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.
Commercialization

Boeing's Misleading Anti-SpaceX Pro-SLS Facebook Ad Campaign

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 29, 2018
Filed under , , , ,
https://media2.spaceref.com/news/2018/watchusfly.jpg

Keith’s note: We’ve all heard about those misleading campaign ads on Facebook. Well, while the campaign ads are under scrutiny big aerospace companies are quietly luring people to websites that are not what they seem to be at first glance.
This ad is currently running on Facebook. According to the coding embedded in the link it is “campaign=acquisition_newsletter_tier-two-space-race-b” and I am an “enthusiast”. When you go to the link it sends you to this page at watchusfly.com (registered by Boeing in 2016) which says “America is in a modern-day space race, and Boeing is leading the charge by building the spacecraft that will keep us in the lead. Boeing’s Space Launch System is the world’s largest and most powerful rocket. It is the foundation for America’s plan to send humans to Mars. Boeing’s Starliner is a re-usable capsule that will soon be the method NASA uses to send astronauts into space.” But when you go to this page for more information it says “NASA’s Space Launch System provides a critical heavy-lift capability, powering people and cargo beyond our moon and into deep space.”
For starters NASA is building the SLS. Boeing – along with Lockheed Martin, Aerojet, Orbital ATK, and Airbus are building the pieces. One page says it is Boeing’s SLS. The other says it is NASA’s. Which is it? And yes, Starliner will be sending human crews into space but it is not “the method NASA uses to send astronauts into space.” It is one of the methods – SpaceX is another method.

If you click “contact us” you get a page with lots of links. Go to About us which says “WHY JOIN WATCH U.S. FLY? In today’s global environment, our policymakers in Washington, D.C. and around the country need to be aware of how their decisions will affect the millions of Americans who directly or indirectly depend on our aerospace and manufacturing sectors. The Watch U.S. Fly community helps to bridge the gap and connect the personal stories of our advocates around the country to the policies, legislation and decisions that politicians are debating. And our voices make a difference.” OK, so this is actually a page that is trying to get people to lobby Congress. They don’t tell you that when you first visit, do they?
Then you can go to Take Action where they suggest that you can take action on “Support Boeing T-X Today.” So this is bait and switch. They tease space people in and then try to get them to support something Boeing wants Congress to buy to train fighter pilots.
And then if you go to the Blog link you see things like NASA: SPACEX FALCON HEAVY IS ‘TOO SMALL’ FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION which says “However, the Falcon Heavy failed to impress the spaceflight department at NASA. Bill Gerstenmaier, the head of spaceflight at NASA, said the Falcon Heavy is “too small” for NASA’s needs.” So this is not really a website that supports space flight as much as it is one that only supports SLS and Boeing defense products and dumps on SpaceX overtly using statements by NASA managers in those comments. If you sign up for the Boeing newsletter with Facebook “Watch U.S. Fly will receive: your public profile and email address.” So Boeing will know a lot about you that you may not want them to know.
The bottom of the page says “Watch U.S. Fly is a community of Americans that believes that America should lead the world in technological advancements. We realize that in order to maintain our edge, American aerospace must have the support of policymakers so they can continue to chart the future.” and then “Copyright © 2018 Boeing. All Rights Reserved.” Who is “we”? Who is this “community”?
People going to the page that this Boeing Facebook advertisement is slyly sending them to are getting misleading – and overtly incorrect and biased information. Contrary to the teaser line that this is all about “the path to Mars” (oops we’re gong to the Moon now) using imagery that overtly features the NASA logo, Boeing wants you to think about Boeing – and only Boeing.

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

47 responses to “Boeing's Misleading Anti-SpaceX Pro-SLS Facebook Ad Campaign”

  1. Keith Vauquelin says:
    0
    0

    I predict here and now, one, maybe two SLS flights will occur, be incredibly over-budget, and will be killed by a Congress and President who sees the financial handwriting on the wall.

    The problem remains, this action should take place NOW. No one in our Congress and certailnly not the White House, has the guts to do the right action on this, which I have clearly outlined here.

    Kill SLS. Now.

  2. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Not surprising. Repeat the lie often enough and people believe it regardless of the facts. I’m guessing that Boeing is going to keep this up for the next five to six years (which is how long it’s going to be until SLS actually flies astronauts).

    I guess we’ll just have to hope that BFR/BFS is successful. That’s the only thing that’s going to stop this pork project.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      The term is “Big Lie” propaganda. Some people are hesitant to accuse others of using it. Partially, that is due to its famous use by A. Hitler and the German National Socialist party. Calling people you disagree with “Nazis” doesn’t win you any rhetoric points. So people often avoid calling the Big Lie propaganda what it is.

      • Terry Stetler says:
        0
        0

        Boeing quoted the Evening Standard, owned by former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev. Where’s Mueller!??

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Oh, it gets even better. According to Eric Berger on Ars Technica:

          “The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS’ capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the “technology news website Ars Technica.””

          That is, almost certainly, one of Mr. Berger’s own stories. I’m fairly sure from his past writing that it wouldn’t have been overly positive about SLS.

  3. buzzlighting says:
    0
    0

    I don’t like the way Boeing totally mislead Facebook user about their Space+Mars plan it’s full of lies about SpaceX. Boeing restarted anti SpaceX bashing on Facebook. Elon should reopen Facebook account again to counter Boeing and tell true SpaceX Mars plan he envision for next 20 years in full details. That will shut Boeing up for good.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Perhaps Mr. Musk should stay off Facebook and let people realize that Facebook just isn’t a good source for credible information. Unless the source is a close, personal friend. And even then, that reliability depends on your friend.

      Seriously, Facebook is mostly a medium for personal exchanges and rumors. That’s great when it comes to knowing where your friends are and what they are doing. But when it comes to facts and what is really going on in the world, it’s a suspect source of information.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Unfortunately the Facebook strategy of stovepiping information from people with similar views has contributed to the schizoid world of disconnected cliques living in alternate realitiers.

  4. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    What bugs me with illustrations like this is shows just a capsule with less people room than Shuttle (and it doesn’t have a toilet), no habitat module for supplies, exercise equipment like on ISS, and NO lander. Going to Mars in that?

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Nope, Orion is pretty much just the “taxi” to get astronauts from earth to the Mars transit vehicle and from the Mars transit vehicle back to earth (i.e. a very short trip). Orion does have a fairly capable service module, but it’s never going to have enough life support for an entire Mars mission.

      • Shaw_Bob says:
        0
        0

        The Orion SM is undersized to do much at all – it can barely creep into a distant Lunar orbit. The SM is basically an old ESA ATV with a Shuttle OMS pod bolted on, and only the first couple have been committed to by ESA. Also, the SM is running as late as anything else is within this make-work program.

        • George Purcell says:
          0
          0

          It fulfilled its mission to be big enough not to fit on an Atlas V and need a heavy lift to get it into orbit.

        • Spaceronin says:
          0
          0

          Err… ESM may have the entire ATV ESA marching army attached to it but it ain’t an ATV. AFAIK the only ATV heritage stuff on it are the SAs and the RCTs. Most of the preliminary/sizing design was done by Lockheed and handed to Airbus to fettle and complete. Compared to ATV it is just a dumb truck. The brains are all in the CM. Also it is only the shuttle OMS engine that is being scavenged. The tanks are new European units: http://company.airbus.com/n….

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          If one recalls correctly. The TLI orbit injection was mostly done with the oversize Altair lander on the original Concept of operation for Constellation. The service module mostly does life support.

          Of course IMO even a Dragon capsule is too big to be a crew taxi to LEO. Which is basically what the original Orion capsule was.

          Mike Griffin design the Orion so that not even the Delta IV was suppose to be capable of lifting it to LEO.

          Also the Orion vehicle stack will have lower total mass if it was design for an EELV to begin with. The launch escape system would be much less capable when it doesn’t to have deal with a burning segmented solid motor.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        “a fairly capable service module”

        If you mean the one the ESA is building for NASA, I think that’s correct. Unfortunately, the “a” part may also be correct. They are only contracted to build one or two. It isn’t clear how capable or expensive the replacement will be.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          Really? If it’s domestically designed and built I have little faith in it being reasonably priced to design, build, test, and fly. I fear it will be as bad as the upper stage for SLS, which would mean buying more service modules from ESA due to schedule slippage.

          SLS/Orion is just one big dumpster fire. Ugh.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Really. It’s based on their old Automated Transfer Vehicle (five non-reusable ISS cargo flights, from 2008 to 2014) and Airbus Defence and Space has a 390 million Euro contract for the first one. They have also contracted for a second one for 200 million. Their involvement involves an exchange for a reduced share of funding for ISS operations. Apparently they have no interest in proving more than those two service modules. I’m not sure how their schedule looks.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            I know about the ATV derived service module. I didn’t know that they were only going to build two.

            What I don’t know anything about is what NASA plans on replacing it with after those two flights. Presumably they need their own US build service module. I know nothing about that program.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            From ESA’s point of view, think I understand their lack of interest in building more than two service modules. It’s an expedient way to cover their obligation for ISS operations costs, as a trade with NASA. If ISS isn’t going to be around after 2024, they have no further obligation. If NASA wants them to build more Orion service modules, NASA would have to give them something (seats on SLS/Orion flights, for example.)

            Some people think NASA’s budget practices are convoluted, but we aren’t in the same league as ESA. While we complain about deliberately cynically funneling money to certain states, ESA is required to do so. The contributions from on member nation have to come back in contracts to people in that same nation. If, for example, France were to increase their voluntary contribution by 100 million, ESA would have to issue 100 million worth of additional contracts to French companies. And, since most European aerospace companies have offices in several countries, the whole thing gets really murky.

            But what ESA can’t do is send NASA a 590 million Euro check for ISS operations. They can issue a 590 million Euro contract to a European company and give the resulting hardware to NASA in exchange for their share ISS operations costs. But that only lasts as long as ISS does.

          • Spaceronin says:
            0
            0

            It is worth noting that in the beginning ESM was at the bottom of the pile of ATV follow-ups and had a very limited cost perimeter to meet the ISS obligations. It also had a relatively nimble team on the ESA side. All the alternatives for the ATV follow-ons withered on the vine leaving only this. So ESA pivoted the entire ATV team onto it. I am sure the management found a more palatable narrative than that but YMMV. ESA has the same issues that NASA has on aging so it is not likely that there will be much of an challenge in winding this up when needed, but they could want to keep it going.

          • Spaceronin says:
            0
            0

            Oh and that Geo-return thing does play out across multiple programs. Broadly the programs in ESA as you imply are either mandatory or voluntary; i.e. science is mandatory but HSF and Launchers are voluntary (UK didn’t contribute to either until a recent change in stance on HSF, still out of launchers though). So the geo-return is broadly worked out on a macro level. This allows horse trading across various budget lines. I am agnostic on this. It is not the same thing as ‘pork barrel’ but it is an explicit acknowledgement of fair return (BTW EU programs do not do this they are based on best value criteria only). It is probably the only ‘efficiency mechanism’ Europe has. The market here is just too small compared with the US to support the critical mass of competitors required to truly drive efficiency. That bit is weird as we have a larger headcount all told, so there should be a higher potential. Go figure. I am sure all sorts of trolling about socialism in Europe and American corporate hegemony could be dished up here but in balance with that is the extraordinary amount of GDP the US spends on defense. A large chunk of which is in space and sustains that market even at times when the US is not leading on commercial space. This is an old song I shall leave it up to Boeing and Airbus aircraft to sing it with the WTO chorus.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I didn’t intend to be critical of the ESA policy of returning money (in the form of contracts) to the member nation who provided it. In some ways, it’s better than the “pork” Americans complain about. It’s official policy and entirely above the board, which I consider an improvement. But it is a different way of doing things.

            That’s also true of the way ESA funds and flies scientific missions but doesn’t fund the instruments on them. The instruments and most of the scientists are funded directly by the member states.

            All that means some of the ESA decision making process is also different from the way NASA would do things. Not necessarily better or worse. But if you want to understand it, it’s important to notice the differences.

          • Spaceronin says:
            0
            0

            No criticism noted. Apologies if I came across defensive. Not the intent. NASA and ESA are often lumped in the same basket but they are chalk and cheese. You are right about the instruments though. It leads to the sort of embargos on data release that have irritated many who view ESA through a NASA lens. Also AFAIR it is not that ESA can’t write a check for the ISS but more that NASA can’t cash it. Not that either one is complaining.

          • Spaceronin says:
            0
            0

            I bet this will revert back to Lockheed when ESA is finished with it. They may or may not ‘localize’ it by removing the European components. More likely not because it is a sunk investment for them and as it would stand it could serve as a sort of lever to get some more Euro biz. If ISS goes on then this is the only real means of ESA meeting it’s bills as ATV is gone and there is nothing else out there.

  5. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    I always ask on their twitter posts about hardware if they plan on reusing it…

  6. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Amazing investigatory work Keith. SLS won’t fly before 2021 and we are spending $20 billion plus on a glorified lifter for the Europa Clipper.

    Jesus Christ. Imagine if we took that $20 billion, gave $5 billion to Jeffrey, $5 billion to Elon, spent $8 billion through NASA to work on radiation and propulsion, and gave the taxpayer back $2 billion.

    We would have two SHLVs and a bunch of powerpoints. I mean seriously – how many more CGI videos and status reports is NASA, Boeing, and LockMart going to shove down our throats?

  7. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Ya, Boeing. Talk it up. Not this pass, but the next one I think, when everyone talks about Starman swinging close to Mars, that part of your website will be revealed as fake news.
    In the mean time every time FH flies, more folks will Goggle “Falcon Heavy vs Space Launch System” and see and read Keith and others talking about how SLS costs somewhere near 10x as much for no where near 10x the performance.
    Besides, FH might even be obsolete and retired by the time SLS hits its stride…so you should probably be comparing SLS to another paper rocket…BFR!

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Meanwhile, it appears that some members of Congress are starting to notice that the SLS may not be on the cutting edge of technology anymore…

    https://www.houstonchronicl

    Culberson urges NASA contractors to press forward
    By Andrea Rumbaugh
    April 30, 2018
    Updated: May 1, 2018 10:20am

    “Culberson also queried Orbital ATK on whether the SLS rocket boosters are reusable. Both Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are developing reusable rocket components, with Blue Origin’s latest test flight occurring Sunday in West Texas. It flew the New Shepard, being designed for space tourism, for its eighth test. Both the spacecraft and booster had flown before.

    “If Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are successful in launching rocket
    bodies and engines four to 10 times, at least, that changes the whole
    equation,” Culberson said.

    The SLS engines are not designed to be reused, said Brian Duffy, Orbital ATK vice president for NASA Programs.”

    Of course not. NASA has spent tons of taxpayer dollars to make the reusable SRB’s and SSME engines from the Space Shuttle disposable for the SLS…

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Culberson knows well the answer to this question.

      • jamesmuncy says:
        0
        0

        Actually, Michael, that’s not fair. You would be amazed at how many disparate issues and details Congressmen, let alone Subcommittee Chairmen, have to keep track of. Chmn Culberson probably knows a lot more about Europa Clipper than the rocket it will fly on, because he really really cares about that mission.

  9. Henry Vanderbilt says:
    0
    0

    SLS/Orion depends for its $4.4 billion/year on strong support from a regional Congressional coalition. This coalition is a minority in the overall Congress, and depends (as do many other such local-pork coalitions) on the rest of Congress going along out of mutual back-scratching.

    This works just as long as a given local-pork project doesn’t become a national embarrassment. Once the rest of Congress starts taking flak over it, the support vanishes. (See “Bridge To Nowhere” – once that hit the national headlines, that local pork project was doomed.)

    Boeing is obviously working two angles here:

    – Countering the growing realization that SLS is a “Rocket To Nowhere”, with no natural missions. Boeing is stating (falsely, in my and many others’ view) that in fact SLS has a mission, “..the foundation for America’s plan to send humans to Mars”.

    – They’re also saying SLS “..provides a critical heavy-lift capability” (technically true, IF it could ever fly either affordably or often enough) and that Falcon Heavy is “too small” for NASA’s deep-space needs (a contemptible lie given those needs will inherently comprise multiple payloads to be assembled in space, easily sizable to match the available lift, whether an SLS-load or FH’s 3/4ths of that.)

    Boeing’s aim here is not to convince anyone who pays close attention to these matters. It’s to create a vague general impression of “Mars” and “useful” and “nothing better available” among the majority of Congress, who tend to operate on a low-information basis when deciding whether to support others’ pork.

    This will likely continue to work, right up to the national informational tipping-point where it stops working. Once budget-time calls from SLS supporters start getting answered “sorry, the Times and the Post are calling it ‘Rocket To Nowhere’, I can’t support it”, it’ll definitely be over.

    Short of that, a deal might be made to kill it once the writing is definitely visible on the wall. Are we there yet? Depends on how foresighted the core supporters are. We’re a lot closer than we were a year ago.

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      The biggest problem with the survival of SLS is that it is not “available” and isn’t going to be for most of the things that the very available FH is large enough to loft.

      While Boeing talks, Falcon Heavy will fly. While Culbertson and others talk, Falcon Heavy will fly. While Congress and NASA do procedural yoga to protect SLS’ true mission (jobs) by planning fake, missions (name any) that have to be artificially up-sized to beyond affordability in order to require SLS instead of FH…FH will fly.
      In the mean time, all of these program changes and schedule overruns push SLS further toward the cliff as SpaceX and Blue Origin build systems that insure that SLS will be obsolete long before its third or fourth flight.

  10. DBJ says:
    0
    0

    The desperation is showing-

    https://www.youtube.com/wat

  11. Ignacio Rockwill says:
    0
    0

    Elon should retweet ‘FH is too small’ with “I agree”, followed by some bad ass BFR updates. Long duration Raptor burns, more pictures of the BFR tankage tooling. I know he’s got some good things up his sleeves.

  12. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Mars—we still haven’t built the spacecraft.
    Europa clipper– no spacecraft.
    Lunar Orbiting Outpost propulsion module — no spacecraft.
    Lunar Orbiting Outpost hab module — no spacecraft.
    Deep space transport modules — nope, nothing.

    NASA is paying all this money to build and fly SLS sooner so that it can fly nothing.

    NASA and congress are spending more money to accelerate the ridiculously slow launch cadence of SLS to something only slightly less ridiculous to fly more of it sooner, long before any of the things that it would fly sooner could ever be ready to fly.

    All of this while the FH, which some folks have claimed has no mission, so far looks like it will still find and fly missions…even without support from NASA or Congress.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      Wasn’t the LOP-G propulsion & power module just a rehashed ARM propulsion module?

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        He wrote, “haven’t built.” You are implying the ARM propulsion system actually got off the drawing board. I’m not even sure if it got beyond powerpoint presentations.

        • Zed_WEASEL says:
          0
          0

          No. rehashed as in re-branding like the former Orbital Taurus XL became the O-ATK Minotaur-C after several launch failures.

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      SLS was on a race against FH and it already lost… Re usability is out there already in the people’s minds. For example, standing on the edge of the Indian River in Titusville, I watched an Atlas V launch a couple of weeks ago. I was among tourists and local folks that just happened to see the crowd and stopped to ask questions. People are now “EXPECTING” returning boosters. I had to break their hearts and tell them, No, Atlas V does not come back to land. It goes in the ocean. =(

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        LOL!
        I haven’t even been paying attention to Atlas launches until Insight.

        And you are correct. Reusability makes new space geeks out of people who previously didn’t care. I’ve shown the FH launch video to several folks who don’t usually pay attention to such things.

        At the thunderous rise of the largest operating rocket in the world…they watch.

        At the car reveal, with the David Bowie music…they laugh and ask me if it’s real. Then they shake their head and have mixed responses.

        But when the synchronized landing of the boosters happens…they lean forward, their eyes go wider, and they say, “Wow! Impressive!”

  13. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    “Sign up for updates” had me laughing! By the time that critter flies, email will be dead and gone and nobody will have the software to read it!