Another addition to the conspiracy? Thoughts?

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/space-x-did-it.html


Thoughts?  Are they in it for the money that NASA is skimming off of Congress with their projects?  Even though they are privately owned?  Faked Video?  Fish eye?  For them to be part of the conspiracy seems a bit fishy to me.  I can't see any reason for them to be secretly another addition of NASA since not many people question NASA and they don't have trouble getting their bills padded by Congress.  This appears to be legit to me.  Input?  Questions?  Flaming rebuttals?

Also, since SpaceX appears to be selling tickets into space for $100,000 to $200,000 for a trip into space, it would seem that there'd be a large outcry once those private sector citizens got into space if the earth was flat and they weren't actually going into space because it is impossible.

I think that you need to add the Space Insurance industry to the conspiracy list too.  After all, why would they pay out millions of dollars for a fake satellite failure?  Doesn't seem like a good business model to me.

http://www.orbireport.com/Linx/Insurance.html

Below is a selection of official web sites for major space insurance and financing companies worldwide.

http://www.solarstorms.org/Sinsurance.html

In the satellite business, just about every aspect of manufacturing, launching and operating a satellite can be insured, at rates that depend on the level of riskiness. Typically for a given satellite, 10-15 large insurers (called underwriters) and 20-30 smaller ones may participate.

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/ogco2003/rg030723.htm

1. Are satellites treated as "aircraft" under the New York Insurance Law?

2. May an unauthorized insurer write insurance in New York to cover physical damage to a satellite and legal liability arising out of the launch and orbit of a satellite on an excess (surplus) line basis? If so, what are the applicable licensing requirements?

3. Does insurance coverage for physical damage to a satellite or insurance for legal liability arising out of the launch and orbit of a satellite come within the limited aircraft exemption under N.Y. Ins. Law § 2117(c)(1) (McKinney 2000 & Supp. 2003) discussed in OGC Opinion No. 89-56 (NILS)?

http://www.axaspace.com/

AXA Space is an underwriting manager for space and telecommunications insurance. The company, which provides property and business interruption coverages for launchers and satellites, was founded on the premise that space insurance could only be underwritten profitably by using technical and engineering information to discriminate against unacceptable risks. AXA Space was the first company to be devoted exclusively to technical space underwriting.

I think that you need to add the Space Insurance industry to the conspiracy list too.  After all, why would they pay out millions of dollars for a fake satellite failure?  Doesn't seem like a good business model to me.

Perhaps they don't know that the satellite failure is fake. Just like how Progressive Insurance doesn't know if your car really got hit by a hit-n-run, or if you just carelessly backed into a telephone pole when you made your claim.

I wouldn't put it past NASA to commit insurance fraud as an additional source of revenue.

Quote

I think that you need to add the Space Insurance industry to the conspiracy list too.  After all, why would they pay out millions of dollars for a fake satellite failure?  Doesn't seem like a good business model to me.

Perhaps they don't know that the satellite failure is fake. Just like how Progressive Insurance doesn't know if your car really got hit by a hit-n-run, or if you just carelessly backed into a telephone pole when you made your claim.

I wouldn't put it past NASA to commit insurance fraud as an additional source of revenue.

Have you ever made an insurance claim, Tom?  Did the insurance adjuster not come out to look at the damage?  Did the agent issuing the policy not take pictures of your car when you got the policy (for, among other reasons, to make sure that you actually had a car to insure)?

Tom, you may be that gullible, but I don't think that an insurance company is going to just pay out hundreds of millions of dollars without a pretty thorough investigation. 

Have you ever made an insurance claim, Tom?  Did the insurance adjuster not come out to look at the damage?  Did the agent issuing the policy not take pictures of your car when you got the policy (for, among other reasons, to make sure that you actually had a car to insure)

NASA could have easily claimed that the satellite was completely vaporized upon re-entry, or that its pieces hit the ocean and sunk away never to be found.

Again, how does a company profit from this?  Spacex is offering a product to a wide market of consumers. Including private space flight.  In addition, NASA is heavily promoting this and the expansion of the private (non government) spacecraft launch market.  Why would they do this if it is all fake?  Company's are in the business of making money.  As more and more of these private companies successfully launch into space, this conspiracy becomes less and less likely.

http://www.spacex.com/company.php

Quote

Have you ever made an insurance claim, Tom?  Did the insurance adjuster not come out to look at the damage?  Did the agent issuing the policy not take pictures of your car when you got the policy (for, among other reasons, to make sure that you actually had a car to insure)

NASA could have easily claimed that the satellite was completely vaporized upon re-entry, or that its pieces hit the ocean and sunk away never to be found.

We aren't exactly talking about a toaster here. When a satelite (many of which are the size of cars) re-enters the atmosphere it burns up in a fiery ball which is clearly visible in an otherwise featureless sky. How exactly is it that satelite insurance companies (which could lose millions of dollars to a faulty claim) are incapable of monitoring such occurences? They have a huge amount at stake to be ignoring their assets in such a manner.

Also, you would need an awfully high flying plane or a truly immense weather balloon to get a satelite to a height suitable to drop it from. (responding to post prior to last edit)

Again, how does a company profit from this?  Spacex is offering a product to a wide market of consumers.

They make money from:

-Investors.
- Organizations paying them hundreds of millions of dollars to put a satellite in orbit. When really all thy put up is a cheap high altitude dirigible with an attached antenna and give them the coordinates.
- NASA laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through them for "ISS maintenance"

How exactly is it that satelite insurance companies (which could lose millions of dollars to a faulty claim) are incapable of monitoring such occurences? They have a huge amount at stake to be ignoring their assets in such a manner.

Why does Progressive Insurance insure your car without being able to monitor every scratch or collision you get?

The answer is that they do it because they weighed the risks ahead of time and thought that they'd come out ahead. It's a gamble. If they suddenly go out of business because they foolhardily weighed the risks incorrectly, then so be it.

Says you, but you have no proof as usual

So why are they hiring people like aerospace engineers?:

https://spacex.com/careers.php

Also you have not answered why NASA would promote privatization and a free market for space exploration if they are trying to keep their "conspiracy" a secret.

Also why are they PAYING companies like Spacex to develop these technologies.

What happens when 10 private companies are sending spacecraft into orbit?
What happens when Canada or UK is doing it too?

Are you just going to keep insisting on this conspiracy?

Quote

How exactly is it that satelite insurance companies (which could lose millions of dollars to a faulty claim) are incapable of monitoring such occurences? They have a huge amount at stake to be ignoring their assets in such a manner.

Why does Progressive Insurance insure your car without being able to monitor every scratch or collision you get?

The answer is that they do it because they weighed the risks ahead of time and thought that they'd come out ahead. It's a gamble. If they suddenly go out of business because they foolhardily weighed the risks incorrectly, then so be it.

So Progressive doesn't send out an agent to inspect the damage before paying your claim?     What about requiring 3 written estimates from a body shop before authorizing repairs?  Why do you think deductibles are so high these days?  Do you even know how the insurance business works (I'll give you a hint: they lose money every time they pay a claim)?  Yes, it's a gamble, but one where the insurance company tries to stack the odds in their favor, not yours.

They have quite a few customers lined up.  Are they just going to fake all this?  Bye the way from what I am reading the customer provides the payload such as a satellite, SpaceX just launches it into orbit for them.

https://spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

So if some University pays to have a satellite they have made to be launched to orbit the moon.  How is SpaceX going to fake the pictures?  Its not their satellite, and it would transmit to the University, not to spaceX.  They are offering services such as that, I don't see that being very easy to fake.

So why are they hiring people like aerospace engineers?:

What makes you think that they really are?

Also you have not answered why NASA would promote privatization and a free market for space exploration if they are trying to keep their "conspiracy" a secret.

It's because NASA is under extreme pressure from the public and Congress to "cut costs". By pretending to hire these private space shadow companies they can shoot back in five years and say that Space Privatization didn't really "cut costs" and justify and secure their budget from future threats.

Also why are they PAYING companies like Spacex to develop these technologies.

They're "paying" themselves.

By allowing ANY company to develop space launch vehicles how does that not put their conspiracy in jeopardy?  Are they going to strong arm every company into keeping their secret, that space travel is not really possible?

Quote

So why are they hiring people like aerospace engineers?:

What makes you think that they really are?

Because they are advertising jobs on the site and have 550 employees right now.

Quote

Also you have not answered why NASA would promote privatization and a free market for space exploration if they are trying to keep their "conspiracy" a secret.

It's because NASA is under extreme pressure from the public and Congress to "cut costs". By pretending to hire these private space shadow companies they can shoot back in five years and say that Space Privatization didn't really "cut costs" and justify and secure their budget from future threats.

So they allow private companies in on the conspiracy?  Pretty much anybody can build a space craft if they want to.  Why would NASA allow this if they want to keep it secret?

Quote

Also why are they PAYING companies like Spacex to develop these technologies.

They're "paying" themselves.

[/quote]

Explain that.  How are they making a profit off of paying a private company millions of dollars instead of faking the missions themselves and pocketing the money?  How are they, "paying themselves" when they clearly are paying a private company.

Here's some more to add to the conspiracy:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391480,00.html.

Now countries like India are even planning space missions, European countries, Japan.  This conspiracy thing seemed far fetched when it was just the 3 superpowers.  The strange thing is, once everybody is in on the conspiracy, there will be no conspiracy.

an intelligent man once said "3 are the maximum amount of persons who can keep a secret - if two of them are dead"

an intelligent man once said "3 are the maximum amount of persons who can keep a secret - if two of them are dead"

That doesn't sound like something an intelligent man would say to me.

well i didn´t quote him, he used different words but the gist of it remains

Albert Einstein was an intelligent man who didn't believe in quantum mechanics. Does that make quantum mechanics wrong?

Albert Einstein was an intelligent man who didn't believe in quantum mechanics. Does that make quantum mechanics wrong?

Albert Einstein believed in God.  Does that make religion right?

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 09, 2008, 03:08:35 AM

Albert Einstein was an intelligent man who didn't believe in quantum mechanics. Does that make quantum mechanics wrong?

Albert Einstein believed in God.  Does that make religion right?

Einstein believed in a "higher order of things", not "God".

Markjo fails.

Quote from: markjo on October 09, 2008, 05:12:47 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 09, 2008, 03:08:35 AM

Albert Einstein was an intelligent man who didn't believe in quantum mechanics. Does that make quantum mechanics wrong?

Albert Einstein believed in God.  Does that make religion right?

Einstein believed in a "higher order of things", not "God".

"God does not play dice with the universe."  Einstein on QM. 

lrn2poeticsymbolism

i only made that remark because i think it´s worth to think about it. i don´t mind if you think it was a silly person or that it isn´t true or whatever. at least it fits what i see when i look out of the window.

btw i think it was B. Franklin but i´m not sure.

This topic has deviated too much, we are not talking about whether or not Einstein believed in God.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 30, 2008, 02:38:46 PM

Quote

So why are they hiring people like aerospace engineers?:

What makes you think that they really are?

Because they are advertising jobs on the site and have 550 employees right now.

Quote

Quote

Also you have not answered why NASA would promote privatization and a free market for space exploration if they are trying to keep their "conspiracy" a secret.

It's because NASA is under extreme pressure from the public and Congress to "cut costs". By pretending to hire these private space shadow companies they can shoot back in five years and say that Space Privatization didn't really "cut costs" and justify and secure their budget from future threats.

So they allow private companies in on the conspiracy?  Pretty much anybody can build a space craft if they want to.  Why would NASA allow this if they want to keep it secret?

Quote

Quote

Also why are they PAYING companies like Spacex to develop these technologies.

They're "paying" themselves.

Explain that.  How are they making a profit off of paying a private company millions of dollars instead of faking the missions themselves and pocketing the money?  How are they, "paying themselves" when they clearly are paying a private company.
[/quote]

My theory:

1) Get funding equivalent for real space program.
2) Fake it, using money equivalent for bad movie.
3) Pocket the change.
4) PROFIT!

My theory:

1) Get funding equivalent for real space program.
2) Fake it, using money equivalent for bad movie.
3) Pocket the change.
4) PROFIT!

They already get funding for a real space program, if it is faked, how come they are giving millions of dollars to private companies to sponsor their own privately developed space program.  How is that profitable for NASA?