What Is Really Behind The SpaceX Bashing
Breitbart, other conservative outlets escalate anti-SpaceX campaign, Ars Technica
“The central canard of these attacks is that John McCain did not, in fact, add “Section 1615″ to the Defense Authorization Act, which is now being finalized by a conference between the House and Senate. This clause does not exist at all in the Senate language. Rather, it was inserted into the House legislation by US Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican from Alabama. … Two sources familiar with the legislation told Ars that Rogers added Section 1615 specifically to benefit Aerojet and its AR1 rocket engine.”
it just the normal fighting between states and by contractors where rockets, planes, etc are built. Alabama builds different rockets than those built in California. SpaceX’s biggest issue is they have undercut the prices of established government contractors (Boeing and Lockheed) in building rockets. Yes SpaceX was subsidized, but so was Boeing and Lockheed in the past. A little competition is very good.
“Yes SpaceX was subsidized”
Sigh. Here we go again.
More accurately: “Yes, NASA purchased goods and services from SpaceX; some of these services include cargo to orbit, while others include technology development”.
The role of “competition:” As far as I can see, SpaceX’ chief influence is the desire to reach Mars. “Competitors”, as the term is currently understood, have had little effect on SX’ direction.
I don’t think that’s accurate either. they got “subsidized” with COTS and a contract for “goods and services” with CRS. Nothing wrong with either, because SpaceX has used the money very well.
By your definition, is there any way the government can pay a company, without it being a “subsidy”? NASA wanted something, they paid a company to provide it (and partially paid to have the company develop that service), NASA got what they paid for, and didn’t overpay. How is that a subsidy?
A subsidy is generally money paid to an industry in excess of the fair market value for a product. That doesn’t appear to be the case here as all SpaceX contracts with the government were negotiated competitively. It should be noted that for the commercial cargo and commercial crew services SpaceX requested and was paid less than their competitors, OSC and Boeing respectively.
I wasn’t saying it was as subsity
are you talking to me? I was quoting Michael’s definition of subsidized.
—
“what’s really behind the SpaceX bashing?” …
success on one side, sour grapes on the other ?
Please, tell me that somebody with appropriate power and uncorruptable is checking all these bills, and holding the authors accountable? Greed, Ego, Hubris, etc. need to be fought on all fronts or we all lose.
This is the Swamp you are talking about, not Fantasy Island 🙂
Simple, he received government money under President Obama for Solar City and Tesla, profiting from the Global Warming “Hoax”. He had his picture taken with President Obama and recieved NASA money during the Obama Administration for SpaceX. Finally, he resigned from President Trump’s panel of advisors. Any one of these is enough to make him an “enemy” of the supporters of President Trump. Of course when he joined the panel he was attacked by Democrats as a “sell-out”.
Such is the world of politics today, and it’s impossible to escape politics when you are a “government contractor” with a high profile.
Really, its no different that the fights Henry Ford had with the Wilson Administration over WW I.
Except for the fact that SpaceX doesn’t actually have any state in the matter. It’s down below the fold, but the story points out that the clause in question doesn’t affect SpaceX at all. It’s about limiting Air Force funding of rocket development, to funnel it into making the Aerojet AR1 a drop-in replacement on the Atlas launch vehicle (replacing the RD-180) and instead of supporting development of a new launch vehicle (e.g. the ULA Vulcan.) That’s a ULA versus Aerojet issue. Blue Origin might also have an interest in the matter, but not SpaceX. Just to make it more fun, the claims also allege Senator McCain inserted the language, when, in fact, they aren’t even in the Senate version of the bill. It’s from the House version and curtesy of Rep. Rogers of Alabama. I guess someone thought SpaceX and Mr. McCain are more productive targets to throw mud at. That way, it doesn’t look like a fight between big aerospace/defense contractors.
Of course they are a more productive target, and it’s a narrative they fits their agenda.
Kind of odd then that trump supporters do not go after him for saying there is global warming?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
What folks seem to have a hard time understanding is his “supporters” are actually not pro-Trump, but anti-Democrat, anti-Republican (traditional) and anti-establishment media. That is why the more he is attacked the stronger he gets. And why they don’t care what stories are published about him.
Michael Moore understood that and tried to warn folks before the election but folks refused to listen, and still are refusing to learn he just doesn’t fit the models you are used to using for strategy.
well unless all the polls are “fake” the more he is attacked the more support he is losing.. he is not losing support of the high school only people .. they were his absolute strongest base and that dropped 7%… and as more indictments come in .. it will erode even farther.13 republicans are now retiring rather than have to campaign and support him
One Trump supporter I know has stopped watching Fox because it is becoming too liberal.
Your wording is biased and your facts are wrong!
People like to believe the propaganda that Tesla got some kind of special treatment from Obama regarding what some idiots call the “climate change hoax fund” also known as the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program.
People also seem to forget or ignore the fact that Elon Musk paid off all monies ($465 million which was a small fraction of the already allocated funds for green projects compared to what other companies got) that he received from the govt., early and with interest and a bonus ($26 million in govt. profit was made on the loan).
I forget the total amount allocated but it was very large and Tesla got like way less than 10% of the total.
The other companies didn’t even produce anything substantially green or worthwhile on the mass adoption scale.
I doubt the majors like GM and Ford etc., who took the lion’s share of the money will even pay it back at all.
They will probably just wait till their figures look bad and go bankrupt again and get another massive govt. bail-out “to save the workers jobs/the economy/any random BS” and we will be back to square one.
Meanwhile Tesla has done in 10 years, what the competition can’t or rather won’t seem to do, in 100 years…
…That is, make great, emission free cars that run on renewable energy.
It’s a good thing – Don’t knock it!
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Sadly while those still have an ounce of sence will see these cheap mud slinging fake news tricks for what they are there are many who will be totally taken in, such is the reality of today’s mindless world where so much clickbait trash is unquestioningly accepted as real news.
Do a little research using “Clinton” and “Uranium” if you want to have some fake fun.
Here is an article from the 1st of Oct 2017 .. it was really positive about SpaceX and it even was critical of SLS but when you read the comments .. they certainly didn’t align with the content of the article.
http://www.breitbart.com/ca…
Kudos for wading through that crap. It’s not easy to find places with actual discussion.
“what’s really behind the SpaceX bashing?” ..
The govt. buddies big boys lost their golden goose that’s what!
NASA needed this project to happen quickly so they used a contracting model that favored completion of the work first and foremost.
The already ingrained industry stalwarts objected strongly at changing the model (obviously), I might add.
Usually the govt. contract models inadvertently reward blown out budgets and continuously extended timelines.
SpaceX ticked all the boxes of requirements of time to completion and and more cost effectively than the competition too.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
“An Assessment of Cost Improvements in the NASA COTS/CRS Program and Implications for Future NASA Missions” by Edgar Zapata, NASA Kennedy Space Center. That’s what’s behind the bashing.