A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 5th 18, 12:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,881
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered


SMEARX ?
A shadowy op-ed campaign is now smearing SpaceX in space cities
"Commercial space companies like SpaceX play by different rules," the
op-ed states.
ERIC BERGER - 10/4/2018, 8:00 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...mpaign-is-now-
smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


Could be Boeing behind this. They've done some very shady things in the
past.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
Ads
  #2  
Old October 5th 18, 08:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


SMEARX ?
A shadowy op-ed campaign is now smearing SpaceX in space cities
"Commercial space companies like SpaceX play by different rules," the
op-ed states.
ERIC BERGER - 10/4/2018, 8:00 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...mpaign-is-now-
smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


Could be Boeing behind this. They've done some very shady things in the
past.

Jeff


It's funny to read this as I'm right now in the middle of reading Rand
Simberg's book "Safe is not an option."
I've go a few qualms with it, but overall, I think he's right (and as my
recent blog post "Safety Third" points out) you can't be only "safety
first".
Safety First would have meant no Apollo 8. Heck might have mean Apollo 17
would have been the 1st and last lunar mission if you had built up
incrementally.

And as Richard Hagar arguing about the safety lessons learned from Apollo 1,
I simply have two words: Challenger and Columbia.
Rand makes a strong point that if we let NASA dictate what is "safe" we will
probably never get anywhere, and quite honestly, their track record isn't
nearly as great as people would like to make it out to be.

I'll admit the "load and go" gives me pause, but honestly, if you can't
trust the process in the first place, you've got a bigger issue. You should
have a process that's safe to fuel rockets, regardless of whether there are
astronauts on board or not.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #3  
Old October 5th 18, 09:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,986
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 5 Oct 2018
07:29:34 -0400:


SMEARX ?
A shadowy op-ed campaign is now smearing SpaceX in space cities
"Commercial space companies like SpaceX play by different rules," the
op-ed states.
ERIC BERGER - 10/4/2018, 8:00 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...mpaign-is-now-
smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


Could be Boeing behind this. They've done some very shady things in the
past.


And it certainly looks like them now. The actual origin of the
articles have been traced and they trace back to a firm which has
Boeing for a client.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #4  
Old October 5th 18, 09:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,986
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Fri,
5 Oct 2018 15:18:58 -0400:


I'll admit the "load and go" gives me pause, but honestly, if you can't
trust the process in the first place, you've got a bigger issue. You should
have a process that's safe to fuel rockets, regardless of whether there are
astronauts on board or not.


NASA has looked at this and come to the conclusion that 'load and go'
is actually probably safer than fueling and then putting astronauts
in, given SpaceX procedures and hardware.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #5  
Old October 6th 18, 12:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote on Fri,
5 Oct 2018 15:18:58 -0400:


I'll admit the "load and go" gives me pause, but honestly, if you can't
trust the process in the first place, you've got a bigger issue. You
should
have a process that's safe to fuel rockets, regardless of whether there
are
astronauts on board or not.


NASA has looked at this and come to the conclusion that 'load and go'
is actually probably safer than fueling and then putting astronauts
in, given SpaceX procedures and hardware.



Which sounds like the right call. You have a procedure and hardware that
either works or doesn't.
If it's so dangerous you can't have astronauts on board, it's probably
dangerous enough you can't have other payloads aboard.

So you design so you can load and go.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #6  
Old October 6th 18, 09:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rocket Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

How effective would this smearing be, actually? I believe not very. ULA has
tried every dirty trick to prevent SpaceX from launching DoD payloads, but
in the end the cost savings are simply irresistable to the Air Force.

Also, NASA itself has already decided that load-and'go' is viable, so
there's really little use in criticizing the procedure after the fact.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

SMEARX ?
A shadowy op-ed campaign is now smearing SpaceX in space cities
"Commercial space companies like SpaceX play by different rules," the
op-ed states.
ERIC BERGER - 10/4/2018, 8:00 AM
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...mpaign-is-now-
smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/


Could be Boeing behind this. They've done some very shady things in the
past.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.



  #9  
Old October 6th 18, 05:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,986
Default Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered

Jeff Findley wrote on Sat, 6 Oct 2018
09:01:36 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2018-10-05 07:29, Jeff Findley wrote:

Could be Boeing behind this. They've done some very shady things in the
past.



Interesting timing. SpaceX is about to lanmd a Falcon9 at Vandenburg, a
sign that SpaceX is gaining credibility in the military market where
Boeing thought it was invincible.


Actually the original "editorials" came out before "load and go" was
approved by NASA. This is investigative reporting on the fact that the
same article appeared in several newspapers in clearly targeted areas.
In other words, it was a smear campaign to try to get people to call
their representatives and complain about SpaceX.


It didn't help their credibility any when it was discovered that the
guy who supposedly wrote the articles had never heard of them. That's
why they had to trace the real source and find that it was a PR firm
that represented, among others, Boeing as one of their biggest
customers.


You know, like how Boeing ended up "winning" the latest military tanker
campaign.


Boeing has had three big wins lately (within the last couple of
weeks). There's speculation that on at least one of them they grossly
underbid on the assumption they'll make it back by charging extra for
sustainment and upgrades.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turbulent Inner Life of a Sunspot Uncovered Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 3 June 4th 11 11:17 PM
CONFIDENTIAL NOTE UNCOVERED IN CNN TRASH..... Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 2 October 31st 05 02:03 PM
CONFIDENTIAL NOTE UNCOVERED IN CNN TRASH..... Ed Conrad Amateur Astronomy 2 October 31st 05 02:03 PM
CONFIDENTIAL NOTE UNCOVERED IN CNN TRASH..... Ed Conrad Misc 2 October 31st 05 02:03 PM
Genesis Crash - Problem uncovered in '01??? Ted A. Nichols II Amateur Astronomy 0 September 8th 04 10:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.