Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[speedevil]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/

'did not submit' - if the original writer bothered to submit to two of six outlets, who submitted to the other four seems almost meaningless.

[Tuts36]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/

I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches? 

[guyw]

The piece in question was published on the editorial page of the New Hampshire Union Leader a week or so ago. I thought it was a bit suspect at the time when I read it.

Edit: Went back and found it. It was published in the Sept 21, 2018 edition.

[kevinof]

Ok so if not Boeing then who (or is it whom?). Boeing could get bragging rights if they are first to fly so there is an upside for them. Question is who else stands to gain from this? Some political group that wants jobs in certain states and SpaceX doesn't play nice.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/

I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches?

[su27k]

A shadowy media cabal headed by Boeing is slandering SpaceX.

At least that's Eric Berger's theory.

The Boeing part is theory, the shadowy media cabal slandering SpaceX part is definitely not a theory but a fact.

[docmordrid]

Ok so if not Boeing then who (or is it whom?). Boeing could get bragging rights if they are first to fly so there is an upside for them. Question is who else stands to gain from this? Some political group that wants jobs in certain states and SpaceX doesn't play nice.
>

Aerospace Industries Association is a client of LMG, and according to their site SpaceX isn't a member of their club...

https://www.aia-aerospace.org/membership/our-members/

[envy887]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/

I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches?

Only 6 launches are guaranteed for each provider. There will be additional missions with additional funding that will be competed between SpaceX and Boeing. Boeing definitely stands to gain in that competition if SpaceX's safety can be questioned.

[su27k]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/

I just read this and I am wondering what the point of this negative publicity campaign is.  Presumably it's supposed to drum up negative public opinion for SpaceX's commercial crew program.  Would that actually pressure NASA into removing its 'provisional' approval of SpaceX fueling process?  Or is this supposed to spark some sort of political battle elsewhere?

I wouldn't be surprised if this comes up in a future congressional hearing, I think there're more than one example in the past where fake news were quoted by congress to question SpaceX, Zuma being one.

I also don't see Boeing as necessarily the beneficiary of this.  They already have their own contract, it's approximately double the value of SpaceX's, and NASA wants two launch services for crew.  If SpaceX was delayed significantly, do these contracts stipulate that the other provider gets more launches?

Boeing is also the prime contractor for SLS, they would definitely benefit if commercial space in general and SpaceX in particular is being painted as unsafe.

[SWGlassPit]

I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

[Star One]

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

[Lars-J]

I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

As much as they in public hype that 'a Boeing rocket will take the first astronaut to Mars', in private they are presumably very concerned about future space contracts and not being a prime mover in a very large future industry. This is about more than Commercial Crew.

[Tuts36]

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

No, but one hint is the geographical regions served by the publications that are publishing them.

*Edit: added the verb. Those are kindof important if you want a sentence to make sense...

[envy887]

I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

[speedevil]

Only 6 launches are guaranteed for each provider. There will be additional missions with additional funding that will be competed between SpaceX and Boeing. Boeing definitely stands to gain in that competition if SpaceX's safety can be questioned.

Further to this, LOP-G is ramping up on funding, and delaying any serious questioning of that by even months could lead to tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of profit.

[SWGlassPit]

I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

[docmordrid]

I'm not really sure how Boeing supposedly benefits from this media campaign, considering it already has the contract.

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

It's not aimed at the selectors. It's aimed at the congresscritters with SpaceX competitor facilities in their districts, who also happen to hold the selectors leashes.

[A_M_Swallow]

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

The lying company has to be paid. Cheques and bank transfers are recorded by the bank. The alternative is to pay in cash. Tax authorities get very suspicious of companies making cash deposits of thousands of dollars.

[groundbound]

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

The lying company has to be paid. Cheques and bank transfers are recorded by the bank. The alternative is to pay in cash. Tax authorities get very suspicious of companies making cash deposits of thousands of dollars.

At least in the US, "dark money" secret political expenses are very common and total many 100's of million dollars per year. In general, if the identity of the payer is disclosed it is because someone screwed up and broke confidentiality. There is no legal disclosure requirement, and quite a lot of infrastructure to obfuscate.

My own guess is that the payer is not Boeing. A lot of the motivations for this kind of stuff can be very obtuse. Boeing doing this would be overly obvious.

[Star One]

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

The lying company has to be paid. Cheques and bank transfers are recorded by the bank. The alternative is to pay in cash. Tax authorities get very suspicious of companies making cash deposits of thousands of dollars.

At least in the US, "dark money" secret political expenses are very common and total many 100's of million dollars per year. In general, if the identity of the payer is disclosed it is because someone screwed up and broke confidentiality. There is no legal disclosure requirement, and quite a lot of infrastructure to obfuscate.

My own guess is that the payer is not Boeing. A lot of the motivations for this kind of stuff can be very obtuse. Boeing doing this would be overly obvious.

That’s my feeling as well that Boeing in this case is just too obvious an answer.

[Svetoslav]

It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.