|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Op-ed campaign smearing SpaceX uncovered
In article ,
says... 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. You might want to look at the history behind how the last military air tanker competition was "won" by Boeing. That was more overt in that they waged a formal protest, but the politics, lobbying, and etc. have some parallels. When big government contracts are at stake, Boeing isn't afraid to fight dirty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC-X 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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |