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

Big Aerospace Reaches For The Stars While Using Smear Tactics

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 4, 2018
Filed under ,
Big Aerospace Reaches For The Stars While Using Smear Tactics

Keith’s update: Dave Mosher at Business Insider is now on the trail of Boeing’s stealth smear campaign against SpaceX.
Boeing may have used a lobbying firm to plant a scathing opinion piece about SpaceX in US news outlets. At stake is billions of dollars in NASA contracts, Business Insider
“Hagar said he never submitted the op-ed article to The Washington Times. He said he shared his written opinion with only one person, a Boeing employee, whom he repeatedly declined to identify. “I don’t want to start anything,” Hagar said. “I’m not interested in that.” Shortly after Hagar gave his op-ed article to Boeing, he said, it appeared in The Washington Times. He said he gave Boeing “permission to publish it wherever.” “I knew it would be in different publications, but not how many,” he said.”
A shadowy op-ed campaign is now smearing SpaceX in space cities, Ars Technica
“According to the LMG website, the 15-year-old firm “develops and executes public-, Hill-, and agency-facing issue advocacy campaigns that shift the narrative in a changing world.” More bluntly, the SourceWatch website calls LMG a “secretive Washington DC public affairs firm” with a history of placing op-eds, and it seeks to mask the op-eds’ financial sponsors. Ars could not confirm the ultimate sponsor of the op-eds, but there are some potentially pertinent facts. For one, Boeing is touted on the LMG website as a client, and it is listed as one of LMG’s three main “featured narratives” on its homepage. (LMG says, as part of its campaign for a Boeing tanker plane, that it “developed and executed an aggressive ‘outside game’ campaign working with dozens of major grassroots organizations, labor unions, suppliers and vendors and national security experts to make the case for Boeing’s bid. We developed messaging… and helped manage a newly developed social media campaign amplifying our nationwide chorus of genuine American voices supporting Boeing.”) Boeing, which is not mentioned in the op-eds, is also the only competitor to SpaceX in the commercial crew program. Could Boeing be the client behind the anti-SpaceX op-eds? A spokesman for Boeing, Jerry Drelling, told Ars, “We have no comment.”
Keith’s note: This is creepy. What is Boeing up to? As noted above, a firm overtly linked to them is connected to an anti-SpaceX editorial campaign. Boeing has deep pockets when it comes to PR. They have poured a lot of money into a weekly space news letter with Politico. Boeing is also prominently featured in a space-related event with Vice President Pence here in Washington, DC later this month. And of course they send lots of money to the overtly pro-SLS organization Coalition for Deep Space Exploration. Meanwhile Boeing has an ongoing social media campaign on Facebook which entices people to sign up for a newsletter – one that as an obscure but lengthy terms of service that reserves the right for Boeing to collect, use, and resell information about people who sign up. They use space as a topic to entice people to sign up but then route you to pages that urge you to support a lobbying effort for a weapon system they want Congress to buy. Again, what is Boeing up to?
Boeing’s Creepy Petition Wants To Track Your Online Activity, earlier post
Join Boeing’s SLS Fan Club So They Can Track Your Activity Online, earlier post
Boeing’s Misleading Anti-SpaceX Pro-SLS Facebook Ad Campaign, earlier post
The op-ed effort exposed by Eric Berger is eerily similar to another stealth smear effort that NASAWatch exposed back in 2016 wherein a DC PR firm (Orange Hat Group) was linked to a website designed to attack Elon Musk and SpaceX (See “Why Does Brad Summey Hate On Elon Musk So Much?“. To this day I am not certain who footed the bill since no one would comment. The website they created, whoiselonmusk.com, was still online until September when the domain registration expired. Remnants of the site are online here. Shortly after I outed this site this was added to the bottom of the page “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 this organization does not exist and never did.
This is how big aerospace and other actors try and undermine the competition these days.If they can’t compete with a better product at a better price they head for the gutter instead. What is pathetic is how badly they try and hide their tracks such that any enterprising journalist can use Google searches and make a few phone calls to reveal the true nature of these smear efforts.

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

32 responses to “Big Aerospace Reaches For The Stars While Using Smear Tactics”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    I wonder if articles like this are part of the strategy?

    https://sldinfo.com/2018/10

    Restoring the US Competitive Edge In Space: The Importance of the Space Launch System

    10/04/2018
    By Richard Weitz

    “Hoping that erratic billionaires like Elon Muskwill solve this problem is too risky. Besides emotional meltdowns, fickle entrepreneurs can easily end their support for these costly public projects.

    Profits often trump patriotism.”

    “Fortunately, a solution is at hand.

    The new U.S.-government controlled Space Launch System (SLS) will soon be able to send astronauts to other planets and carry enormous loads into space.”

    And for those in need of a really good laugh today…

    “Instead of the current practice of sending one vulnerable advanced satellite into space at a time, the enormous payload of the SLS would allow the United States to replace an entire constellation of downed or disabled satellites as well as build an entirely new space satellite network in a crisis.

    The United States could also launch better shielded but heavier armored satellites.”

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      Ah! “Profits often trump patriotism.”

      That’s rich and full of irony.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      It’s interesting he wrote, “…fickle entrepreneurs can easily end their support for these costly public projects.” I suppose he means NASA projects which depend on private launch services, but my first reaction was that most of the SpaceX and Blue Origin efforts are private, not public, projects. The same thing applies to many of the smaller, “new space” companies’ projects.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        It’s widely, and wrongly, understood that SX used NASA money to develop the Falcon. And it is possible, just possible, that Elon is out of how league in trying to set the story straight.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          For all his good points, Mr. Musk’s approach to public and media relations has some significant drawbacks. But NASA did provide _some_ funding for Falcon. It’s hard to separate how much went to that, as opposed to Dragon, but according to an interview with Gwynne Shotwell, NASA provided $396 million and SpaceX paid $450 million for the combined development. The debate I’ve heard is more philosophical. Some people think that, if the government invested anything in a project, it isn’t “commercial.” Personally, I think that’s nonsense; but it is something that can and has be used for rhetorical purposes.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            In my world, government invention is all over the place- I’m talking about University research into new crops, or disease control (Citrus greening in Florida, for instance); to the development of new turf cultivars. Sometimes these are licensed, and often simply made available to the public.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Where “soon” means “oh, we’ll see.”

    • Skinny_Lu says:
      0
      0

      My favorite one:

      “The SLS will be superior to any space carrier ever deployed. It would use proven components from earlier launch vehicles, such as the Apollo and Shuttle missions, but is designed to be evolutionary. NASA can increase its capabilities over time through upgrades and modular replacements without needing costly overhauls of the core launch vehicle.”

      Ha, Ha, Ha.

    • George Purcell says:
      0
      0

      The author of that piece displays an impressive ignorance of both risk assessment and orbital mechanics.

  2. Winner says:
    0
    0

    The problem is, with the mega $$billions that the old line aerospace companies are collecting from YOU and ME for their pork projects, they have very deep pockets to keep up the smear tactics.

  3. james w barnard says:
    0
    0

    “We do not believe that separate moveable panels should be trusted to take the place of proven wing-warping! Mr. Curtis must be stopped!” Wil and Orv.
    “I told Wilbur and I told Orville, and I’m telling you…it’ll never get off the ground!” Glen C. 😉
    “The infernal combustion engine will never replace the horse or the steam locomotive!”
    So’s yer old man!
    Ya mudder wears G.I. shoes!
    Etc., etc.!
    In the end, will an attempt to smear SpaceX by Boeing or anyone else, REALLY make the difference? Oh, yeah. Let NASA carry the ball for America in reaching out to the solar system, like it has been doing for the last several decades. Then our astronauts will probably have to apply to the Chinese embassy for visas to land on the Moon!

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, if they use the traditional tools of such muckraking like Congressional Hearings to determine if SpaceX is profiting excessively from its fixed price contracts, or if it’s rockets are really safe, or … Never mind they are saving NASA money over the cost plus contracts of Old Space…

      Also if they get the FAA AST to put further licensing requirements on SpaceX.

      Really, now is the time for space advocate groups to step up to bat for SpaceX, but so far the silence is defeating from the lot.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Silence? That’s because SX folks are too busy trying to make rockets fly. And the advocates? They are naively believing that the best man wins.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          No, the problem is that space is not a high priority for many people. Given the choice between a Congressman who agrees with them about issues like gun control or medical coverage, but disagrees about space, people will vote for the Congressman who talks about issues which are closer to their hearts. Space just isn’t close to most voters hearts, despite the fact that it is close to our own own.

  4. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    History is a bitch. SLS has a track record and so far it is not very good. Too expensive, too long in development, and little progress. Space X also has a track record and it is a good one. My money is on Space X.

  5. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Hold the phone a minute. I realize that control over a Billion dollar industry is at stake, but…I’m going to take a step back and not jump right onto this Boeing Bashing Bandwagon this time…yet.

    Boeing is a publicly traded company. “Shady funding”, while possible, isn’t that easy to facilitate legally. On the other hand, the Space Force implementation document that Secretary Mattis released, and that Keith posted here several months ago, indicated that foreign powers had noticed New Space and consider it a target. So where else have we recently heard about trolls with shady funding, unscrupulous and devisive remarks that play on current controversy and mysterious PR campaigns bent on p&&&&&g people off?
    I will add that ESA is looking at the Falcon Heavy to deliver a module to LOP-G and Japan is looking to use it for LOP-G resupply…so this is not just a USA thing.

    I’m just saying that there is other potential competition to SpaceX that we all enjoy trashing here, besides just Boeing…one that actually fits this MO better than Boeing does.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Actually auditors/analysts would not consider it “shady funding”, but simply a legal public relations strategy designed to retain market share and preserve shareholder value. Also remember it worked for the tanker contract bringing billions in revenue to Boeing. Of course for the strategy to be effective in forming public opinion a third party vendor is needed.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Boeing recently lost a sole-source bid to replace jet trainers. And Eurocopter similarly has a big DoD win.

        Stay tuned.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      That’s fair enough. It’s pretty clearly a media campaign against SpaceX, but there aren’t any obvious fingerprints. The closest I’ve read is in the Ars Tecnhica article, where they traced the Op Eds to a PR firm called Law Media Group, and found that (for a different project) Boeing was one of their clients. But this is also the sort of public opinion manipulation the Russians have been accused of, and they also have vested interests in the status quo for spaceflight. Or any number of other countries, organizations, or people.

      In a way, it’s a bit of a double standard. If this sort of thing is done by a rich American, it’s marketing, advertising, lobbying or funding political action committees, in the case of elections. That’s both legal and constitutionally protected speech. If it’s an action by a foreign national, company or government, it’s an attack on American sovereignty. On the other hand, that double standard goes all the way back the the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. There’s nothing like tradition.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        Also, if it’s the Russians, then they’re probably doing a little bank fraud (again) to hide their footprints. No one here can find out if they are, but I bet I know who can…

        (Whistles) Here NSA!

        I’ll drop them some search tags. They monitor everything.

        Identity theft
        Russian bank fraud

  6. echos of the mt's says:
    0
    0

    This article bashes Boeing too but ever so slightly:
    http://thefederalist.com/20

  7. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    I am wondering when Blue Origin will start becoming a target from Old Space. So far, Blue Origin has managed to fly under the radar, because they don’t have an orbital launcher. But this will change in a big way. New Glenn will be able to loft 45,000 Kg to LEO, that is enormous. Of course, BFR will supposedly be better, but I am skeptical of the timetables on that.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      If tangling with Blue Origin. Old Space will have to contend with duking it out with the world’s richest man and his legal team. Who also owns the Washington Post as a hobby.

      There is no Congressional critter who want to annoy Bezos. Who could funded their challengers with almost unlimited cash.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        And, perhaps as importantly, Mr. Bezos doesn’t send out tweets that do himself more harm than good. I can think of some national leaders and an aerospace CEO who lack that sort of restraint.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      You answer your own question. SpaceX is subject to these sorts of media attacks because they are taking work away from established firms. Blue Origin will probably see similar, negative press treatment as soon as they threaten the profits of established launch service providers.

  8. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    It looks like the near term target is the recently passed Defense Authorization Act.

    https://thefederalist.com/2

    Bill To Require Reusable Rockets Benefits SpaceX At Taxpayers’ Expense

    New legislation will bias a military satellite program in favor of futuristic, unproven technology that could cost taxpayers billions.

    October 5, 2018
    By David Hogberg

    “Over the last five years, SpaceX has spent more than $8 million lobbying the federal government, and the company will be getting its money’s worth with the Defense Authorization Act recently passed by Congress.”

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      The piece goes on to cite a ULA study (!) that reusable boosters aren’t feasible until used 15 times.

      Which sort of begs the point; customers don’t see development costs, at least not directly; they see the purchase price.

      It’s been opined elsewhere that SX is profitable on each launch even if the booster splashes. I don’t know if this is true.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        And the reference to the ULA study is an article from 2015. A decade ago, that would be current. But things have changed fairly rapidly in recent years. A three year old study in the value and details of reusability is, in practice, obsolescent.

        Since SpaceX isn’t publicly traded, I don’t think we have any way to see what the bottom line is, or how profitable they would be without reuse of the Falcon 9 first stage. But we do know they are spending quite a bit on internal development, and not just of BFR. We know they have never reused a first stage twice (i.e. no single one has flown three times.) So, to date, it looks like they are making money and doing so with limited savings from reusability.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      It’s always nice to see an editorial where the text contradicts the title. According to the text of that editorial, the Act would not require the Department of Defense to buy launches on reusable vehicles. They can an expendable launch vehicle. In that case, they would simply be require to report to Congress and explain why. The editorial doesn’t even claims this oversight requirement be enough of a burden that amounts to a ban. The author simply says it’s heading in that direction.

      Since it does hit SpaceX over lobbying Congress (as if ULA doesn’t…) I’m somewhat curious how the author pays his bills. He works for the “National Center for Public Policy Research”, but that’s presumably supported by contracts or grants from someone.