Author Topic: Anti SpaceX Campaign?  (Read 4042 times)

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2550
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2527
  • Likes Given: 1901

Online mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 3452
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.

Online Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 490
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 170
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.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 206
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: 39
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.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3066
  • Likes Given: 739
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: 8468
  • UK
  • Liked: 1379
  • 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.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3066
  • Likes Given: 739
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?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 206
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. 

Online mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1315
  • Likes Given: 3452
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: 1047
  • United States
  • Liked: 495
  • Likes Given: 1013
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: 1263
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 804
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: 9195
  • Liked: 1191
  • Likes Given: 785
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 »

Online high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • 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?

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3066
  • Likes Given: 739
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?

Online high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • 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.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8276
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3066
  • Likes Given: 739
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?

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 206
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: 3845
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 132
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"

Online high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • 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).

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1047
  • United States
  • Liked: 495
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #20 on: 11/02/2017 01:35 PM »
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.

Very well said.  The Space Launch Market in the US is heavily influenced by the government because the government does the majority of spending for the market.  This is slowly changing but as of right now the US government is the dominant player in this market.  You then pair this with the fact that assured access to space is a matter of National Security for the US you get a hybrid market between Public/Private funding.  It is in the best interest of the US government to "subsidize" space launch.  Right now the fight is over the level of subsidizing and control by the US government that is required without jeopardizing national security. 

In my opinion, it is in the best interest of the US government to give subsidized funding to ULA to help them develop Vulcan.  The US government cannot afford at this time to hand-over access to Space to the free market.  There is to many unknowns to trust that private funding will make sure that all government launch needs are meet. 
"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 spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 326
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #21 on: 11/02/2017 07:05 PM »
I would agree, give ULA some money to speed up development of Vulcan/ACES, and give SpaceX money for the Raptor and BFR/BFS.  IF Blue Origin would speed things up on the BE-4 and New Glenn, maybe give them a little.  Maybe even Aerojet to develop a reusable AR-1.  Five or six AR-1's on new boosters for SLS and make them landable using SpaceX technology would give SLS a huge shot in the arm at a lower cost. 

Lots of things could be done with a combination of public/private funding.  I think total government funding of something can be drawn out and stretched over time and cost way too much.  If the contractors had to put up half or some of their money, they would cut costs and get it done faster.  Kind of like COTS.  SpaceX used the money wisely and got F9 kickstarted.  Same with Dragon.  I think COTS was a wise use of money, lowered costs, and got results.  Maybe not as quickly as hoped but it did get things done.  Reasonable time restraints should also be put on the money awarded kind of like COTS milestones.   

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9050
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5727
  • Likes Given: 3827
Re: Anti SpaceX Campaign?
« Reply #22 on: 11/02/2017 07:21 PM »
guys, before you post, think about whether your post is general politics or not. Not deleting any posts but some are sailing very close to that line if not over.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags: