Martin has been claiming to send satellites into space for decades.

The rules of the Ansari X Prize strictly forbade government funding of or the use of classified government information in the competing space craft.

Besides, do you have any evidence suggesting that Scaled Composites had access to any classified government information?

Besides, do you have any evidence suggesting that Scaled Composites had access to any classified government information?

What does that have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites is a government contractor?

Quote

Besides, do you have any evidence suggesting that Scaled Composites had access to any classified government information?

What does that have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites is a government contractor?

What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?

Quote

What's your point?

My point is that government contractors have classified contracts with the government, and its employees are really just government employees by proxy. They're given Top Secret Clearance and are right there in the government's secured facilities taking orders from government managers.

Government contractors claiming to send things into space isn't anything new. Lockheed Martin has been claiming to send satellites into space for decades.

My wife is a government contractor and she works out of our house in Savannah Georgia.

What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?

Being a government aerospace contractor means that they are working closely with NASA and the DOD.

My wife is a government contractor and she works out of our house in Savannah Georgia.

Is she under contract to do whatever the government tells her to do? Does she report to and work directly under a government manager?

My point was that government contractors are really just temp workers the government hires to manage directly. There really isn't any difference between a government employee and a government contractor. They are both given the same secret clearance and sign the same classified agreements. The government uses contractors because they are cheaper and can be terminated at any time without having to worry about benefits.

Raytheon, for example, is just a face name for the government. There really isn't a Raytheon. It's a temp agency. Their employees are all working in government facilities for government managers. The same goes for the other government contractors. They're all temp agencies.

Quote

What does being a government contractor have to do with the fact that Scaled Composites had to abide by the rules of the Ansari X Prize in order to collect their $10 million?

Being a government aerospace contractor means that they are working closely with NASA and the DOD.

Tom, I still have no idea of what your point is.  How does Scaled Composites being a government contractor change the fact that Space Ship One traveled to an altitude of 100KM or more on three separate occasions, or are you just trying to change the subject?

Tom, I still have no idea of what your point is.  How does Scaled Composites being a government contractor change the fact that Space Ship One traveled to an altitude of 100KM or more on three separate occasions, or are you just trying to change the subject?

Government Contractors are in the pockets of the government.

Government Contractors are in the pockets of the government.

Performing a little work for the government does not instantly imply that the whole company has fallen under the complete and total control of said government.