Author Topic: Anti SpaceX Campaign?  (Read 3452 times)

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2377
  • Likes Given: 1738

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1269
  • Likes Given: 3284
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #1 on: 11/01/2017 07:14 PM »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

???
Annoying but not surprising:
1. He believes AGW is a real issue.
2. He's pro-solar and electric cars.
3. He's an easy target as he talks about opening factories in China and around the world (to build for local markets.)
4. He quit Trumps' business council when Trump left the Paris Accord.

He's the perfect bogeyman for the "drill baby, rolling coal, closed-boarders" crowd. It doesn't matter what is actually doing or if it has actual value. Having enemies is way easier than having solutions.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 164
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #2 on: 11/01/2017 08:20 PM »
I think there was a "why anti-SpaceX?" thread here 2 weeks ago.  It got locked after about 36 hours.  It is fortunate that the in the case of SpaceX, actual accomplishment will eventually silence the critics identified in the ArsTechnica article.  If only other political problems has such a clear path to resolution.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #3 on: 11/01/2017 08:30 PM »
He should have stayed on Trumps business council.  If nothing else, but to offer solutions to problems that he and his companies can solve.  He is in California.  California is hated by all conservatives due to Holywood, San-Francisco, and far left liberal bastions.  He makes enemies by being for McCain who is a "Never Trumper". 

I like Musk and what he has accomplished, with very little Federal money in comparison to other companies.  I am a conservative myself, but I do like Musk.  He gets things done.  I like anyone who gets things done in Space.  Maybe I should write to some of these people as well as my congressman and senators.  SpaceX brings competition, not crony capitalism.  If all the companies are getting some money for help and development I am for it.  But, if only one got it then that is a problem. 


Offline topo334

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • California
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #4 on: 11/01/2017 08:42 PM »
This is the republican anklebiting class. A deliveryman at my home recently asserted that Musk was losing money, ruining investors and all the while growing fat on government money. This is projection on the part of the anklebiters. to accuse Musk of the foibles and faults of the very people they support.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8219
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2986
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #5 on: 11/01/2017 09:59 PM »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

This is a really good article that goes into lots of details... I would recommend people actually read it, all of it, not just the headline or the lede.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8257
  • UK
  • Liked: 1336
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #6 on: 11/01/2017 10:06 PM »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

This is a really good article that goes into lots of details... I would recommend people actually read it, all of it, not just the headline or the lede.

Iíve read it and yes it isnít a bad article but loses a lot of points for the awful clickbait headline.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8219
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2986
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #7 on: 11/01/2017 10:20 PM »
Iíve read it and yes it isnít a bad article but loses a lot of points for the awful clickbait headline.

Editors do that.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #8 on: 11/01/2017 10:47 PM »
Yes, sometimes headlines are very misleading.  They can be negative when the overall story is positive or vice-versa.  I personally am tired of continuous politicizing of everything.  We once united behind something we all liked.  I inspected pipeline contractors who mostly installed for private companies.  However after a hurricane, earthquake or some major event, they worked for FEMA to restore utilities to devastated areas.  SpaceX, ULA, and others are no exception.  They can launch for private companies or for NASA or for the Air Force.  So they get money from the government to develop something useful.  R&D money is always better spent in my opinion than straight our welfare with no real hope of those in need getting out and moving up the ladder.  As long as there are at least two contractors, and bids are fair, what is the problem.  So, SpaceX is cheaper and can land a booster, can the others do that after getting billions over the last 50 years for government launches.  If SpaceX moved to Texas you might see a different story.  Jobs for instance. 

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1056
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1269
  • Likes Given: 3284
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #9 on: 11/01/2017 10:59 PM »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

This is a really good article that goes into lots of details... I would recommend people actually read it, all of it, not just the headline or the lede.

Iíve read it and yes it isnít a bad article but loses a lot of points for the awful clickbait headline.
To me "click bait" is when someone drags in a controversial or popular subject only obliquely related and/or ties it to a claim the article does not support.

The op-eds in question come from libertarian/conservative/whatever-breitbart-is sources and they are blaming SpaceX (and McCain) for "Section 1615" which they most likely had nothing to do with. I believe that those sites have chosen to blame SpaceX and Musk for fairly obvious reasons.

The op-eds themselves are worse than clickbait.  They are at best misinformed and I'm personally not inclined to be that charitable. But the headline strikes me as accurate. At Thanksgiving my brother will not be complaining about Aerojet, Rogers or even Section 1615. He'll be complaining about Musk and SpaceX specifically because of articles like this.

If it's on topic I'd be curious what a better headline would be.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1031
  • United States
  • Liked: 479
  • Likes Given: 990
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #10 on: 11/01/2017 11:34 PM »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

This is a really good article that goes into lots of details... I would recommend people actually read it, all of it, not just the headline or the lede.

I find it very interesting especially the part that McCain had nothing to do with Section 1615. 

I do find it humorous that sites that publish these Anti-SpaceX articles are finding the articles torn apart in the Comments section by their own readers.   
   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 251
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #11 on: 11/01/2017 11:44 PM »
I do find it humorous that sites that publish these Anti-SpaceX articles are finding the articles torn apart in the Comments section by their own readers.   

I used to read WTOP's web site more often than I do now.  I often listened in as they are the premiere news/traffic/weather station in town.

Sometimes, when an article's comment section wasn't filled by rarely-evenhandedly-moderated, inflammatory insanity, I'd find more information in or via the comment section, than I did in the quickly and poorly written article.
(Example: links to a better written, more informative article on the same incident elsewhere)

Of course, WTOP removed the comments from their web site earlier this year. :P
Support your local planetarium!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9165
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #12 on: 11/02/2017 02:44 AM »
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

This is a really good article that goes into lots of details... I would recommend people actually read it, all of it, not just the headline or the lede.

I find it very interesting especially the part that McCain had nothing to do with Section 1615. 

I do find it humorous that sites that publish these Anti-SpaceX articles are finding the articles torn apart in the Comments section by their own readers.   
 

These op-eds are everywhere (not just right-wing papers). Op-eds are just that. It doesn't mean that the paper that publishes them endorses them. But it's good that some people take the time to answer them.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2017 03:53 AM by yg1968 »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Europe
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #13 on: 11/02/2017 05:31 AM »
Regardless of politics, this article still confuses me:

1) If section 1615 still allows funding of the development of new rocket engines, why is Blue Origin grouped with the losers? Their engine is still under development as well...

2) If ULA can't/won't pay for the development of Vulcan without DoD money, why is Aerojet grouped with the winners? Aren't they in direct competition with BO to develop a rocket engine that will be used on Vulcan? So if Vulcan does not get funding, they don't have anyone to buy their engine.

3) Trying not to get political here, but if one company says 'we won't develop a new rocket without government money', and two others say 'we will' (SpaceX and BO), what exactly is the problem? Government doesn't have to pay. Oldspace gets to choose how to become irrelevant and stick it to the government when the hatchet comes rather than their failure to adapt. Fledgling newspace looses early competitors, and news outlets far away from center on both sides can continue to publish the usual tripe that is tangental to reality at best, which their readers love. Everybody happy, no? Any defenders of oldspace that have arguments against this?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8219
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2986
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #14 on: 11/02/2017 05:36 AM »
Regardless of politics, this article still confuses me:

1) If section 1615 still allows funding of the development of new rocket engines, why is Blue Origin grouped with the losers? Their engine is still under development as well...

Because their engine isn't a slot-in replacement for the RD-180 where's Aerojet claims theirs is... explained in the article.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Europe
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #15 on: 11/02/2017 05:50 AM »
Regardless of politics, this article still confuses me:

1) If section 1615 still allows funding of the development of new rocket engines, why is Blue Origin grouped with the losers? Their engine is still under development as well...

Because their engine isn't a slot-in replacement for the RD-180 where's Aerojet claims theirs is... explained in the article.


Ah, Aerojet's engine is not for the Vulcan. Thanks for clearing that part up.

I still don't think that makes either Aerojet a winner and BO or ULA losers. ULA gets to fly their existing rockets without Russian launchers. BO can get funding for their engine. Both ULA and Aerojet lose if ULA can't compete with New Glenn or SpaceX rockets. And ULA could still try to find investors to develop the Vulcan if they're motivated enough. Level playing field and all that.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8219
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2986
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #16 on: 11/02/2017 05:54 AM »
Rogers doesn't believe ULA needs a new rocket, just a new engine, and Aerojet is backing him up on it. ULA says they're doomed without a new rocket, and they want the government to pay for it.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #17 on: 11/02/2017 06:05 AM »
Like I said.  I am conservative and come from a conservative family that doesn't believe the government should spend money on various things (because of the national debt).  I have to correct them and tell them SpaceX wasn't the only company getting government money in space related activities.  They actually have gotten less money for things such as commercial crew vs Boeing.  Anyway, anyone doing business space related gets some money, usually matching, for various developments.  It is just SpaceX has used their money wisely, and has actually accomplished things with their money. 

Musk has also gotten flack from Wall Street investors.  From Tesla not making enough profit, to SpaceX getting money, to Solar City getting the benefit of tax credits for solar panel or solar shingle installation. 

The point of this tread is to show how Musk is being singled out while others such as Boeing, Aerojet, Orbital, and others are not singled out with regards to getting government money to help with development of products and services the government wants to use.  I don't like it anymore than anyone else.  He just happens to be successful while Solyndra and others have failed. 

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3834
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #18 on: 11/02/2017 06:40 AM »
Rogers doesn't believe ULA needs a new rocket, just a new engine, and Aerojet is backing him up on it. ULA says they're doomed without a new rocket, and they want the government to pay for it.

In this instance I actually agree with ULA. Long term it makes more sense to have one launch vehicle family, that could be made partially reusable, with commonality than to have two with very little commonality that can't really be changed any further.

I actually would not have any problem with Vulcan being subsidized.

It is still a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the ridiculous amount of money wasted on CXP and now SLS.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Europe
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #19 on: 11/02/2017 08:40 AM »
Rogers doesn't believe ULA needs a new rocket, just a new engine, and Aerojet is backing him up on it. ULA says they're doomed without a new rocket, and they want the government to pay for it.

In this instance I actually agree with ULA. Long term it makes more sense to have one launch vehicle family, that could be made partially reusable, with commonality than to have two with very little commonality that can't really be changed any further.

I actually would not have any problem with Vulcan being subsidized.

It is still a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the ridiculous amount of money wasted on CXP and now SLS.

What would Vulcan be able to do that NG or FH/BFR won't? Because that's what that DoD money would be spent for. If there is no difference, than all new launch systems should get an equal amount/percentage of private capital investment from the DoD. Or at least there should be objective conditions to decide which company has the 'best' idea.

But if there are already two businesses designing a system out of their own pocket, and assuming these can be used by DoD, why would the government have to pay for a third one? Let the market provide the solutions. (just make sure the government creates the right market conditions, considering I'm progressive enough to see what imperfect information does in reality).

Tags: