Skylon hoax

About 70% or more of uk residents money goes to the tax man. I do not want my hard earned getting blasted into space! It's bullshit. Worse thing is people don't even know where their money goes. We just think it goes on public services. And so what if its invested. Will I get a tax refund if they make profits? Fuck no. The rich people will just get richer off it when joe public pays for it.
This thread belongs in AR 

You'll notice that I said that Falcon-1 was designed without public funding, as were the Merlin and Kestrel engines that put it into orbit.  The entire package was designed, tested, and assembled internally by SpaceX.

NASA paid SpaceX, therefore SpaceX received public funding.

RE'ers sure are gullible.

That's a two way street you're treading there.

About 70% or more of uk residents money goes to the tax man. I do not want my hard earned getting blasted into space! It's bullshit. Worse thing is people don't even know where their money goes. We just think it goes on public services. And so what if its invested. Will I get a tax refund if they make profits? Fuck no. The rich people will just get richer off it when joe public pays for it.
This thread belongs in AR 

This is a common misconception. Space agencies and private companies don't just fill a rocket with cash and blast it into orbit. The money is spent here, on earth. It goes into research and development, manufacturing, jobs. The resulting technology is owned and can be licensed and sold for huge profit.

Now, I am not in any way guaranteeing that Skylon will be successful, but that is a risk in any business venture. It is very different from 'blasting your hard earned into space.'

The resulting technology is owned and can be licensed and sold for huge profit.

And this is the very problem. They have no patents. There is nothing to own. Nothing to license. Its madness. How can anyone be so stupid as to fund a private organisation that has a secret they won't tell anyone about and haven't taken steps to legally own?

The options are as follows.

1. What they have done is not patentable. In this case its a total waste of time then.
2. They are frightened when they patent, it is will be available for public scrutiny at which point someone might point out its not going to work and they won't get the tax millions.

There can be no other option. If you make the 'next jet engine' you patent it. Any other suggestion is ridiculous. Otherwise some espionage later and it'll turn up in another country all patented so they can sell it. I mean, how do you stop a member of staff from defecting to Lockheed or something for mega bucks? Its insulting. This can only be corruption.
Aerospace bribery and corruption is rife.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/07/bae1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
http://www.kycbs.net/BoeingBound.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/09/rolls-royce-faces-bribery-inquiry
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/eads-inquiry-into-saudi-bribe-claims-8320667.html
Its a very dirty industry.

Have we got proof that on this day that it has no patent?

Have we got proof that on this day that it has no patent?

I have posted 3 examples in this thread. There is syndicated news where Alan Bond, the company founder says himself

Quote from: https://secure.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/reaction-engines-space-plane_n_2204389.html

"We are not going to tell you how this works," said the company's chief designer Richard Varvill, who started his career at the military engine division of Rolls-Royce. "It is our most closely guarded secret."

The company has deliberately avoided filing patents on its heat exchanger technology to avoid details of how it works - particularly the method for preventing the build-up of frost - becoming public.

wtf? No patents. On revolutionary technology? As the dragons say, "no patent, no product. I'm out". No one operates a private company like this.

"We are not going to tell you how it works"? We just have to trust them that it does? This is laughable.

If they filed a patent, experts would be able to see it doesn't work. This is the real reason. No patent? Its ridiculous. There is nothing to invest in. No more tax payer money for this. My e-petition is already being processed.

Please can you follow the thread and stop asking me to repeat things in it. Thats the second time I've had to repeat a post for you. Do not make out as though evidence is not there when you are too lazy to read my posts.

But experts from ESA have seen it working and seen all the test results, and said its viable? So I dnt see why you think that is dosnt?

What experts that have seen the results and the working prototype say that is does not work?

Please read my post about bribery and corruption in Aerospace.

Quote from: squevil on December 16, 2012, 09:29:16 PM

About 70% or more of uk residents money goes to the tax man. I do not want my hard earned getting blasted into space! It's bullshit. Worse thing is people don't even know where their money goes. We just think it goes on public services. And so what if its invested. Will I get a tax refund if they make profits? Fuck no. The rich people will just get richer off it when joe public pays for it.
This thread belongs in AR 

This is a common misconception. Space agencies and private companies don't just fill a rocket with cash and blast it into orbit. The money is spent here, on earth. It goes into research and development, manufacturing, jobs. The resulting technology is owned and can be licensed and sold for huge profit.

Now, I am not in any way guaranteeing that Skylon will be successful, but that is a risk in any business venture. It is very different from 'blasting your hard earned into space.'

Wouldn't mind but who is going to profit? Won't be me that's for sure. The highlighted part is not literally. But that's essentially what's happening. I'd rather my money go to dole dossers than a space agency that may or not become a success. And don't get me started on how my money gets sent to low lives who can't be bothered to work because our government makes life all too sweet for those in 'need'.

Quote from: mexicanwave on December 17, 2012, 01:48:59 AM

Quote from: squevil on December 16, 2012, 09:29:16 PM

About 70% or more of uk residents money goes to the tax man. I do not want my hard earned getting blasted into space! It's bullshit. Worse thing is people don't even know where their money goes. We just think it goes on public services. And so what if its invested. Will I get a tax refund if they make profits? Fuck no. The rich people will just get richer off it when joe public pays for it.
This thread belongs in AR 

This is a common misconception. Space agencies and private companies don't just fill a rocket with cash and blast it into orbit. The money is spent here, on earth. It goes into research and development, manufacturing, jobs. The resulting technology is owned and can be licensed and sold for huge profit.

Now, I am not in any way guaranteeing that Skylon will be successful, but that is a risk in any business venture. It is very different from 'blasting your hard earned into space.'

Wouldn't mind but who is going to profit? Won't be me that's for sure. The highlighted part is not literally. But that's essentially what's happening. I'd rather my money go to dole dossers than a space agency that may or not become a success. And don't get me started on how my money gets sent to low lives who can't be bothered to work because our government makes life all too sweet for those in 'need'.

The idea behind government funded R&D is that the country as a whole benefits. Development of new technology drives economies forward. Like I said before it provides jobs and contributes to UK industry growth. We used be the world leaders in new technology, without it we stagnate and contribute less and less to the world as a whole.

As for you preferring that money goes to dole dossers?? Are you seriously saying that you would rather a dole dosser got money to do nothing than scientists and engineers got funding to develop exciting new technologies that could potentially change the world. I am not speaking exclusively about Skylon but about all new technologies - medicine, renewable energy, cleaner fuels, faster travel, space exploration, computing, 3D printing, nanotechnology... anything you can think of!

Quote from: garygreen on December 16, 2012, 07:19:08 PM

You'll notice that I said that Falcon-1 was designed without public funding, as were the Merlin and Kestrel engines that put it into orbit.  The entire package was designed, tested, and assembled internally by SpaceX.

NASA paid SpaceX, therefore SpaceX received public funding.

NASA paid SpaceX for their services, not for their R&D.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2012, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 16, 2012, 07:19:08 PM

You'll notice that I said that Falcon-1 was designed without public funding, as were the Merlin and Kestrel engines that put it into orbit.  The entire package was designed, tested, and assembled internally by SpaceX.

NASA paid SpaceX, therefore SpaceX received public funding.

NASA paid SpaceX for their services, not for their R&D.

Source? NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

Quote from: markjo on December 17, 2012, 05:32:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2012, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 16, 2012, 07:19:08 PM

You'll notice that I said that Falcon-1 was designed without public funding, as were the Merlin and Kestrel engines that put it into orbit.  The entire package was designed, tested, and assembled internally by SpaceX.

NASA paid SpaceX, therefore SpaceX received public funding.

NASA paid SpaceX for their services, not for their R&D.

Source? NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

I've already provided sources that state this in other threads on this topic.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/spacex-complete/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/

But, it's irrelevant.  In this case, the burden is definitely on you to provide a source that confirms your assertion that NASA paid SpaceX to develop Falcon-1.  Good luck with that.

so let me get all this straight then. so the government (who know the earth is flat supposedly) have been duped into funding a space ship (that it knows wont work because the earth is flat). think you need to get your story sorted out.

NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

Source?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2012, 07:06:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 17, 2012, 05:32:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2012, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 16, 2012, 07:19:08 PM

You'll notice that I said that Falcon-1 was designed without public funding, as were the Merlin and Kestrel engines that put it into orbit.  The entire package was designed, tested, and assembled internally by SpaceX.

NASA paid SpaceX, therefore SpaceX received public funding.

NASA paid SpaceX for their services, not for their R&D.

Source? NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

I've already provided sources that state this in other threads on this topic.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/spacex-complete/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/

But, it's irrelevant.  In this case, the burden is definitely on you to provide a source that confirms your assertion that NASA paid SpaceX to develop Falcon-1.  Good luck with that.

Where does it say that SpaceX received no public funds?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2012, 07:06:04 AM

NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

On 18 August 2006, NASA announced that SpaceX had won a NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract to demonstrate cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS) with a possible option for crew transport. [40] This contract, designed by NASA to provide "seed money" for development of new boosters, paid SpaceX $278 million to develop the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, with incentive payments paid at milestones culminating in three demonstration launches.

It sure sounds like SpaceX was receiving public money for R&D to me.

Quote from: garygreen on December 17, 2012, 07:43:15 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2012, 07:06:04 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 17, 2012, 05:32:24 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 16, 2012, 09:30:30 PM

Quote from: garygreen on December 16, 2012, 07:19:08 PM

You'll notice that I said that Falcon-1 was designed without public funding, as were the Merlin and Kestrel engines that put it into orbit.  The entire package was designed, tested, and assembled internally by SpaceX.

NASA paid SpaceX, therefore SpaceX received public funding.

NASA paid SpaceX for their services, not for their R&D.

Source? NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

I've already provided sources that state this in other threads on this topic.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/spacex-complete/
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/10/ff-elon-musk-qa/all/

But, it's irrelevant.  In this case, the burden is definitely on you to provide a source that confirms your assertion that NASA paid SpaceX to develop Falcon-1.  Good luck with that.

Where does it say that SpaceX received no public funds?

Again, for the third time, that is not what I've said.  It's pathetic the way you constantly resort to simply pretending that I'm making different claims than I actually make.

My sources confirm that SpaceX achieved orbit on their own with rockets designed, tested, and assembled solely in the private sector, and completely independent of NASA.  It's called Falcon-1.  That's why I keep mentioning Falcon-1.

You claim that, "NASA [paid] SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space."  Please provide a source for this claim.  Or for any other claim you make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

Quote from: Wikipedia

On 18 August 2006, NASA announced that SpaceX had won a NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract to demonstrate cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS) with a possible option for crew transport. [40] This contract, designed by NASA to provide "seed money" for development of new boosters, paid SpaceX $278 million to develop the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, with incentive payments paid at milestones culminating in three demonstration launches.

It sure sounds like SpaceX was receiving public money for R&D to me.

For Falcon-9.  Not for Falcon-1.  You can probably make an educated guess from the numbers which one was designed first.

Quote from: markjo on December 17, 2012, 09:25:29 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 17, 2012, 07:06:04 AM

NASA payed SpaceX long before they allegedly sent anything into space.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX

Quote from: Wikipedia

On 18 August 2006, NASA announced that SpaceX had won a NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract to demonstrate cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS) with a possible option for crew transport. [40] This contract, designed by NASA to provide "seed money" for development of new boosters, paid SpaceX $278 million to develop the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, with incentive payments paid at milestones culminating in three demonstration launches.

It sure sounds like SpaceX was receiving public money for R&D to me.

Falcon-1's first flight was on March 24, 2006.  That was almost 5 months before Space-X received NASA's seed money.