This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Uncategorized

Why Does Brad Summey Hate On Elon Musk So Much? (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 25, 2016
Filed under ,
Why Does Brad Summey Hate On Elon Musk So Much? (Update)

Mysterious website slams Elon Musk as ‘American Swindler’, Politico
“A mysterious new website has popped up accusing billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk of cronyism and inappropriate ties to top political leaders. But who, exactly, is behind the site remains unclear, as its sponsors have taken steps to hide their identities. The focal point of WhoIsElonMusk.com is a slickly produced video, posted just days ago, that slams Musk as an “American Swindler” and a “foreign-born” businessman who got rich off U.S. tax dollars. … The website appears to have been designed by Orange Hat, an Alexandria-based firm. The firm promises to “utilize the most effective digital resources to engage and mobilize your target audience and drive measurable results.” Keith Cowing, of the blog NASA Watch, first uncovered the connection to Orange Hat. Randy Skoglund, Orange Hat’s managing partner, declined to comment on the anti-Musk website when contacted by phone Wednesday, and then hung up. Brad Summey, the firm’s chief Technology officer, did not respond to requests for comment.”
Earlier posting
Keith’s update: Someone (or several people) are posting under anonymous names from the same IP at ULA today in Colorado reveling in the comments about Musk and SpaceX. This cloak and dagger stuff seems to play well outside the beltway as well.
Keith’s note: I was reading an article on the The Hill tonight when this add popped up that sent me to http://whoiselonmusk.com/ which is an anonymous attack website dedicated to the notion that Elon Musk is the spawn of Satan or awful or something. At the bottom of the page the site says that it is paid for by “The Center for Business and Responsible Government (CBRG) is a non-partisan organization dedicated to highlighting cronyism and its effect on American taxpayers and policy. We believe public officials should establish an even playing field for all businesses to compete in the marketplace, not just those special interests who line their pockets.” Of course no such group actually exists and and the domain registration information for whoiselonmusk.com is hidden.

So I did an old-fashioned “view Source” and looked around and found http://musk.sladedev.com/ near the bottom which redirects to http://whoiselonmusk.com/. But http://sladedev.com goes to a holding page for Slade Technologies. The domain registration for sladedev.com with a contact name of Brad Summey – [email protected]. If you go to the domain registration details for Savage Jerky there is a contact name of Kenneth Summey – [email protected]. Both domains list a contact address of Savage Jerky Co., LLC 2133 Lawrenceville-Suwanee Rd Suite 12-405 Suwanee Georgia 30043.
If you Google “Brad Summey” (picture on the right) you see a linked in page https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbsummey – “Kb” Summey – I guess that’s where “Kenneth” and “Brad” comes from. Brad Summey is CTO for Orange Hat Group, LLC – http://www.OrangeHatGroup.com located at 950 N. Washington St #319 Alexandria, VA 22314. Looks like these guys do lots of political and issue-oriented stuff. Indeed if you go to this page at OpenSecrets.org you will see that Kline for Congress Cmte (Rep. Kline R-MN) paid them $11,550 in 2014 and Friends of Erik Paulsen (R-MN) paid them $101,650 in 2013/2014. Hmm … two members of Congress – both from Minnesota.
Oh yes, if you go to If you go to http://www.orangehatgroup.com/news/ you will see that he retweets “RT @SavageJerky: Today’s the day. We’re giving a 6 month supply of jerky to a lucky follower on #SuperBowl Sunday. #jerky #giveaway http://@OrangeHatGroup 06:55pm, 01 Feb”. So Orange Hat is into beef jerky too. You can also follow Brad on Twitter at @kbsummey.
So … what does a guy who runs a beef jerky company in Georgia and is a CTO at an inside-the-beltway Internet/issues company (whose company does stuff for Minnesota republicans) have against Elon Musk? Maybe Brad will explain all of this to us – and who is paying for his website – because why not?
Keith’s update: But wait there’s more: These ads seem to be focused more on electric cars and green energy policy food fights people have with Elon Musk than they do on SpaceX per se. Its election time so, as they say, follow the money. By some coincidence, the Koch Industries (the Koch Brothers) gave Rep. Paulsen and Kline (the same two republican candidates from Minnesota that Orange Hat worked for in 2013-2014) $10,000 during the 2014 election cycle. FEC Form 3 statement) from Paulsen’s campaign wherein Orange Hat was paid for ads and social media while the campaign mentions receiving $2,500 from Koch Industries PAC. Rightwing Watch noted that Conservative Ralph Reed’s organization listed Jack St. Martin, Partner, Orange Hat Group as a speaker at a 2010 event.
There is an earlier, similarly-syled attack video posted on 8 December 2015 by Mike Ross that talks about “filthy hippies” buying solar panels in San Francisco and the oh-so-terrible Elon Musk “and his taxpayer subsidized companies.” In this Huffington Post piece from 16 February 2016 The Kochs Are Plotting A Multimillion-Dollar Assault On Electric Vehicles There has also been the little matter of the Koch brothers and their fight against Musk over electric cars.
Use Google and these things just reveal themselves to you.
Keith’s 19 August 2016 update: I just got the following email:
“Keith, I wanted to reach out as someone recently forwarded your post on the Orange Hat Group and Elon Musk. I have not been associated in any way nor had any contact with the Orange Hat Group, Brad Summey or Randy Skoglund since June of 2010. I am an admirer of Elon Musk and I think he has done great things for the state of Nevada and Reno area where my family currently resides. I had the pleasure of going to the Giga Factory grand opening a few weeks ago and it is impressive to say the least and I think Musk is a visionary. I thought it was important to set the record straight. I hope you will be able to update your post appropriately. Jack St. Martin”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

59 responses to “Why Does Brad Summey Hate On Elon Musk So Much? (Update)”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    I’ll bet this is coming from Orbital ATK or Shelby’s office. They’d love to stir up crap against SpaceX and the Commercial Space companies because they shake up the existing system for launches and possibly undermine public support for SLS.

    Plus, when you look at the different sections, the ones on “Solar City” and “Tesla” focus on his political contributions – while the one on SpaceX has a huge section dedicated to bashing his credibility on space launches, etc.

  2. Matthew Black says:
    0
    0

    Musk and Space X ooze credibility!! This is vile, underhanded stuff. This Summey character and his cronies – down here we have a name for them; it rhymes with tanker…

  3. Shaw_Bob says:
    0
    0

    Money makes the world go round, and some people would sell their granny for money.

  4. Skinny_Lu says:
    0
    0

    If profiting from tax payer’s money is the issue, then look no further than ULA and their parents, Boeing and Lockheed Martin plus Orbital-ATK. SpaceX developed their systems at a fraction of traditional Dept of Defense contracts, then, instead of paying off investors in the short term, they developed a number of significant technologies (without payment or even asking for it) to benefit space transportation and NASA missions & goals. ULA gets paid $1 billion per year to keep up their launch pads ready to launch when the Air Force calls. Then, their rockets costs way more than they should. Which one should we complain about?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Actually, ULA doesn’t even do that:The Air Force own and maintains the launch pads. As I understand it, the $800 million, or whatever the exact number is, goes to making sure they can provide a rocket not for the facilities at Canaveral.

  5. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    Once upon a time we had a NASA that was all about affordability,
    about lower costs per pound to orbit, about improving reliability and safety and all these by 10 times, then 100 times. Once upon a time we had a NASA that was all about reusability. Remember the RLV days, and the X-vehicle days, and all that alphabet soup of studies about what could come after the Space Shuttle. Some of this was about “commercial” even back then.

    Inside and outside NASA today some people seem to have developed a severe, almost pathological, immune reaction once any of these advances have actually approached, and as anybody has made headway here like SpaceX and Elon Musk. Aesop would have said go read “sour grapes”. An economist would say it’s never easy to take down monopolies. Think Ma’Bell. Think Railroads of old. Think big oil today. Today’s space monopolies are also of the mind, as if some people believe fervently (like a cult) that space enterprise is an exclusive affair, specifically theirs to own and to decide. All others are outsiders who do not understand “challenges” and that “space is hard” (repeat, like a litany, ad nausea, like this means something deep).

    This anti-Elon web junk is more of the same.

  6. Hiasakeyet says:
    0
    0

    Just a reminder that the government has subsidized Elon Musk to the tune of 5 billion dollars or more.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      You have neglected to mention that you work for ULA at 9100 E. Mineral Circle, CO. More anonymous Musk bashing.

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        He may work for ULA and that is worth knowing, but is what he says about the amount of government support untrue? ULA has always been hip deep in the military industrial complex. It is Mr. Musk that portrays himself to be at the cutting edge of brawny Yankee capitalism….please….ahem. And no, I don’t work for ULA…just pay taxes.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          He works for ULA – that is what his IP says on every post he makes.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          Capitalism is relative when one of the biggest customers in an industry is the US Government.

          No, SpaceX isn’t selling tickets on spaceships directly to billionaires. But it is selling launches to commercial satellite companies. And the government contracts it has been winning have been won in what has only recently become a very competitive environment (i.e. capitalism). The way that both commercial cargo and commercial crew are being run by NASA is helping to keep the contract winners honest and is saving taxpayers a lot of money.

          The US Government contracts that SpaceX has been winning are not the older style “winner take all”, cost-plus, style contracts.

        • duheagle says:
          0
          0

          Yes, it’s untrue. See my comment to fcrary above.

      • AndrewW says:
        0
        0

        Maybe ULA could reduce their costs by sacking the staff in their Internet Propaganda Department.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      It may be hard for some people to understand, but payment for services is not the same thing as a subsidy. The government did not pay SpaceX more than a competitor would charge for the same services, and the government did not pay SpaceX to stick around and remain available. That’s what a subsidy is, and SpaceX didn’t get any.

      • Bunker9603 says:
        0
        0

        I dont understand how anybody from ULA can complain about Spx getting “Sudsidies” when ULA recieves 800 million a year in subsidies just to be launch ready.

        At least Spx is providing a value added service

      • Ryan says:
        0
        0

        In fact, NASA paid SpaceX about 1/2 of what they paid Orbital for the same up-mass in the COTS contract.

    • Spacenut says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX has not received a single cent it has not competed fairly for, they are simply working harder and smarter than the “Fat Cats” and providing far greater value for money for the US government than the old space companies who are utterly desperate to maintain their coveted monopoly so they can charge as much a possible for doing as little as possible.

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      No, it hasn’t.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      I’d like to see some real evidence of that.

  7. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    There are literally millions of similar websites attacking anyone who works on renewable energy, some are backed by political interests, most are just crazy talk by mentally patients. Why bother with this one? It doesn’t even have anything to do with NASA.

  8. kcowing says:
    0
    0

    You have neglected to mention that you are posting from your computer at ULA at 9100 E. Mineral Circle, CO. More anonymous Musk bashing.

    • Matt Colver says:
      0
      0

      And we can all assume you’re posting from 1 Rocket rd, Hawthorne, Ca.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        No, Reston VA but I can see from your IP that you work at ULA in Colorado as well

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Keith, I know some people don’t agree, but I think everyone should be treated in the same way. If you are revealing details about some people who post to this forum, why limit it to obnoxiously biased people who you happen to disagree with? If the person’s employment is relevant, then shouldn’t everyone’s employment be provided?

          Please note that this is not criticism for pointing out that a SpaceX basher is employed by ULA. It’s just my personal gripe that rules should apply to everyone, and not just the people someone happens to like or dislike.

          P.S.: I’m also curious about what you can tell about me, from the same IP data. Since I rarely post from work and travel quite a bit, the information must look a bit random.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Our TOS are pretty clear about attempts to create multiple accounts. Usually I just block people who create multiple accounts. As for you – no reason to look since you are a responsible participant.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Well, just for the record and since the subject of people’s employment came up, I work at the University of Colorado but only post to this site from work when I go in to work on weekends. For the most part, the IP address will give you my local pub or whatever hotel I happen to be staying in when I travel. That’s just for full disclosure and a calibration point on using IP addresses. Also, if it is not obvious, everything I write in this forum is my own, personal opinion. It does not reflect (necessarily) the views of my employer.

            Having said that, other people might do their part as far as openness and full disclosure are concerned.

      • AndrewW says:
        0
        0

        So are you paid to spread propaganda by ULA or are you simply not doing the job you’re paid to do?

    • TheBlacktom says:
      0
      0

      Seriously, Tory is a nice guy and often visits /r/spacex for example. Are these really ULA employees? If so you should all follow standards of you boss.

  9. sunman42 says:
    0
    0

    Well, Google and whois.

  10. sunman42 says:
    0
    0

    And you appear to be confusing subsidizing the man and subsidizing businesses he starts.

  11. Neil.Verea says:
    0
    0

    Do an open secrets search of SPaceX and then one on United Launch Alliance to see who plays the political crony game best

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      As a relatively new player in politics, I’d expect SpaceX to (initially) spend more on lobbying than a well established player that already has strong political allies.

      • Neil.Verea says:
        0
        0

        How long would you “expect” initially to run? 2, 5, 10 years? , or is it as long as it needs too to make your argument?

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          The big aerospace contractors have been lobbying for *many* decades, so for a newer company to truly “catch up” may take decades as well.

          Hate the game, not the player.

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      Comparing ULA’s and SpaceX’s lobbying expenses hardly completes the picture. You need to look at Boeing’s and LockMart’s lobbying as well. ULA is not, and never has been, a free-standing entity.

  12. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I think you need to back up these claims. Tesla is running in the red but that is not unusual for a high tech startup company. I’ve never seen evidence that they receive, much less depend on, government subsides. As for Mr. Musk’s personal wealth, where does your “$5 billion in government subsides” claim come from? Are there any facts behind your statements, or are you just making things up to suit your opinions?

    • duheagle says:
      0
      0

      I suspect the “$5 billion in subsidies” comes from that L.A. Times hatchet piece that came out last year. The “$5 billion” in “subsidies” turns out to be the combined potential value of 20 years worth of future tax abatements Tesla will receive, mostly from the state of Nevada. The Nevada government isn’t actually paying Tesla any money, it’s just agreed not to take as much in future taxes as it otherwise might. These deals get made all the time in order to attract businesses to particular places. In Nevada’s case, Tesla spends $5 billion real dollars to build a huge lithium battery plant there and the tax abatements are a two-decade-long quid pro quo.

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        And every other large company in the US receives similar subsidies, especially from state and local municipalities. A very well known company close to me received several tens of millions of dollars in tax abatements due to building new offices so they can consolidate their many locations into one. No doubt they were in competition with the other local municipalities which also had existing offices. It’s a race to the bottom where these municipalities are giving up corporate tax revenues and making it up by taxing the workers at those same corporations.

        Blaming a company like Tesla for doing the very same thing as every other large US company is disingenuous.

    • rktsci says:
      0
      0

      There is a $7500 per vehicle federal tax credit for plug ins. It’s effectively built into the price of the vehicle – be it Tesla, Nissan, etc.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        It’s money well-spent and represents a proper role of government to encourage the free market in desirable directions.

        Yes, I know, many here will take issue, pointing out that the government shouldn’t make decisions about direction and that the ‘free market’ should do it.

        They are wrong.

        Over to you, Mr. E…

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        That’s pretty indirect. Why isn’t that $7500 a subsidy going to the car’s buyer rather than the manufacturer? Why write as if 100% of it ended up directly in Mr. Musk wallet? It doesn’t, and he might get none at all if the buyers pick Nissans over Teslas (unlikely as that strikes me.)

        • rktsci says:
          0
          0

          The tax credit is for the buyer. But it is effectively built into the price of the car the same way that the mortgage interest deduction pushes up home prices.

  13. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    You know @torybruno can stop all of this… crap if he wants to. Posters coming from ULA is unbecoming of the people I know personally at ULA. Sad.

    Frankly, ULA could smoke, SMOKE, Spacex if they were allowed to in my opinion. The fact the mommy (boeing) and daddy (lockheed martin) keep the kid with oppositional defiance disorder in command is beyond me… but ok.

    JMHO of course.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      That would be my sense as well, being a casual observer; the issue with ULA isn’t the working bunnies. It’s the boardroom.

      • Matt Falcon says:
        0
        0

        Well, hmm. Think about it. ULA is a totally, completely, 100% bureaucratic practically-government organization, where dull people go after they get through with dull school because their dull school life pointed them to “space”. There is no soul there. There is no life. There’s buildings full of people performing “science” in a completely textbook way – minor advances, little improvements, much like the auto industry.

        SpaceX on the other hand, sucks up all the people that have soul left in their bodies. Those are the people busy changing the industry, because they have that soul and culture. They’re excited to be doing what they’re doing. ULA, not so much. Blue Origin, too, but to a lesser extent… at least BO gets people that aspired to SpaceX, not the ULA guys that aspire to bupkis. 😉

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      ULA has been a cash cow for its parent companies. That’s the polar opposite of innovating, which requires at least some seed money for R&D. The papers published by ULA engineers over the years have been quite impressive, but they’ve never gotten the funding to actually *do* anything new.

  14. TheBlacktom says:
    0
    0

    Tesla has probably the highest price margin on it’s products in the industry and all those money they make goes to developments like R&D, new facilities worldwide and support of 13k and growing workforce.
    And also his companies would be fine without subsidies, and anyone else can have those subsidies anyway, and the oil industry or the ‘old space’ industry has way more subsidies ANYWAY.

  15. TheBlacktom says:
    0
    0

    Some stuff that maybe has additional value for the topic:
    When I click on ‘Administrator’ it links to this page: http://whoiselonmusk.com/au
    A quick Google search brings up an automotive group with a similar name: http://www.billwalsh.com/

  16. Wayne Martin says:
    0
    0

    This is all over the News Shining a light on it all!

    Good going on your Staralization via the Light!

    You’re quite an important person in my book keep up the good work!

  17. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Thirty years ago Cape Canaveral led the world in launching commercial satellites. ULA became a monopoly supplier to the US government and discovered it was more profitable to raise prices and abandon the cost-sensitive commercial market. For five years we didn’t have a single launch from US soil that wasn’t paid for by the taxpayers.

    SpaceX came on the scene with a totally different playbook, controlling cost through vertical integration and marketing aggressively to commercial and government users alike. Among their first payloads were two comsats for Asiasat, a Chinese company, the first and SFAIK only Chinese payloads ever launched from the US. Look at the manifest. The only US company that is winning launch contracts from commercial and international customers, indeed anyone other than the taxpayers is SpaceX. That’s no subsidy.

    • krocket says:
      0
      0

      In the works of Jack White, “you just can take thge effect and make it the cause.” ULA was the result of the gutting of the US launch industry by the Space Shuttle program. It was mandated at the ouytset than government civilian and defense paylods would be exclusively launched on STS, taking away an important base demand from the industry. The allure of heavily subsidized launch costs also drew many of the coomercial customers in the early 1980’s. Expendible rockets became the cost-effective chouce again in the wake of Challenger, but by them compettiors such as Arianspace had proven their capability, reliability, and cost compretitveness.

      General Dynamics and LM pretty much kept doing what they always did and relied on the return of defense launches to expendibles; I didn’t observe any real effort to innovate to cut costs and compete in the commercial market from them. LM eventially took over Atlas and Centaur and abandoned their Tit]an as hopelessly expensive. The use of bargan basement engines from russia was their big innovation.

      In the mean time, Boeing did make a serious attempt to dramatically lower costs in the Delta 3 and 4. Unfortunately, they relied on a market model that turned out to be extreamly unrealistic. With the demand far short of projections many of the steps they took to provide economies of scale merely provided massive overhead

      The final straw was the government decision to fund the monopolistic ULA and ensure it’s survival. It had no hope of regaining commercial customers and frankly no incentive to do so.

      The new providers, particularly SpaceX really are working to drive down costs and grab market share. I am frankly surprised and thrilled by their success in doi g so. The relatively small government investment in these ventures for cargo and crew launches seems to be money much better spent than boondoggles like SLS.

      It reamins to be seen whether the market will actually expand to fufil the business models I perceive companies like SpaceX are pursuing and there could still be roadblocks that will kill them, but we should all be cheering those willing to try.

  18. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like standard election year mud. If you can’t argue with the message, then attack the messenger.
    Green energy has been heavily subsidized during this administration, everybody knows that. The robbers are the ones that collected the subsidies, padded their pockets with high executive salaries, then ran their businesses into the ground. I don’t see that happening with Tesla and Solar City.

    • RealClydeTombaugh says:
      0
      0

      Lest we forget the substantially massive subsidies in that go to the oil industry.

  19. rktsci says:
    0
    0

    Keith, the Koch connection is really, really thin. How many other people gave to both of these campaigns? For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, Wells Fargo gave Kline $12,000 (#13 contributor to his campaign) and Paulsen got $25,300 (#2 contributor) from them. Perhaps they are behind this? Or Ecolab ($17,100 and $14,000 respectively)? And Kline isn’t in Congress anymore, btw.

    The Koch brothers aren’t conservatives – they are libertarians, a big difference.

  20. guo says:
    0
    0

    i am glad nobdoy look at the website