https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/a-shadowy-op-ed-campaign-is-now-smearing-spacex-in-space-cities/
ARS can’t confirm it’s true, but it appears to be more than likely true. To break it down: OpEd written be Apollo-Era NASA engineer submitted to papers by employees of a lobbying firm who didn’t disclose to the newspaper editors that they were lobbyists. The first client listed on the firm’s website? Boeing.
The end-game apparently is to force NASA to require propellants to be loaded prior to placing the crew on board, which would negatively impact F9’s performance due to the evaporation of cryogenic fuels.
IMO, strapping people to the top of bombs is always risky, and I think the extra risk of the load and go launch is probably less than one percentage point more risky than loading first. SpaceX did lose a rocket on the pad, but I think the lessons were learned and the risk mitigated reasonably.
Thoughts on either the procedure or Boeing’s (probable) funding of a shadowy opposition information campaign?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Re: Is Boeing/ULA funding a secretive PR campaign against SpaceX?
LOX and kerosene for man-rated rockets is hardly new. Atlas, Saturn and Space Shuttle come to mind. In all of those cases, good old fashioned engineering had to find a way to make it work safely, and in this respect they succeeded - the astronaut losses in those programs were not due to the LOX rocket fuel systems. I'm sure SpaceX can succeed as well.
ARS seems to have done a good job at investigative reporting - that is refreshing to see. Whether it is accurate is hard to say, but the effort to find and report the objective truth is appreciated. If only more reporters composed themselves in such ways.
ARS seems to have done a good job at investigative reporting - that is refreshing to see. Whether it is accurate is hard to say, but the effort to find and report the objective truth is appreciated. If only more reporters composed themselves in such ways.
Re: Is Boeing/ULA funding a secretive PR campaign against SpaceX?
Good post and yes,for one,I believe it.
The steaks are already very high with the manned capsule launches,but they are about to go to the stratosphere with what is coming next with NASA/Gov't ie the Moon and Mars.
Not withstanding that Boeing's commercial launch programme is in tatters (ULA).Yes they are producing a new cheaper rocket,but IRS still disposable (like the new European one) they just can't compete.So how do you stop Spacex?
If BFR/BFS works ( it may not) in just a few years time it's hard to see the gov't supporting the expensive NASA Boeing/Lockheed route.Dirty tricks may well get involved in these' winner takes all 'multi billion contracts.
The steaks are already very high with the manned capsule launches,but they are about to go to the stratosphere with what is coming next with NASA/Gov't ie the Moon and Mars.
Not withstanding that Boeing's commercial launch programme is in tatters (ULA).Yes they are producing a new cheaper rocket,but IRS still disposable (like the new European one) they just can't compete.So how do you stop Spacex?
If BFR/BFS works ( it may not) in just a few years time it's hard to see the gov't supporting the expensive NASA Boeing/Lockheed route.Dirty tricks may well get involved in these' winner takes all 'multi billion contracts.
-
- DarkKnight5
- Posts: 242
- Joined:
Re: Is Boeing/ULA funding a secretive PR campaign against SpaceX?
smithbs wrote:LOX and kerosene for man-rated rockets is hardly new. Atlas, Saturn and Space Shuttle come to mind. In all of those cases, good old fashioned engineering had to find a way to make it work safely, and in this respect they succeeded - the astronaut losses in those programs were not due to the LOX rocket fuel systems. I'm sure SpaceX can succeed as well.
ARS seems to have done a good job at investigative reporting - that is refreshing to see. Whether it is accurate is hard to say, but the effort to find and report the objective truth is appreciated. If only more reporters composed themselves in such ways.
Agree on the quality of reporting being very good. As you say, they may be wrong, or not 100% right, but they appear to have done a good job gathering facts and reporting them objectively. They also don’t jump to any major conclusions or speculate at motivations. That’s the reason I felt it worth discussing. Well done Ars.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests