Talk:Aurora Flight Sciences

Hellop IP:204.9.221.126: Do not delete factual information —Preceding unsigned comment added by GF940 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP: 204.9.221.126: Firstly, this IP is registered to Host Resolver: aurora-fw.cictr.com in Cambridge, MA (using the Whois domain identifier service). Clearly, you are another Aurora Flight Sciences employee that is using my tax dollars to align your pockets - please read the discussion posted for your colleague 63.139.134.100:

Clearly, Aurora has yet to develop a commercially viable product, be it serving the military or be it serving the civilians (ie. for example border patrol). An example of a product that meets both is the product developed by Insitu. As noted below, USE YOUR OWN FUNDS if you beleive in your products - dont waste the tax payers funds. Additionally, the "commercialization" process is not complex, if you can meet the requirements of your customer as well as the requirements set by the FAA to operate in the National Airspace, then your product will be commercialized if it is of value and the customer agrees to procure them from you. Please do not post misleading information or ambiguous information. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC) the Tax Payer - Tea Party Member 205.175.225.22 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP: 63.139.134.100 Firstly, this IP is from Manassas, VA and is registered to Aurora Flight Sciences. I can appreciate the fact that you do not want the American tax payer to find out that: 1) Aurora has been given well over $100 million in tax dollars and has yet to develop one commercially viable vehicle or be a program of record 2) That Aurora use to fly their autonomous GE-50, built using radio controlled hobby equipment at the Manassas airport which is illegal and dangerous to the public 3) That Aurora, which surpassed its 20 years of operation, should no longer be nursed by the government trough. Use your own funds if you believe in your products. 4) Just as you have your employees editing the Aurora pages and distributing mis-information to gain favor of all those who read this, we have our groups who will correct your mis-information. If you have been a program of record and have a commercially viable product that you currently sell, please list it.

Signed, 205.175.225.22 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)The American Tax Payer - courtesy of Tea Party member 205.175.225.22 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Yooper86:

Firstly, Information is very relevant - want to show everyone how the government wastes tax dollars and this company, Aurora Flight Sciences, has been wasting a great deal of tax dollars by their false advertising. The facts I have inserted in the pages which you apparently don't like are historical evidence of the companies operations and not someone making up a storey or giving an opinion.

Secondly - you state: "Yes, Aurora flew some GoldenEye vehicles early on near their Manassas facility, but this was before the FAA developed current policies and procedures for granting Experimental certificates to unmanned aircraft, so its a little irrelevant." This shows how little you are educated when it comes to the national airspace - Aurora put the public and the airport ops in Manassas at great risk and Langford, the CEO was told that he must not operate in that manner - but he ignored us. (Remember Access 5) Also, you acknowledge the fact that Aurora Flight Sciences flew its vehicles illegally, why did you delete this edit from the Article?? Further more, radio control hobbiests have been required to obtain a radio license and are already aware that they cannot operate in active areas - I would think a bunch of MIT engineers, who build UAV's from these same radio control equipment would have the intelligence to figure this out for themselves - but in the case of Aurora Flightr Sciences, it appears their combined intelligence didn't figure it out. They were founded in 1989 - well after rules and regulations for airspace operations were established - including that of UAV's and Radio Control Aircraft like their Aurora project or Ship 9 they called it.

Regarding SBIRs - as the article states: "What is the nursing period??" This seems to be Aurora's business model and they have paid off the necessary politicians - I think a couple have since left office and lucky for them - wait until you see the grass roots campaign at work when it comes to wasted dollars and you can bet Aurora is on that list. Aurora should be using its own funds to perform R&D - this is the risk of running a business - they are now 20+ years old, the intent of SBIRs was aimed at start-up businesses to give them an opportunity to expand and grow. The intent was never to give SBIRs to 20+ year established companies (please read the government sites and study the creation/incentive of SBIRs - SBIRs are excellent, I have not problem if Aurora was say between 0 years and 7 years old, but Aurora is taking away money that could otherwise go to a more productive, start-up. Aurora is no longer a start-up, they are like pigs going to the government trough - and this was never the intent of SBIRs.

It appears Yooper85 that you have some affiliation with Aurora Flight Sciences -maybe my tax dollars are going to line your pockets - I want to stop this waste - have your read the Job Vent board (www.jobvent.com), now if I could interview those people, there would be alot more details I would be adding to the article.

Go ahead and contanct Wikepedia - I am obeying their guidlines and have cited my references.

Thanks and enjoy the weather in MA (is it Hingham?)

GF940

Give it a rest?
GF940:

Could you lay off adding irrelevant information, personal opinions, and excerpts stolen from other web sites to the Aurora Flight Sciences article? If you want to grind some axe, please set up a personal blog somewhere. There are plenty of free blog services you could use for this.

Yes, Aurora flew some GoldenEye vehicles early on near their Manassas facility, but this was before the FAA developed current policies and procedures for granting Experimental certificates to unmanned aircraft, so its a little irrelevant. I believe all Aurora flight operations in the last two years have been government ranges with controlled (restricted) airspace.

The paragraph you pasted in from some other web page about Titan balloons doesn't even make a cogent point. And why single out this project? The federal register lists many SBIRs that Aurora has won recently. And the federal agencies are the ones that come up with topics for SBIRs that they want companies to bid on, which many companies do, not just Aurora. Typically Phase I SBIRs have 2-3 companies selected, then the one with the better results gets to move on to Phase II.

So, I ask you to re-evaluate your priorities in life and if this is worth both our time. Following Wikipedia guidelines, I'm hoping we can resolve this amicably, so I don't have contact the Wikipedia management to take more serious measures.

Thanks, yooper86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.38.123 (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure
Sure, it's fine to add relevant information, but you can't just copy and post from other web sites. Note what it says on the Wiki edit page: "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." (Like The DEW Line's copyright.) That's not how Wikipedia works. And the articles need to have some semblance of objectivity, not editorializing.

This evening I have made some modifications, for instance in reference to flight operations, to provide more information, instead of just deleting your stilted sentences. I also corrected some mundane stuff like typos and pluralization issues. It appears you like to just revert those changes and not even evaluate the new material that I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.38.123 (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Disgruntled, are we?
There have been a couple of posts from Rockwell Collins-related IP addresses. I'm guessing these are not official opinions of that corporation, but rather the ramblings of an upset ex-Aurora employee. I wonder if anybody at Aurora spends as much time thinking about you as you seem to spend thinking about Aurora?

By the way, all UAV flying at Manassas was done with the airport manager's permission. When the FAA said "stop," we stopped. Your argument that "we told Langford but he ignored us" is not terribly meaningful, given that you're clearly a disgruntled ex-employee. If you knew how to present arguments in a way that got results, you'd have been more successful there.

Gee...Cedar Rapids...Ag G...boy that's tough to figure out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamin (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncited Opinions
Would recent contributors please note that this article is not the place for them to air their opinions of this company. Notable criticism is permissible if presented neutrally, but it must be cited from a reliable source. Individual editor's opinions and facts with no recognised source are not notable, not permissible and will be removed. Thank you. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 01:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Aurora Flight Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212122041/http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov:80/platform.html to http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/platform.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)