Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

EdwardHeisler · 2018-01-17 11:51:27

[Excerpt]

Breitbart, other conservative outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign
In Washington DC, politics sometimes matter more than a rocket's power or price.
by Eric Berger - 11/1/2017
ARS Technica

The articles began appearing in late August, mostly in conservative publications such as Town Hall, Breitbart, and the Daily Caller and have since continued to trickle out through October. All of the dozen or so Web commentaries, variously styled as op-eds or contributions, have made the same essential point—that Elon Musk is benefiting from crony capitalism and must be stopped.

This is not a particularly new line of attack against Musk, especially among some conservatives who decry the public money his companies have received to build solar power facilities, electric cars, and low-cost rockets. Yet most of these articles have been quite specific in their attacks, pinpointing a single section in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act as particularly troublesome to the Republic.

The articles, several of which are written by former US Rep. Ron Paul or his associates, have the same general theme: Musk has given lavishly to politicians, especially Arizona Senator John McCain (R). In return, McCain added Section 1615 to this year's defense authorization bill, which includes language to restrict the military from investing in new launch systems. With this language, the articles assert, Musk seeks a monopoly on the US national security launch market. In addition to saying this allows Musk to fleece taxpayers, some of the more overdone authors assert that it could kill Americans.

Ars spoke with half a dozen industry officials about these op-eds on background to try to discern who or what was behind them. SpaceX declined comment. A spokeswoman for ULA did not respond to a request for comment about these articles. One source speculated that there are probably several stakeholders behind this Astroturf-like activity.

"This is business as usual," one aerospace industry source said of the litany of anti-SpaceX commentaries. "I don’t think it is that effective. It’s like going to a space conference and it’s a bunch of space people that hear what they expect to hear with no new listeners."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11 … -campaign/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why SpaceX Is The Snake Oil Peddler Of The Twenty-First Century
Worrisome national security events have convinced some Americans that SpaceX is the magic elixir of this generation. But this time our national security is at stake.
by Beau Rothschild
January 16, 2018
The Federalist

In the nineteenth century, Americans across the country were mesmerized by “miracle elixirs,” better known as medicine shows, which offered “cure-alls” for everything in the book. Diseases? There was a drink for that. Wrinkles? There was a magic cream for that too. These traveling shows did far more than “heal,” they entertained. Freak shows, magic tricks, and storytelling, among other fun activities, were included on the lists of offerings.

For many, these flamboyant events were awe-inspiring – that is, until the country realized these “miracle cures” were almost completely ineffective. Over time, an increasing number of Americans began referring to these big promisers as “snake oil salesmen.” By the next century, most disappeared, as did their outrageous claims.

Worrisome national security events that transpired this week have convinced some Americans that SpaceX, a rocket manufacturer and launcher for national security missions, is the magic elixir of this generation — only this time, the “magic pills” in question are not only often ineffective, they’re also affecting the country’s national security.

Akin to the once-beloved nineteenth-century miracle workers, SpaceX often tries to entertain onlookers with flashy proclamations. It has pledged nearly unfeasible feats, such as sending humans beyond the Moon by the end of the year and potentially landing spaceships on Mars by 2022 — both of which will allegedly occur on rockets that have either failed to get off the ground or have had trouble doing so. It is not without a sense of irony that the CEO of SpaceX suggested those few who decide to go to Mars may not live to tell about it.

It is hard to criticize SpaceX’s public relations strategy. After all, it is competing against some of America’s most prominent companies, so drumming up eye-popping media coverage is a must. But past and possible present operational concerns have led some to seriously question the company.

SpaceX attempted to launch a billion-dollar classified government satellite on Sunday, coined “Zuma,” for an unknown government agency. No one knows if it succeeded, but many have expressed skepticism, citing possible errors on SpaceX’s end.

There is plenty of reason for concern on the part of SpaceX, primarily because of past issues with the Zuma mission itself. Zuma was initially set to launch in November, but experienced several delays before its Jan. 7 launch. Also of note is that SpaceX’s Falcon 9, the rocket used for this mission, has massive past failures under its belt.

Regardless of mission sensitivity, the U.S. government is always expected to shed some light on issues like this one. But this time, a top Pentagon spokeswoman, perhaps a stalwart defender of SpaceX like her former boss, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), refused to comment. She told incredulous journalists to refer all inquiries to SpaceX.

Predictably, SpaceX has assured the press that everything went smoothly on its part, similar to how it casted blame on the strut obtained from an outside company during 2015’s Falcon 9 failure. It also refused to rule out the merits of pointing fingers at external forces in another Falcon 9 mishap one year later.

It would be one thing if this was a fluke misjudgment on the Pentagon’s part, but government bureaucrats seem to have a track record of hiding SpaceX’s mistakes. For example, during the 2015 Falcon 9 incident, NASA refused to release a public investigative summary, despite originally promising it would do so. Although it put out a report for a competitor’s similar commercial launch which operated under the same NASA program, it kept this SpaceX case study a public mystery.

Do certain government officials fear learning the truth? Are they so caught up in Elon Musk’s praiseworthy end-game and objectives that they are willing to cast a blind eye to these seeming problems?

Investigations typically take months to years, so it is unlikely that bureaucrats have reached an unequivocal answer already. Yet, as if nothing has happened, SpaceX has said that it will continue full-speed ahead with the launches on its agenda, including the Falcon 9 Heavy — the rocket that will allegedly fuel its quest for Mars despite 4 years of delays and a failure last month. SpaceX may also send astronauts to the International Space Station by the end of 2018.

While it is easy to grow starry-eyed and all-believing due to SpaceX’s praiseworthy intent, government officials must remain free of bias when making crucial national security decisions, especially when human lives are at stake. Perhaps it’s time for them to take a step back and let rationality kick in.

The magic elixirs of 200 years ago weren’t miracle workers, and neither is SpaceX — at least not yet. Whether SpaceX can overcome their failures remains to be seen, but it is concerning, to say the least, that American taxpayers have become the guinea pigs who will bear the risks and the costs before a final determination can be made.

SpaceX should continue working to improve — and over the past year, improve it certainly has — but not on the taxpayers’ dime. It’s time to put launches from this big dreamer on pause until it demonstrates steady, proven success.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/16/sp … t-century/

Note: Beau Rothschild was chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, and legislative assistant to Representatives Bill Flores and Michele Bachmann

SpaceNut · 2018-01-17 13:17:51

I am sure the payback/ kickback are just fake news created to discredit McCain...since he stands up for the people and not so much the party crap.

As for "monopoly on the US national security launch market" that comes down to what do we have for a cost to available cash for those desiring a launch of an item. The security of payload can continue to pay more but its there choice to do so. Oldspace needs to change there processes and get the costs inline to stay competative. Space x also needs to keep launching Falcon 9's in order to keep driving the events of oldspace change.

As for the "solar power facilities, electric cars" ect... that is drivving the other american companies to adapt to changing technology and its the cost of these that still is very high for most consumers.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-01-18 15:43:17

Yet another right-wing propaganda hit piece on Space X. This time from the Washington Times newspaper.

The hidden fees of Space
By Peter Weyrich
January 17, 2018
Washington Times

No one likes hidden fees. From unauthorized phone charges to home closing costs and prepaid card levies, they take a toll on low and middle-income Americans. To mitigate consumer outrage, members of Congress often demagogue unknown expenditures like ATM and airline baggage fees in committee hearings; costs which usually do not amount to more than a few dollars.

While some of these nominal fees are distasteful, at least consumers ultimately come to terms with them. Unfortunately, this is not always the case when dealing with the federal government, especially on high-ticket items. In fact, last week, one aerospace manufacturer may have incurred unanticipated costs to the tune of tens of millions or even billions on our bills, and yet the government is refusing to even disclose if there are any. Most members of Congress have yet to say a word.

SpaceX recently conducted Project Zuma, a secret mission involving a secret payload for a secret government agency. Some believe that costly problems occurred with the flight, although no one is certain on this point either because the outcome is apparently a secret, too.

Given that this mission involves taxpayer dollars, reporters and activists have been demanding answers. In the middle of last week, a reporter for Bloomberg pressed the Pentagon, asking: “This is a billion-dollar satellite. It’s been four days. Was it a success or a failure? And what’s the fate of the satellite?” Declining to answer, they advised him to refer all questions to SpaceX.

This suggestion was not taken very seriously. Asking a launch provider if it failed is the equivalent of querying a politician on potential wrong-doings. Instincts naturally tell both to deny everything.

After all, Washington didn’t exactly decide on the most reliable business available for this secret yet ostensibly important mission; it picked one deserving of quite a few poor Yelp reviews. In 2015, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 exploded while operating on a $110 million government contract. In 2016, it blew up while on a $62 million government contract, destroying a $205 million Facebook satellite in the process. To say the least, it wouldn’t be very shocking if the Falcon 9 failed to operate as intended again in 2018.

Meanwhile, just days after this SpaceX launch, the United Launch Alliance (ULA) completed its 124th-consecutive successful mission for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) — a substantial comparative difference. Is it time to cut off funding or put SpaceX on the back-burner until it matures into a more reliable contractor? At a minimum, the government should aggressively pursue answers as to why SpaceX seems to have so many more costly explosions and mission failures than its competitors.

Taxpayers are tired of getting ripped off. Perhaps SpaceX does indeed have some value on the marketplace — it does often offer cheaper rockets — but it’s hard to gauge its worth when the government seems to always shield the company’s problems from the public’s view.

Some argue that this favoritism has existed for years, not weeks. For example, NASA has still not released a detailed, public report of SpaceX’s 2015 explosion even though it released one of the company’s competitor, Orbital ATK. Rep. Lamar Smith was right on target when he said this “raises questions about not only the equity and fairness of NASA’s process for initiating independent accident investigations, but also the fidelity of the investigations themselves.”

There are definite potential motives for these suspected hide-and-seek games. Since the Tea Party Massacre, Americans have always been the de facto market regulators; the “invisible hands” working behind the scenes to ensure quality control. When the mobs decry a dishonest politician, he or she is voted out of office. When enough speak out against a practice in Washington, things change. But none of this can occur without public knowledge, something that SpaceX-favoring bureaucrats likely know all too well.

If the government wants to continue using providers that may be providing sub-par performance, that’s its prerogative. At the very least, though, it owes the masses truth and transparency.

Without it, America is no longer operating as a democratic republic. No information means no public voice, while the megaphones of politicians and bureaucrats continue to expand.

There is nothing less American than this, and it should change right now — this week — with an explanation of what happened with the Zuma mission. The American people deserve to know. After all, it’s their money that’s on the line, and their national security that’s at risk.

• Peter Weyrich has worked for free market advocacy organizations, including the Free Congress Foundation and Coalitions for America.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … ut-spacex/

This is the taxpayers’ money we’re talking about. Doesn’t the government owe them the truth?

SpaceNut · 2018-01-18 15:49:21

Hiding behind national security.....and whom can we trust to not have a mishap....

Terraformer · 2018-01-18 16:21:39

Nothing about Northrop Grumman in that piece Washington Times. Hmmm. The way it's written gives the impression that this was entirely a SpaceX mission.

elderflower · 2018-01-19 03:32:20

Not surprising, Terraformer. Breitbart doesn't seem to be the most even handed and objective of news organisations.

Terraformer · 2018-01-19 05:25:22

No, the Washington Times piece. Nothing at all about one of the companies involved.

kbd512 · 2018-01-19 15:35:30

Nobody outside of our federal government, SpaceX, and Northrop-Grumman actually knows what happened. All speculation should cease until a definitive explanation for the loss is made. There's no story here until that information becomes public.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-25 06:08:29

Musk and the Trump Admin did not have the best relationship but it got a lot better over time, however maybe BigOil or big old car companies like GM and Ford were feeding outlets like Breitbart propaganda

The Joe Biden - Kamala Harris links with Musk has been a disaster, the Biden Administration has now totally snubbed Elon Musk

The DOJ wants Space-X to hire more islamo transexual refugee types?

Blame the KKK Christian Hitler White Reichwings

The politically insane DOJ sues SpaceX for preferring normal US citizens to illegal invader Mexican gang asylum seekers and rapefugee, refujihadi, islamo refugees in its hiring practices?

Are they trying to destroy Space-X like corporations destroy themselves filling themselves with inexperienced 'diversity' hire, or Hollywood has destroyed its movie industry

some very sick and politically insane people

The department’s lawsuit alleges that SpaceX discriminated against asylees and refugees based on citizenship status at multiple stages of the hiring process. For example:
SpaceX discouraged asylees and refugees from applying for open positions, through public announcements, job applications and other online recruiting communications that excluded asylees and refugees.
SpaceX failed to fairly consider applications submitted by asylees and refugees.
SpaceX refused to hire qualified asylee and refugee applicants and repeatedly rejected asylee and refugee applicants because of their citizenship status.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice- … ees-hiring

the 'justice system' is turning into a circus clownshow

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-25 06:12:31)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-01-17 11:51:27

Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#2 2018-01-17 13:17:51

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#3 2018-01-18 15:43:17

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#4 2018-01-18 15:49:21

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#5 2018-01-18 16:21:39

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#6 2018-01-19 03:32:20

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#7 2018-01-19 05:25:22

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#8 2018-01-19 15:35:30

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

#9 2023-08-25 06:08:29

Re: Breitbart, other right-wing outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign

Board footer