Slashdot Mirror


A Shadowy Op-Ed Campaign Is Now Smearing SpaceX In Space Cities (arstechnica.com)

Last month when Boeing and SpaceX announced the first astronauts who will fly on their commercial crew spacecraft, several newspapers across the U.S. began publishing an op-ed that criticized the process by which Boeing competitor SpaceX fuels its Falcon 9 rocket. "The first op-ed appeared in a Memphis newspaper a week before the commercial crew announcement," reports Ars Technica. "In recent weeks, copies of the op-ed have also appeared in the Houston Chronicle, various Alabama newspapers, Albuquerque Journal, Florida Today, and The Washington Times." Ars Technica reports: All of these op-eds were bylined by "retired spacecraft operator" Richard Hagar, who worked for NASA during the Apollo program and now lives in Tennessee. (Based upon his limited social media postings, Hagar appears to be more interested in conservative politics than in space these days). Each op-ed cites Hagar's work on NASA's recovery from the Apollo 1 fire and the hard lessons NASA learned that day about human spaceflight. The pieces then pivot to arguing that SpaceX's load-and-go fueling process -- in which the crew will board the Dragon spacecraft on top of the Falcon 9 rocket before it is fueled -- ignores the lessons that Hagar's generation learned during Apollo.

"It's concerning to learn that some of the newer private space ventures launching today don't appreciate the same safety standards we learned to emphasize on Apollo," the op-ed states. "I suppose for Mr. Musk, inexperience is replacing the abundant safety protocols drilled into us after witnessing the Apollo 1 disaster. Astronaut safety is NASA's number one priority on any space mission. There is no reason it should not be for private space travel, but commercial space companies like SpaceX play by different rules."

There are some factual inaccuracies here. For one thing, SpaceX does play by the same rules as Boeing for commercial crew -- astronaut safety rules that NASA itself wrote. Moreover, NASA has already provisionally cleared load-and-go for Falcon 9 launches that will send the Dragon spacecraft into orbit. To try to understand his viewpoint, Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submit many of these op-eds. In fact, based upon our research, at least four of the six op-eds that we located were submitted by two people with gmail.com addresses. Their names were Josh Brevik and Casey Murray. Further research revealed that two people with these names worked as "associates" at a Washington, DC-based public relations firm named Law Media Group or LMG.
LMG's website says they are a 15-year-old firm that "develops and executes public-, Hill-, and agency-facing issue advocacy campaigns that shift the narrative in a changing world." The SourceWatch website more bluntly "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," reports Ars.

264 comments

  1. smoke a joint, elon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Funding for the weed is secured

    1. Re:smoke a joint, elon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stock is trading at 260, Rei can buy 500 more shares off his tip.

      Next up: $242.0, $142.0, $42.0, $4.20, $0.420.

      There was a smartass who told me I'm stupid, when I told him to sell at $320.

      Where's he now?

  2. as the spirit moves us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one can only pretend to not feel it?

    1. Re:as the spirit moves us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a spirit, bro, it is my leather sword penetrating, and my weight moving you.

    2. Re:as the spirit moves us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is on the move.

  3. Re:"Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    syndrome has taken over Slashdot completely.

    Whats the conspiracy theory here? These Political thinktanks openly admit what they do. Hell, its their marketing pitch.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  4. NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if we privatize space travel that all goes away. Personally I don't want it to. Stuff like NASA is the closest thing to socialism we can get in the US. I don't like the idea of space travel becoming a rich man's club. I want a public option. But then again I also want public transit for my streets (that doesn't run one bus every 90 minutes) and I can't get that either.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      into where? anti science states?

    2. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is the biggest anti science state.

    3. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't like the idea of space travel becoming a rich man's club. I want a public option.

      When was the last time *you* got into space with your public option?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US of A is the biggest anti-science country. You crazy evangelists are all over the world on a CIA salary, condemning people to Hell with your heresies.

    5. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Let NASA do the stuff they're good at.

      Let them just be the boffins, thinking shit up, trying stuff out. Don't push them to build rockets, it just ends up with parts spread all over the country in various states.

      Let them focus on research (or sprinkling funds around to various outside parties for research, spaceX included), deep space exploration, and the tech to help enable that. They can be the enablers for so many things if they're allowed to be.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    6. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by mycroft16 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The ironic thing about this post being that SpaceX does it so much cheaper than the "socialist" option, that they are literally pissing the entire launch industry around the world off. I have a good friend who works range optics at Vandenberg and knows a lot of people from the various launch teams. He says the ULA people hate SpaceX. No matter how polite they are in press etc, they hate SpaceX. When a Falcon Heavy can lift nearly double the payload of a Delta IV Heavy and do it for 1/3 the cost... yeah. I have no idea what the economics will be when BFR is up and running, but if they pull it off as envisioned, it will be even cheaper by far to lift significantly more payload. And if the idea of Earth to Earth pans out, and I really hope it does, his estimated price in an astronomical conference presentation was about the cost of a business class airline ticket. It comes down to scale and he envisions a huge scale up. They already account for a significant fraction of all annual launches globally. SpaceX has never been about being a rich mans game. He is using sort of the same model he did with Tesla where you build the expensive one and use the money generated from the sales for that to fund the next round, and repeat, getting cheaper and scaling each time. So you get a really rich guy to fund R&D and take him around the Moon. That allows you to use the money to further develop without spending your own, etc. But their end goal has always been about making spaceflight options affordable for all. Roughly as affordable as airline travel is now. I guess we'll see how it all plays out over the next decade or so, but so far he has stuck to the model and it is starting to pay off as they have a LONG waitlist of launch payloads and are ramping up production of Block 5 Falcon 9s as well as working hard to cut turn around time. They've already cut it from months to weeks. Again, stated end goal is same day relaunch.

    7. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, NASA gets to build more stuff and have more aggressive missions.

    8. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just ends up with parts spread all over the country in various Republican states.

      You think the SLS is using solid fuel because it's the best option? Solid rocket fuel and its container are made in Alabama and Utah.

    9. Re: NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several people toured the ISS as private individuals.

      When was the last time you rode into space with a BFR strapped on your ass?

    10. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For me it was when I was reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress at the public library.

    11. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by DanDD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if we privatize space travel that all goes away. Personally I don't want it to. Stuff like NASA is the closest thing to socialism we can get in the US. I don't like the idea of space travel becoming a rich man's club. I want a public option. But then again I also want public transit for my streets (that doesn't run one bus every 90 minutes) and I can't get that either.

      I'm having a hard time processing this comment. You seem to be suggesting that NASA is supported by a nascent socialist agenda, and that without it access to space would be too expensive for anyone but the super wealthy... when in fact, it was NASA's attempt to foster free-market competition between all launch providers, even brand new and little known ones like SpaceX and SNC, that sparked the development of today's low-cost access to space.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    12. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everything a conservative doesn't like in the heat of the moment is socialism. #MAGA

    13. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by mentil · · Score: 2

      Some of your comments are brilliant and others just make me scratch my head.
      It sounds like you like the pork-barrel spending directed towards NASA. Other agencies receive federal funding and do basic research and other cool things. There are larger programs like Social Security that are much closer to being socialist programs. Right now, you have to be in the military and be lucky to be chosen to be an astronaut, dollars don't get you into space. A couple space tourists went to the ISS, but not recently, and not often. The cost is about to enter the "billionaires can afford to do it regularly" range, rather than the "given the blessings of Congress" range. Soon it's promised to enter the "millionaires can afford it once in their life" range, and if you count sub-orbital, it's claimed it will thereabouts be in the "plebes can afford it once a decade" range.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    14. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is the biggest anti science state.

      Aww, come on, this is no fun. Where's the pretzel logic to justify this?

    15. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This just in, libraries aren't socialism. Socialism is government control of the means of production. Nothing to do with libraries, schools, fire departments or any of that. Anyone tells you otherwise, she's lying.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Much of the work that Space X does is for the government. To be socialist it doesn't have to have the development done by the government, in fact NASA never really did that... It just needs to be funded and directed for the public good, rather than for purely commercial interests.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty socialist to me. Government pumps money into the economy via public projects that are contracted out. Even the USSR had RKK Energia design most of their rockets, for example.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Muros · · Score: 1

      Socialism is government control of the means of production.

      No it isn't. It is the people being in control of the means of production. Your definition can apply iff the people are in control of the government.

    19. Re: NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      If I were to, it would certainly cost me *much* less money than an Orion seat.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    20. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I don't like the idea of space travel becoming a rich man's club.

      Too bad NASA's shown that, with Congress at the wheel, it wasn't going to become anyone's club.

    21. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. You think physical transport 62 miles up is the only benefit of the space program? You think we'd live in a better world if Boeing got a patent on the miniature computer? The last time I benefited directly from the space program was right fucking now.

    22. Re: NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA is like a socialist dinosaur though. They need the money restrictions to stay lean and mean.

    23. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's another large socialist organization in the US, that's a lot bigger than NASA: it's known as the US Armed Forces.

    24. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like the crony capitalism that people like to complain about all of the time.

      If Musk wanted to spend his own money or the private capital of others to get into space, that's his own business. Once the government starts deciding what and what doesn't get funded, it starts turning into corporate hand outs. I have a strong feel that you wouldn't view the government hand outs to oil companies as socialism. You wouldn't even dare phrase that as "pumping money into the economy", which is itself a bad line of reasoning as it would already be in the economy if the government hadn't taken in the first place.

      Or is it only socialism when it's good, but crony capitalism when you don't like it? If you're so in favor of increasing the government spending, do you think it would turn out any different than the military-industrial complex in the U.S.? Should the government start pumping money into the economy by funding Tesla as well?

    25. Re: NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you're full of shit.

    26. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Well, to date, NASA is the only organization of any sort to have put a human on any world besides the earth. I'm not sure who has a better track record than them in manned spaceflight.

    27. Re: NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, people saying things like "Stuff like NASA is the closest thing to socialism we can get in the US" are full of shit. Unless they're talking about make-work jobs in federally mandated programs such as SLS with dubious technical and economic merits, of course. That kind of waste is indeed typical for real socialism and well known and despised in places that actually experienced it (*not* the US).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your describing communism. In socialism the government controls the means of production. Under communism there is no government and the community controls the means of production directly. Either way the parents argument fits because social services funded by tax money do not properly belong to either category. The term "European Socialism" used to describe the social services of many northern European countries is in fact not socialism in any way. It's a misnomer, one I suspect is used by both sides of the American political spectrum to distract voters.

    29. Re: NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck is she and what does she have to do with people lying to you.

    30. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Muros · · Score: 1

      I guess that's one of the problems with modern discourse on the subject, nobody is working from the same definition. Even if you look on wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... mentions at least four different versions in the introduction. I think it is likely most people who think of themselves as socialists (and I do, to some extent) are cherry picking the bits that they like and/or make sense to them. I, for example, think Marx's elimination of markets and trade is sheer lunacy.

    31. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      62 miles is too low. And do you really think the space program wouldn't benefit from improved means of transportation?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    32. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Under socialism, the government IS the people. Duh, haven't you read Marx? There's no difference. Of course the people have to have a government to represent them, they can't do it directly.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    33. Re:NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is not exactly cherry picking? Because Marks did not want to eliminate market and trade. He wanted some control over it. In Communist Manifesto he is saying openly - nationalisation of the industry only if this is viable and required, And that was done together with a lot more radical guy - Engels.
      I think this is general problem with most "socialists" they believe they can cut something humanely acceptible from this mass of lunacy that Marks and others created. And partiularily they believe that wellfare system is a kind of socialism and not just developed version of market system working only under assumption of having free and as unregulated as it is only possible market with strict regulation on the other hand of any government operations and public procurements. While socialism at the same time developed into oligarchy and corporationism. Utopia does not work well in reality. Especially the one that by definition can be achieved only by revolution (=killing the opposition).

  5. They are opinion pieces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares about opinion pieces other than people that try to weaponize opinion pieces?

    It's ars' bread and butter, and often they still write something worth reading, but quite the pots and kettles for ars writers to criticize LMG for doing what ars hired them to do.

  6. Re:Not Tesla by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah. It is a conspiracy. It isn't Elon spewing garbage on Twitter trying to hurt the "shorts" that caused the SEC to finally take action. What a joke. Musk is the Trump of the tech world.

  7. Re: Not Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space IS a government contractor.

  8. conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place now by gravewax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    WTF, have you whack jobs never heard of syndication of content? Almost every story will appear in many different sites across the country and the world, it isn't a fucking conspiracy it is how content is produced and sold nowadays, a single site cannot afford to make all their own news content so it is licensed from others and what they produce is resold.

  9. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Read the article. The guy didn't even write the op-eds.

    READ

    THE

    ARTICLE

    BEFORE

    TYPING

    A

    POST

  10. Re:Not Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean that he repeatedly and continuously wins at everything he does?

  11. Shift the narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like Cambridge Analytica

    1. Re:Shift the narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McDonnell Douglas ruined Boeing.

    2. Re:Shift the narrative by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      McDonnell Douglas ruined Boeing.

      You're not kidding. This article was from 18 years ago, and is still true today:

      http://archive.fortune.com/mag...

      "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  12. Re:Not Tesla by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Just like Charlie Sheen, Musk is "winning" constantly.

  13. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    It is just poor naive Rei who is trying to defend his hero. He doesn't understand how the world works and thinks everyone is attacking Musk.

  14. And, in point of fact by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    The method they use to fuel their rocket *is* stupid, or at least willfully ignorant, as are several aspects of their launch sequence - particularly the static test with the payload stacked. The one that resulted in the payload being destroyed, completely unnecessarily.

             

    1. Re:And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apollo 1 used a pressurized pure oxygen environment and with the way the door shut, the pressure made opening the door impossible.

    2. Re:And, in point of fact by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm curious as to why you think that manning and then fuelling/launching is worse than the other way around.

      In SpaceX's case, you put the people into an empty and generally inert rocket, strap them in, turn on the launch escape system, get everyone else back to the bunker, then fuel it up and launch. In NASA's case, they fuelled the rocket, then, while a whole bunch of simmering cryogenic liquids and fuel was just sitting there, a bunch of people approached the rocket and strapped everyone in over the course of half an hour or so, then everyone left and they launched the rocket.

      Problem with SpaceX rocket pre-launch? Nobody else is around to worry about, so the Astronauts (or computer) activates launch escape sequence and you're 1500ft away from the rest of the rocket in seconds.

      Problem with NASA rocket? Either it goes boom during fuelling and nobody gets hurt, or something happens and half-a-dozen people have to slowly egress from the tower (as in, over the course of 10-15 seconds best case, minutes worst-case if you're strapping an astronaut in) all the while hundreds of tons of LOX and fuel is partying it out right next to them.

      So - in my opinion - the SpaceX approach expects failures and has a better way of handling them, while the NASA approach reduced the chance of failures with a poor way of handling them. In general, with risk x consequence and all that, the long-term actual cost in human lives might wind up the same.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious as to why you think that manning and then fuelling/launching is worse than the other way around.

      This is why you don’t fuel with people on board.

    4. Re:And, in point of fact by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The flip side is that load-and-go causes extreme thermal and pressure transients to the rocket. So the question is what is riskier.. Being near a fully fuelled and reasonably static rocket, or sitting on one that you put through the stresses of fuelling.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    5. Re:And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So - in my opinion -

      Thanks for sharing it FOR FREE.

    6. Re:And, in point of fact by ColaMan · · Score: 3

      A cryogenic system in a room temperature environment is never really "static" though. But you're right about sitting through the stresses of fuelling. If you have a functioning launch escape system, is the risk mitigated enough?

      Anyway, one hopes that enough people have looked at this from all angles. Seeing as NASA has approved load and go in principle for their astronauts launching on SpaceX hardware, I guess we'll wait and see.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    7. Re:And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    8. Re:And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A cryogenic system in a room temperature environment is never really "static"

      Says who? Your fridge is quite static enough, and even a vacuum flask full of liquid gas can stay nearly static in a "room temperature environment" for days.

      Fucking ignorant code monkeys...

    9. Re:And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and even a vacuum flask full of liquid gas can stay nearly static in a "room temperature environment" for days.

      If it's vented. If not, it won't be static for very long.

    10. Re: And, in point of fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tranferring fuel is riskier than fuel sitting there boiling off. Most failures happen because of thermal shock rather than ignition. SpaceX isn't doing it the way they are for safety reasons, but because they need the extra performance.

  15. Re:Not Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was weed and whiskey, not cocaine and HIV.

  16. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GTF out FA reader. We don't like your kind...

    Fucking summary readers.

  17. Re:"Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Bravo* good sir, well played indeed and all that.

    Truly, parodying these astro-turfing lackeys who have turned every decent discussion group on the internet into a shit-throwing fest, is the only way to confront them

    *Bravo*

  18. It's Russian trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Works for everything else...

  19. Re:Rei by gman003 · · Score: 1

    Who the fuck is Rei, and how does Musk's latest dumb antic on dumb social media have any bearing on whether or not there's an organized disinformation campaign against SpaceX?

  20. Re:"Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, the "Iceland" dick-whore on Tesla payroll, the drink-his-poos, and the rest of the Tesla shilling crowd are really, really destroying the excellent slashdot community. But then, as long as slashdot's hosting is paid and we can troll them here for free, why not?

  21. SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

    SpaceX charges about 1/3 what everyone else does for a commercial satellite mission and is a bargain for government missions too, despite their increased paperwork. Previous to SpaceX, the United States had a horrible situation where there was a space monopoly made of Boeing and Lockheed, previous competitors who got tangled in an industrial espionage situation and merged their space business rather than have the lawsuit of the century. The US Government and citizens lost, because they ended up having an expensive monopoly and on top of it they had to pay 1 Billion per year to the monopoly to assure they'd stay in business.

    So far, SpaceX looks like they have the most viable path to space. There are a lot of "old space" businesses and government agencies that can't compete, so they FUD.

    In theory, a rocket that cost 3 times as much (or more than that, in the case of the Shuttle) could afford to be safer for manned missions. In practice, it hasn't been.

    1. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      SpaceX isn't going to space, just LEO. All of the sudden everyone became accountants concerned about satellite launch costs. Amazing how that happened. What a cult.

    2. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yeah, Bruce, we all know you're on the Musk payroll. You have as much credibility as a Trump staffer.

      And who here is on the ULA, Boeing, Lockheed payroll?

    3. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, they have sent a couple of objects off to beyond LEO/GEO - Elon's roadster, currently well outside Earth's sphere of influence, and that sat that sits at one of the lagrange points. But their core business is LEO/GEO at present because that's where the money is.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    4. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so cut the crap about Musk trying to save the world. He is just another guy grabbing money. I've never seen so many people taken in by such a cult leader.

    5. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Me. They pay me big bucks. Oh, and I make a ton of money shorting Tesla stock.

    6. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I’m also shorting Space Ex stock.

    7. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, his post was 90% verifiable fact/history.

      Whats YOUR agenda?

    8. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understand how you can be so hostile against someone. Is it because he puts his money where his mouth is? Is it because of the massive cult?

      Either way, you come off as old, bitter, and jealous.

    9. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your constant pessimistic attitude on life result in happiness?

    10. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It is because I think the is a scam artist who takes public money to enrich himself which convincing all of his followers he is out to save the planet and take them to Mars. I also hate cults. I also don't like guys who call people "pedophiles" just because they got their ego hurt. I think he is a disgusting human being.

    11. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I am not pessimistic. Just rational. You Tesla fanboys are irrational. I never thought I would see the day when a ex-Paypal executive was seen as some sort of world hero.

    12. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, his post has 0 verifiable fact/history. What's YOUR agenda?

    13. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      What do you consider space then?
      DSCOVR is currently 1 million miles away, launched by SpaceX Is that space enough for you?

    14. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have a point if he didn't revolutionize the electric car industry and create a successful business that has value to people who don't even like him.

      I read your posts.. you seem too intelligent to fail to grasp the concept that assholes can be successful in business... yet you seem unable to separate the two. I get that you don't like him, but how the hell can you say hes a scam artist? That's basically the definition of willful ignorance/denial..

    15. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      He revolutionized the space business too. Mr. binary isn't being rational.

    16. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      He didn't revolutionize anything, you are obviously another fanboy. He produces vanity electric vehicles for the richest 0.01% on the planet who then run around claiming that they are saving the planet.. What a disgusting joke. There is nothing wrong with being an asshole - but I dislike people who are dishonest.

    17. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      "Revolutionized" how? By cutting launch costs? All of the sudden you fanboys are accountants who are oh so concerned about how much it costs some mega-corporation to launch satellites. Just admit it: you think Musk is taking you into space and colonizing Mars. That is really what this is about, a bunch of technocrats who want to leave Earth and have chosen a Leader to take them to the promised land. You guys need to grow up.

    18. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      DISCOVR is at the L1 Lagrangian point, in deep space. I watched the Falcon 9 launch that. There have been a number of geosynchronous or geostationary satellites, as well, and the car is in a trans-martian orbit.

    19. Re: SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't see SpaceX has better and cheaper tech, on a more viable path, you are a clown. I am a different AC. This isn't even about taking sides - The situation is in plain sight. The incumbents didn't invest in the future and are in no position to compete fairly for a great deal of time.

    20. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to out on a limb here and proclaim that 110010001000 is shorting Tesla.

      Yes, you're being *that* irrational.

      Now get off my lawn. I want to play some darts, and I don't need your blood attracting the neighborhood cats.

    21. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Oh, so this is one of those kinds of threads, where logic and reasoned debate take a back seat?

      Ok, bye.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    22. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. I am a big TSLA short. it is all about the $$$ with me. I wouldn't touch a cult stock with a ten foot pole. It is Enron all over again.

    23. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the total rocket configuration used to launch it isn't the one that costs 1/3 of all the other players.

      You get what you pay for, even in space.

    24. Re: SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your opinion on what is better is worthless, AC.

    25. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Logic and reason are in the front seat, but they're floating through space in Musk's used car.

    26. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's a recyclable launch vehicle, easily upgraded to handle manned payloads. No spacecraft have every been recyclable: the Spache Shuttles required so much overhaul between flights that each launch was of a genuinely distinct spacecraft. I think we can call that a revolution in spacecraft.

    27. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it weren't for Elon, the automakers wouldn't be making electric cars. If it weren't for Elon, all of these space projects wouldn't be happening and the US would be reliant on Russian rockets to do anything. He definitely didn't do any of this alone, he has a big, well funded team behind him. But he is the face that convinced people to give him money to do things people said was impossible. And every time he gets money to do something, he makes it work. People think, "Holy crap, this guy is awesome!" and give him more money. And the process repeats.

      There are plenty of other people who make promises, take money, and don't deliver. This guy does. Thus, he has my admiration and my money. We need more Elons.

    28. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpaceX isn't going to space, just LEO.

      The launcher's job is get the orbital payload to LEO, or GTO. If a customer wants to go further than that - stabilising in GEO, or trans-Jovian injection - they typically do that themselves, or contract with another company for an extra stage.

      For example, geostationary satellites typically have a launcher that puts them into GTO, then use the satellite's own thrusters to stabilise in GEO. Similarly, the New Horizons probe used an Atlas V launcher from Lockheed Martin to put it into an elliptical Earth orbit, then an extra Star 48B stage from Orbital ATK to put it on a solar-escape trajectory.

      SpaceX has built a business around putting payloads in LEO/GTO, because that's the most expensive part of the launch, and the one where they can cut the most costs. This is the same thing that other launch providers do. I don't understand why you pitch it as a negative.

    29. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is sad that America has extremists like these.
      Elon is not only changing America, but the world, to being better. I suspect that every nation on this planet would LOVE to have elon and his companies move there.
      The fact is, that Tesla and SpaceX have made massive changes to our society.
      In the next 5 years, DECENT EVs will costs 10-15K. Yes, EVs, once batteries are developed, will be much cheaper than ICE.
      Then we have SpaceX forcing the price of launches way down. America was out of the industry. Now, we are the industry.
      However, Musk will continue to force this down further and make it economically possible to go to the moon, and mars.

      And yet, we see so much trash ripping into these companies.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    30. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easily upgraded to handle manned payloads

      LOL.

      No spacecraft have every been recyclable

      Neither is any. SpaceX recycles a rocket stage, not spacecraft.

      I think we can call that a revolution in spacecraft.

      Thanks for sharing this bit of your wisdom FOR FREE.

    31. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has never been a "logic" and "reasoned debate" with Musk cocksuckers in it.

      It is like debating PETA with logic and reason, except PETA sometimes admits they are wrong.

    32. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DISCOVR is at the L1 Lagrangian point, in deep space.

      Pics or it didn't happen. There is not a single picture of a satellite in orbit or deep space taken from the ground, yet we allegedly have telescopes that can see distant galaxies. That is the real conspiracy.

              I watched the Falcon 9 launch that. There have been a number of geosynchronous or geostationary satellites, as well, and the car is in a trans-martian orbit.

      Satellites do not exist in space, that's just a cash grab to steal taxes from dumb plebs who don't realize that far cheaper Ground Based Tower Networks are how you get all Cellular and "Sat" TV signals. I have a Toshiba Satellite Laptop. It is in my lap, not space. This is because the word "satelitte" means a unit that is located around a hub. A TV satellite network is a collection of TOWERS that are connected to a central hub. The public is daft, and will pay millions for literally nothing (well, they're testing ICBM engines, but that's about it, the rockets fall into the sea, they don't go to space).

      Care to explain this leaked NASA footage of Apollo 11 astronauts faking an image of earth, claiming to be 1/2 way to the moon, while still in low earth orbit? If the lie is big enough and the media well controlled, even the smart folks will be fooled. Fact is: You have not really researched anything about space. I've given you some starting points. Find me one real picture of a satellite in space taken from the ground -- you can't, they're all just weather balloons and towers. Space is mostly just faked shit, a government pork cash grab preying on your nerdly fantasies.

      Knowledge is Power. Rulers do not give Power to serfs like you.

    33. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by mentil · · Score: 1

      The price of constructing EVs might be low enough that they could be sold for $10k, but without competition they'll be sold for the price people expect to pay for a vehicle. Also at the annual 3% battery improvements, the weight/kWh should only come down by ~17% total, so I don't see how $20k will be shaved off just due to that (compared to a base Model 3).

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    34. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The cost difference is actually really simple to explain - just ask anyone who ever worked in or around government procurement (as I have). It's simply bureaucracy. The government employs an army of bureaucrats, who justify their existence (and their little empires) by imposing insane paperwork requirements on contractors. So the contractors have to employ their own army of paper-pushers to deal with those requirements. Essentially none of this has anything to do with actually getting work done.

      I remember one memorable situation: We (I was on the government side) had put out a small project for bid. A small company, expert in the field, came in with an offer at about 1/3 the cost of the next best offer. The thing was: they had never before had a government contract. My boss took the CEO out for coffee, discovered that he really had no idea what things were going to be like. My boss quietly told him to double his bid, to pay for all the people he would have to hire to deal with all the crap.

      For larger projects, you then get the political aspects. The prime contractor must hire subcontractors, even if the prime contractor could do the work. This massively increases overhead costs yet again, but it is essential for two reasons: it distributes the financial gains among the political districts of the relevant Congresscritters - the subcontractors, of course, donate a portion of the largess to political campaigns. And second, political correctness: a certain portion of the subcontractors must be owned by people of the right minorities. Sometimes these subcontractors are only shells (with overheads, of course) that pass the actual work on to sub-subcontractors.

      That's why ULA is expensive. I'm sure SpaceX has to play at least some of the same games, but obviously a lot less so.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    35. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satellites do not exist in space, that's just a cash grab to steal taxes from dumb plebs who don't realize that far cheaper Ground Based Tower Networks are how you get all Cellular and "Sat" TV signals.

      ?!?!?!?!?!?!?
      You can literally see satellites in space with the naked eye. You can watch them cross the entire sky at speeds that are impossible to achieve with a weather balloon. If you think that they're not going that fast, and are really just closer, then drive 10 miles and call a friend and verify in which constellation they appear to be in real time. That way you can use parallax to verify that they must be far away and therefore moving at many times the speed of sound.

      Seriously, it's so easy to verify this stuff that it's literally harder _not_ to verify it. Where are all these flat Earthers and other crazies even coming from. I know some people are better at math and geometry and physical reasoning than others, but is it really that many people who are that bad at it? And are simultaneously so egotistical that they think that their lack of ability is actually evidence that they know much more than other people, rather than basically being disabled?

    36. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course reducing costs by a big factor is a revolution. That's how ICE cars revolutionized transportation, cheap cellphones revolutionized communication, cheap cameras in cellphones revolutionized digital photography, and the list goes on.

      Denying that shows how desperate you are.

      Does that mean Musk is sane and saintly? Not at all. But that does not cancel out his achievements: revolutionizing space industry, giving the development of electric cars and energy storage a very sharp kick in the correct anatomical areas, and who knows what else will fall out of his Boring company and Hyperloop schemes.

    37. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      The price of constructing EVs might be low enough that they could be sold for $10k, but without competition they'll be sold for the price people expect to pay for a vehicle.

      And if they're sold for much more than they could be if they had competition, then other companies will say "we need to get us some of that Free Money" and start building their own EV's.

      Which will drive the price of an EV down to the point where noone is making any more profit on an EV than they do on a conventional auto.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    38. Re: SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Model 3 is too big. Needs to be accord or smart size. In addition, battery R&D is jumping.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    39. Re: SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't do either of those things. BYD was there before him, and the jury is out on the successful part yet.

    40. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Describing Tesla cars as 'vanity electric vehicles for the richest 0.01% on the planet' is not dishonest? You really are blinded by hate.

    41. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to go talk to your therapist again. You are projecting. You have no evidence that the people you are talking to are wannabe mars colonists. But you are going to huff and puff and stamp your feet cause they don't see things the way they do. Thats an issue dude, and you should talk to someone to work out your problems.

    42. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      please. every company has the same bs. i do consulting, im in and out of megacorps all the time. the amount of waste is staggering. you are just salty because you dont make enough money.

    43. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Oh, so this is one of those kinds of threads, where logic and reasoned debate take a back seat?

      Ok, bye.

      As opposed to what? I thought that was the only kind of thread we have around here.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    44. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's a lot like the mini-computer revolution really. Launches have become cheap enough that not only really large institutions can do it but even universities could launch large satellites if they wanted to.

    45. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon is not only changing America, but the world

      Elon is also changing physics through his cocksucking shills like yourself who magically derived "200% energy" from "double the current".
      I was shocked that Elon/WindBourne did not final in the Nobel Physics Prize competition a few days ago.

    46. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      but without competition they'll be sold for the price people expect to pay for a vehicle.

      And, IMO, that's the big part of what Tesla has done. They demonstrated to other automakers that there actually is a very large market for electric vehicles.

      So now those automakers are creating their own vehicles to complete with Tesla (and each other), and we get competition to drive prices down. (And yes, I think that poster is overly optimistic about price unless we accept drastically reduced range)

    47. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a prime candidate to be "Buzz Aldrin"ed.

    48. Re:SpaceX vs. NASA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed, etc. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      range will have to be around 150 MPC, not the 250+ that is being pushed.
      The vehicles will be accord or smaller, maybe like Smart (ugh), but I think that it is TOO small.
      Regardless, battery energy density is increasing, while prices are dropping. And I expect that others will follow tesla and drop the cobalt out of their batteries.
      That will lower the price a great deal.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. Re:Rei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realize you're the other extreme of Rei?

  23. Re:Rei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Rei" is a Slashdot account run by a bunch of paid Musk shills, who pose as a lone "Iceland womunz" and push Musk's agenda using the sad fact that the only contact with the female side of the alpha-male basement dweller community of Slashdot is through their imagination, and that consequently anything written by a "womuns" on the internets will automatically get high vote.

    And when that doesn't appun, there's always BeauHD and his administrator mod privilege.

  24. Re:Rei by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Who cares if there is a "disinformation" campaign against some mega-corporation? There are a lot of companies out there that do that sort of thing. Are op-eds something new to Millenials? Op-eds are written by people and organizations that want to push whatever agenda they happen to support, or are paid to support. Musk fanboys get so hurt whenever someone attacks their God.

  25. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    poor naive Rei

    Rei is not naive, they got a job with Musk. And because they got a job, they aren't as poor either.

  26. Re:Which one of you Tesla queers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most likely you will assume the fetal position and suck it off yourself, like you do every other time. I suggest you throw a coin to decide if you spit or swallow, unpredictability may enhance your pleasure.

  27. Re:Rei by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the compliment!

  28. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Fusion GPS

  29. The stuff by boulat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Let me guess, this guy was a blue collar worker who thinks he is an engineer, and now lives in the south and thinks he actually knows better.

    This is the exact kind of people you would expect to support Trump - opinionated, wrong, and with years of mediocre experience doing stupid shit like driving a truck or working construction.

    I don't have a problem with these idiots. I have a problem with people who would listen to them, and whatever fake news organization staffed by similar mediocre types who would publish their stories under the banner of experienced "spacecraft operator".

    Quite literally a white noise generator, trying to be relevant, years after they've stopped being relevant.

    1. Re:The stuff by Rei_is_a_dumbass · · Score: 0

      Low intelligence, big ego, thinks he's an engineer when he's really a moron,... You just described elon musk.

    2. Re:The stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously didn't read the article. Some public relations firm put the guys name on it. Not even written by him.

    3. Re:The stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet somehow, those Trump-supporting deplorables who work jobs which are beneath you and which have obtained of formed ill-favored opinions have noticed that they had an awful lot of smug elitists who speak disparagingly of them while also claiming to be their friends and presuming to make decisions on their behalf.

    4. Re: The stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your run-on sentence reads âoeretardâ tattood on your face.

  30. Re:Oh no... by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, some PR firms writing and publishing articles under the name of someone who might actually know something.
    RTFS: "Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submit many of these op-eds"
    All of this, despite the fact NASA are signing off on the procedures of both Boeing and SpaceX, which are both going to use "load-and-go".

  31. Re:Rei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW it wasn't meant as a compliment or insult; I enjoy reading comments from the both of you.

  32. Damn. Whatâ(TM)s that smell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Elon Musk just took a dump on the stock market. The shit river runs free.

  33. so.. 4 out of 6 'conservative-leaning' newspapers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    publish similarly-leaning op-eds without verifying the submitter and without obtaining permission from the actual author of the piece. surprise, surprise.. if they treat the easy (to confirm and verify) content pieces like this, how shitty is their actual 'news' sourced and backed (or not)?

  34. Re: Which one of you Tesla queers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dude, using lots of words doesnâ(TM)t make u funny

  35. Re: Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know Slashdot comments could get worse. Congratulations.

  36. Smear is probably Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Theyâ(TM)ve a long history of dubious and illegal practices.

  37. Re:Rei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being called an extreme is only considered a compliment by intellectually inferior cavemen.

  38. Re: Not Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're both kind of wrong, from not reading up on it and/or looking around. The FUD-spinners list Boeing as a customer on their main page (the first one listed, in fact). That isn't proof that this particular event was paid for by Boeing - but it does suggest it as the most obvious possibility, considering they're in competition and Boeing is in no position to compete fairly.

  39. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by hey! · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What's so farfetched about SpaceX's competitors hiring a firm to conduct a PR campaign? There are firms that offer such services because there's a market for it. Talk up your client's company or spread FUD about their competition. You see it all the time in big ticket defense contracting.

    The only thing that's a bit melodramatic is calling it "shadowy" or regarding it as somehow especially dirty pool.

    Voters in places with a lot of space jobs are important political constituencies for space contractors,

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  40. Re: Not Tesla by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    Of course. Who do you think writes "op-eds" in papers? People with agendas, or people paid to have agendas. It is like you guys are just waking up to how the world works.

  41. Re: Which one of you Tesla queers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not funny, but so true.

  42. Do you ever get bored of being so boring? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    Say what you will about Musk, but at least he’s never boring.

  43. Binary little bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just the usual whining by someone who has acheived nothing in life, a sadass loser, incredibly jealous of Musks achievements.
    Every Musk thread, there he is lying and exposing his inadequacy.

  44. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything about it is far-fetched.

  45. Space Cities by shaksys · · Score: 1

    I had no idea we had taken it this far.

  46. Re:"Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    syndrome has taken over Slashdot completely.

    Whats the conspiracy theory here? These Political thinktanks openly admit what they do. Hell, its their marketing pitch.

    If that was true, why were they lying about who wrote it, and if it was a paid position piece or an op-ed by a retired subject expert?

    I don't see how you can square, "they lied about who wrote it in order to get it published in disguise by people who otherwise wouldn't publish a press release as an op-ed" with "These Political think-tanks openly admit what they do."

  47. Re: Oh no... by rat_herder · · Score: 1

    I usually browse without seeing this kind of Anonymous trash that gets posted. Th am you for reminding me to turn the filter on again.

  48. Re:Rei by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    REI is an outdoor equipment store for yuppies. Polyester, mostly.

  49. Re: Oh no... by rat_herder · · Score: 1

    Sure Ars reporting could be better but your speculation and suggested motives are nonsense. And you are commenting as AC because why? Donâ(TM)t reply, I know why.

  50. Re: Not Tesla by rat_herder · · Score: 1

    And because you despise Musk for some reason, it means condoning that sort of behavior? Because thatâ(TM)s âhow the world worksâ(TM)? You should run for government with that inspired ethical stance.

  51. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look everyone - a paid PR firm shill pretending to be incredulous about the existence of PR firms!

  52. Trump/Musk in 2020 by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    I want to see Musk run as President Trump's VP in 2020. Establishment flaks will have a conniption fit and probably shit themselves.

    1. Re:Trump/Musk in 2020 by mentil · · Score: 1

      He wasn't born in the USA so don't think he's even eligible for VP. I'm sure he'd rather not get bogged down in politics any more than the time it takes to tell a lobbying group what he wants.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Trump/Musk in 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't born in the USA

      I heard Hawaii is a great place to get birth certificates.

    3. Re:Trump/Musk in 2020 by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Haha, totally irrelevant side note: I was at a liquor store (off-licence), heard the clerk mention a question about how old a VP has to be. Said yeah, he has to meet the same criteria as a president - 35, native born. The customer in front of me said “wow, you know your civics”. I looked at her and said yes, you taught them to me. Buying booze with former teachers... priceless. Nice lady, liked her as a student.

    4. Re:Trump/Musk in 2020 by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      He wasn't born in the USA so don't think he's even eligible for VP.

      Nothing in the Constitution says he can't be VP.

      That said, he can't replace the President if the Pres were to die, since he'd have to meet the Presidential requirement to be a Citizen to do so.

      Which means, for practical purposes, he won't be picked to be VP, since noone wants the House to pick the new President if the old one kicks the bucket. Well, noone outside the House, anyways....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Trump/Musk in 2020 by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Nothing in the Constitution says he can't be VP.

      Article 1, Section 2: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

      Amendment 12: no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

      --

      Enigma

    6. Re:Trump/Musk in 2020 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about the 61st Amendment!

  53. Re:Good by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speaking as a 66-year-oldfart, going out in a sheet of flames in the one of the worlds fastest aircraft looks a lot better than shitting myself in a nursing home. Go ahead, let people take the risk if they want.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
  54. apollo 1 was a conspiracy by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

    https://coolinterestingstuff.c...

    Just days after Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were killed in a pre-launch fire, NASA began the arduous process of figuring out just what had happened. If Apollo was going to land a man on the moon by 1970, the agency had to fix the problem and move forward. But as the investigation unfolded, the accident took on a sinister tone with allegations that the crew were responsible for their own deaths or were victims of murder.

    While a NASA-appointed committee investigated the physical capsule for evidence of the fireâ(TM)s cause, Congress investigated NASA. Many representatives accused the agency of unnecessarily racing to the moon. A consequence of this race, they said, was an unrealistic schedule that saw money thrown at compounding problems without ever getting to the root of the issue. NASA, then, had deliberately and knowingly put the Apollo 1 astronauts in danger. NASA knew the risks of oxygen fires â" multiple military experiments in oxygen environments ended with loss of life â" but didnâ(TM)t push for a two gas system in the spacecraft. Some accused the agency of criminal negligence

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  55. Re:Good by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speaking as a 66-year-oldfart, going out in a sheet of flames in the one of the worlds fastest aircraft looks a lot better than shitting myself in a nursing home. Go ahead, let people take the risk if they want.

    Hell it's either that or live long enough to watch the idiot snowflake generation destroy the country and western civilization, I'd take my chances going into space in a heartbeat.

  56. That's just red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the inbred trash fucks its direct relations, go figure, they also hate science that keeps them from dying in coal mines. I know.

    1. Re:That's just red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the inbred trash fucks its direct relations

      Yep, United States of Murricah.

    2. Re: That's just red states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because the working class knows that modern American liberalism's alternative to working to death is a destroyed local economy, welfare, bureaucracy, and social decay, while ignoring the reality that Death was already certain. Wake us up when you have more than just pretty words.

  57. nas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're russian hackers, soon to be bringing novichik to your town.

  58. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " the idiot snowflake generation " - Young Republicans are upset at your randy characterizations, and they demand you personally felate Vladimir Putin to swear your allegiance to his retarded kompromat traitor henchman Donald Trump.

  59. Mod parent funny, or sadly ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd give you a mod point if I had any left :(

    1. Re:Mod parent funny, or sadly ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got you, bro. (Anon because I does haz mod points).

    2. Re:Mod parent funny, or sadly ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bless you, and thank you.

      Even more ironic, the full text of "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is now available online, in multiple formats:

      https://archive.org/details/TheMoonIsAHarshMistress_201701/page/n0

  60. Liars for the Military Industrial Complex ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Space Ex is only cheap because they lose money on every flight and cut corners with safety.

    That's a blatant lie.

    Lockheed Martin has been wasting tax money with corner cutting and failures for decades:

    Just one example, and far from an isolated incident:

    Investigation showed that Titan K-17, which was several years old and the last Titan IV-A to be launched, had dozens of damaged or chafed wires and should never have been launched in that operating condition, however the Air Force put extreme pressure on launch crews to meet program deadlines. The ultimate cause of the failure was an electrical short that caused a momentary power dropout to the guidance computer at T+39 seconds. After power was restored, the computer sent a spurious pitch down and yaw to the right command. At T+40 seconds, the Titan was travelling at near supersonic speed and could not handle this action without suffering a structural failure. In any case, the Titan's fuselage was filled with numerous sharp metal protrusions that made it nearly impossible to install, adjust, or remove wiring without it getting damaged. Quality control at Lockheed's Denver plant, where Titan vehicles were assembled, was described as "awful".

    Here, watch for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  61. Re:"Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

    I don't see how you can square, "they lied about who wrote it in order to get it published in disguise by people who otherwise wouldn't publish a press release as an op-ed" with "These Political think-tanks openly admit what they do."

    As long as you keep the two ends of the business well separated, there's no problem. Keeping this separation is their expertise.

  62. Liars for corrupt defense contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the total rocket configuration used to launch it isn't the one that costs 1/3 of all the other players.

    You get what you pay for, even in space.

    Liar.

    The rocket that launched the 'dummy payload' mass simulator car with Starman is the most powerful rocket currently flying. It wasn't the same configuration as a Falcon 9, which is 1/3 the cost of anything comparable, because it was 3 modified Falcon 9 rockets bolted together to provide more lift than any other rocket available today. If ULA offered a comparable rocket, it probably would have been 10 times more expensive - because fraud and waste scale exponentially.

  63. Some lying scum get caught and go to jail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This defense contractor scum, for both Boeing and Lockheed, got caught and went to jail. Many more need to follow.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

  64. Defense contractor thieves and liars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cat is out of the bag, and the US population is catching on to the trillions of dollars of fraud and abuse perpetuated by Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

  65. Crazy but true, defense industry did it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Military Industrial Complex, Deep State, Den of Thieves, or whatever you want to call them, also tried to kill Northrop's company because he won the contract to build the bomber to replace the B-29.

    After winning the contract and during production, the contract was revoked when Northrop refused to merge with their established deep-state competitor, the remains of which exist to this day spread about the defense contracting world, mostly in Lockheed Martin.

    Listen to Northrop's own words. At this point in his life he was old and retired and had no reason to lie. Watch and listen to Mr. Northrop in his own words:
    https://youtu.be/Ui_o257DZE0?t=776

    Ultimately Northrop persisted, and won. They now have the contract to replace all bombers in the US fleet with the B-21 raider, a design with major elements that can be traced all the way back to the cancelled post WWII contract cancellation fraud.

  66. defense contractor cocksucker is just bitter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and now you have to contend with Musk cocksuckers on the road. Those damn Tesla cars are everywhere. They are faster than anything you can afford to buy, and their operating cost is much lower, not to mention their overall environmental impact also being better. Too bad you can't afford one on your shitty defense contractor salary. If you had any real skillz you'd make twice as much in private industry - like SpaceX, Blue Origin, or some little mom and pop shop doing real work for real money. Your contractor healthcare benefits are also going down too, your deductible and costs are going up. So sad for you.

    Keep being bitter though. I saw in a movie that if you give in to your hate that you'll become powerful. Or something.

    1. Re:defense contractor cocksucker is just bitter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, SpaceX *is* a defense contractor, y'know...

  67. Liars and paid trolls are out in force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own a Tesla and have driven it for thousands of miles. It's been the most pleasant and trouble free vehicle I've ever owned or driven.

    If you can do better, show me, and I'll give you my money.

    Until then, calling Elon Musk a low intelligence moron just makes you look childish.

    I'm also an engineer that directly works with and utilizes payloads that his rockets have put into orbit. Please, by all means, top that accomplishment as well.

    1. Re:Liars and paid trolls are out in force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own a FR-S and have driven it for thousands of miles. It's been the most pleasant and trouble free vehicle I've ever owned or driven. I'm also PhD physicist that works at a prestigious National laboratory that is doing real work to solve carbon free energy.

      Musk is a low intelligence imbecile with an over inflated ego because of praise by morons such as yourself.

  68. liars and paid shills for defense contractors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's some real corner cutting for you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4JOjcDFtBE

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWhqLVkjK50

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFeZkrRE9wI

    SpaceX's track record so far is better than Lockheed Martin's Titan rocket, and will soon pass ULA's Atlas. Pretending that existing defense contractors are better in any way - risk, cost, capability - is just telling lies.

    Top lying. We're on to you, and will punish you if you don't stop.

  69. That smell is you shitting in your own bed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, idiot, that smell is you, shitting in your own bed. Soon you'll be sleeping in it.

    The SEC and government sponsored corruption that are trying to bring down Musk and his companies will eventually succeed. Then your next car will be made in China:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/07/10/tesla-china-factory-tariffs/770651002/

    Fuck Murika, yeah! Or something.

  70. Maybe Boeing, definitely Lockheed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Boeing, but definitely Lockheed.

    Boeing has a successful commercial business. Lockheed has none. Without the government tit to suckle, they are nothing.

  71. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    space is a hoax

  72. He did always have the funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could have sold his stake in SpaceX, worth about 30 billion dollars, and taken Tesla private. He simply chose not to. The SEC action is baseless and and serves only to defend the obsolete and corrupt from competition.

    I hope your head pops when you realize your next car will be electric.

    1. Re:He did always have the funding... by Arvin+Kyr · · Score: 0

      He could have sold his stake in SpaceX, worth about 30 billion dollars, and taken Tesla private. He simply chose not to. The SEC action is baseless and and serves only to defend the obsolete and corrupt from competition.

      If he actually sold his SpaceX stake and filed documents for funding, then funding would be secured, and we would be ok. Otherwise, an owner is not allowed to make those sorts of statements. You can't just say this, and say "changed my mind" afterwards. And the $420/share reference?

    2. Re: He did always have the funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jokes on you, I'm a poor and have never owned a new car in my life. My next car will be yet another used fossil fuel burner ya deluded futurology saque licker.

      Maybe after you pull your head out of Kurzweil's rectum and the ocean finishes dying off, you can book a SpaceX flight into the sun, while the rest of us go cannibal Madmax style.

    3. Re: He did always have the funding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In his tweet he said he hadnâ(TM)t made up his mind yet. He said he was thinking about it. Read the tweet instead of making up BS.

  73. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you not read the entire summary? The issue is not syndication of content. The issue is lying and claiming someone with authority wrote it when that person did NOT write it.

  74. 110010001000 has revolutionized being an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Elon Musk's SpaceX has dropped launch costs significantly, which lowers the cost of space based services, like satellite TV, GPS, and global communications. The fact that you do not see a benefit from SpaceX's success simply means that you do not work in technology. Or, you could simply be an idiot. Or a paid troll for a US defense contractor.

    I own and drive Tesla. No oil. No oil filter. No air filter. No clutch. No timing belt. No starter. No fuel injectors. No fuel pump. No water pump. No emissions - and the emissions used to product the electricity for this car, even if coming from a coal power plant, are much, much less than a regular gasoline car.

    Not only am I saving the planet, I'm also saving myself significant money and ass pain in the process.

    Now, here's the part where I enjoy being an asshole: At every intersection, I smoke you. On the interstate, I smoke you. On a high-altitude mountain pass, I smoke you, because my car doesn't need fucking oxygen.

    Because, as an early adopter who forked out serious cash for a Tesla (cash up front, I never finance), I've subsidized the market for electric vehicles. Soon electric cars will be cheaper than gasoline cars - both to buy and to operate. You are welcome.

    Oh, and fuck you, you disingenuous petty piece of troll shit.

  75. quit being pedantic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, they are a launch provider for defense contractors. Show me a weapon system that SpaceX makes and sells.... you can't. Calling SpaceX a defense contractor is like calling a road construction crew a bunch of auto workers.

    Just because they show up on someone's balance sheet labeled as a defense contractor does not put them on the same playing field as Boeing and Lockheed. Maybe someday SpaceX will be a "real" defense contractor, but for now, they aren't.

  76. Re:Not Tesla by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was never about Tesla. The SEC is going after his ass because of SpaceX being a threat to the political class that's in bed with all those government contractors (his competitors).

    There is a constituency of businesses disrupted by Musk who don't mind using social engineering to attack all things Musk and pollute the mindspace with their propaganda, or buying Congressmen to oppose his efforts. As we learned from the Manafort drama, such work has highly paid experts eager to receive that deposit into their offshore accounts.

    But this is Musk's game too. He has skills in this regard or such FUD would have killed his prospects already years ago. He's taking on Boeing, Ford, GM, Fossil fuels (Saudi, BP, Exxon), nuclear power, etc. And all the nations with launch business (Russia, China, India, etc). His enemies list is pretty much the Fortune 500 and every country on Earth. If he goes missing the police are going to have a harder time finding non-suspects than suspects.

    And he's fine with that. It's all going to plan. He knew when he set out to save his species from extinction that his works were not going to be popular, or they would not be necessary. We are more 100x more predisposed to extinction than the dinosaurs were, as they made it 100 million years and we seem unlikely to crack the million years mark.

    What's remarkable to me is how much he seems to be enjoying making fools of them all. Stoking their ire and poking the bear as if building a self sustaining colony on another planet was insufficiently challenging and he wanted to inspire the opposition to step up their game.

    I don't know why he has a problem with the short sellers. A short sale is a gamble that his stock will go down, which cannot possibly exist unless there is a counter party willing to take the other side of that bet and put their money on his stock going up. Many people who believe he cannot possibly fail buy stock in his companies and then rent out their shares to his naysayers and use the money they earn in that way to buy more shares. The long and short interest in Musk stocks is a self-reinforcing commitment to volatility against a predictable trend. Long and short sellers are gambling on whether they can predict the direction of motion and attracted because he is generating a lot of motion (volatility). They are drawn like moths to his flame for no other reason than that he is succeeding in being disruptive and controversial - which are primary goals of his. It's probably an ego thing he hasn't considered: for every stupid person willing to offer their money to bet against him there is a smart person willing to take that bet, and so there is balance in the bets that moves money from the stupid to the smart and he is the conveyor belt.

    Hubris is a sin and he's guilty it. I can hope there is no human living who can make him do penance for this sin because that would be the end of Mankind. If he fails to deliver an interplanetary human species there will be no other, more capable human to repeat the attempt. And that means that eventually the last of my offsprings' heirs will die without issue, my genome will become dust as yours will, all the history struggles art and works of Men throughout all time will come to nought as the passage of time erases all evidence that we ever did exist.

    /My first /. post in 4 years. Things have changed around here, so be gentle.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  77. Re:liars and paid shills for defense contractors.. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's not lying! He is just trying to "shift the narrative in a changing world"

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  78. SpaceX powers your hate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bits of data that you transmitted to slashdot servers to make your ignorant post very likely traversed assets put in orbit by a SpaceX rocket.

  79. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the title and summary clearly suggests it is an organised campaign across sites. "A Shadowy Op-Ed Campaign Is Now Smearing SpaceX In Space Cities"

  80. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You're so focused on the syndication aspect that you missed the fact that the reference in the by-line claims not to have written any of the content. You're complaining about the wrong conspiracy.

  81. idiots are often irrational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lyrics in this context actually mean something. Here, listen and contemplate, maybe you'll figure it out:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_i843Owka0

    And stop talking about SpaceX, Tesla, or Musk. Your ignorance and angry bitterness is showing.

    And please, stop trying to be an idiot. It really is too easy for you. Aspire... better.

  82. Re:Oh no... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    RTFS: "Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submit many of these op-eds"

    I can hope that Ars follows this up with the news organizations that published the editorials under his byline. As a fellow news organization, they may actually be able to draw attention to this, and the organizations that were suckered might delve into the financial backers who are pushing this agenda.

    Dollars to donuts it's the companies involved in ULA, or possibly political organizations (or even politicians) who are funded by ULA companies.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  83. binary little bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please don't dignify any part of his earned title with capitol letters. It's just:

    binary little bitch

  84. Brett Buck: willful ignorance at it's finest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fueling incident that resulted in payload loss on the pad was a test of new procedures dealing with densified fuels - not normal procedures. What SpaceX was doing at that time, in hindsight, was stupid.

    In reality, SpaceX has pioneered the use of densified fuels. New things incur risk. If taking risk is stupid, then please don't leave your house.

  85. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    It's like how 350 newspapers conspired behind the scenes to all release an editorial on the same topic on the same day This happened, it's not a conspiracy theory.

    You can shit on people all you want, it doesn't change the fact that there really is collusion by powerful entities out of the public eye, and this collusion really does have effects - often for the negative - for the world we live in.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  86. Tesla Shorts are a reality distortion cult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Howdy, welcome back to /.! It's now a rowdy place...

    Short selling on a large scale causes real damage to a company, especially when supported and financed by competitors. It's also gambling, and does little, if anything of value, ever, anywhere, except to fuel and support raw ghoulish greed - like a diabetic eating raw sugar, it needs to stop.

    The real fact is that many people and institutions, some of them here on this forum, have a financial interest in destroying Elon Musk and his companies. If they succeed it will be an epic loss to humanity, on the same scale as Mycenea destroying Troy.

    The Mycenae didn't last very long after accomplishing their evil deed. Neither will the Tesla shorts.

  87. binary bitch is delusional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the Tesla parked in my garage is a mirage...

    Not.

  88. And who around the whole sows discord in the US? by raymorris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > SpaceX does it so much cheaper than the "socialist" option, that they are literally pissing the entire launch industry around the world off.

    Yeah and we know one group *around the world* who has felt threatened by competing with the US in space travel, and their strategy for competing has been to sow discord and disharmony in the US with secret media campaigns. The more we're busy arguing with each other, the less we are able to beat them, they figure.

  89. Blackeyer whack job clinging to his delusion ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep clinging. The more you cling to your comforting anticonspiracy theories, the more exaggerated and silly you look. The more we laugh at you. The more you cling.

    And before you know it, you're from your current flat-earther level of delusion all they way to the time cube level of insanity. :)

    Or did you think that your side of the polarity is free from delusional nutjobs?
    Sorry. Sticking your head in the sand is the oldest and most powerful of all crazy conspiracy theories. Because it looks like it is the opposite of a conspiracy theory, and implies that therefore it can't be just as nuts.

  90. Re:And who around the whole sows discord in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Yeah and we know one group *around the world* who has felt threatened by competing with the US in space travel


      NAIFS .V tot V `IDS `V tot V `V on V `V tot V . IDS on NAIFS on NAIFS .
    V tot V `V tot V . V . MU on V `V . V on V . V on IDS . V tot V `V tot V `
    V us are V tot V . V . V V . V `V `V ; `^ V V ; `^ V on V us are ; `^ `V `
    V us are AGENTED . V . V `V `V `IDS us are V ; `^ V ; `^ NAIFS ; `^ IDS .
    V us are V tot V . V . V . V V `V `V ; `^ `V us are `us are . V tot V tot
    V tot V `V tot V . V . V on MU `V . V ; `^ V us are tot V tot V us are on
      NAIFS. V tot V `IDS `V tot V `V on V tot V us are ; `^ NAIFS ; `^ V tot

  91. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about as likely as SpaceX paying for it to get their fans all energised about a new 'plot'.

  92. Re: conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article does not claim that he did not write them. You need to learn the difference between write and submit.

  93. Re:liars and paid shills for defense contractors.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so he's telling "truth synergies" ?

  94. All of which is irrelevant to the reality. by Sqreater · · Score: 0

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana. And what organization or group is responsible for this Slashdot post?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  95. NASA's mission is research - not bus service by sjbe · · Score: 1

    NASA Brings billions of federal dollars in. if we privatize space travel that all goes away.

    Your argument is that federal pork on an interstellar bus service is somehow a good thing? What do you think NASA actually does? They aren't an interstellar bus service and they should not be. Their work with stuff like the Apollo program and Space Shuttle and ISS are high profile but it's only a fraction of what they do. Most of what NASA does is research and engineering. Contracting private companies to handle the actual transit duties actually frees NASA to do their primary mission since a lot of that are already solved problems. NASA is good at figuring out tough problems at the boundaries of human knowledge. They aren't good at making those solutions economical - that's what private industry does well. NASA figured out how to get rocket into orbit (reasonably) safely and now they transfer that to private companies to figure out how to do it less expensively and at scale.

    Stuff like NASA is the closest thing to socialism we can get in the US.

    NASA is a research agency. If you think they are some sort of quasi-socialist entity in the US government you don't really understand what socialism actually is.

    I don't like the idea of space travel becoming a rich man's club.

    How exactly do you think capitalism works? NASA isn't ever going to be an organization that can make space travel affordable. They literally cannot do that job well and they've already tried (see the Space Shuttle fiasco) and failed. NASA's mission is to push the boundaries of human knowledge as it relates to aviation and space exploration. Their job is decidedly NOT to be an interstellar bus service. Yes some people are going to make money launching rockets and this isn't a bad thing. The ONLY way cost to orbit is going to drop is for private enterprise to get involved. If some money is made along the way by people who are solving real problems then so much the better.

    But then again I also want public transit for my streets (that doesn't run one bus every 90 minutes) and I can't get that either.

    WTF does that have to do with NASA?

  96. Technology choices versus progam choices by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You think the SLS is using solid fuel because it's the best option?

    I think the SLS is using solid fuel boosters because they've already done a lot of the work courtesy of the Space Shuttle program and it's easier to adapt existing tech than to develop brand new tech. Plus the infrastructure to build and service the things is already in place with existing suppliers. It's why the Soyuz system is still in place after all these decades even though it's possible to develop something that outperforms it. Sure it also functions as pork to keep politicians happy but that is an argument against the program not against the technology itself. There is no single right answer to the technical question of what is the "best" option. There are pros and cons to every possible choice. It may very well be that the SRBs were the best option given the constraints NASA had to work with for the program goals. Change the goals and then maybe the choices need to change too. Let's say NASA goes with a blank canvas liquid fuel design instead. Now they have a MUCH bigger and likely more expensive engineering task to develop and prove a new system which they have to do under the exact same budget. It's not like Congress is anxious to increase their budget either so what choice would you make?

    Engineering and program management aren't always about finding the ideal technical solution. Economics and sometimes politics play a role too. Sometimes you are better off dusting off a proven technology because it costs less or because it's less risky or because it's less costly. It's about making sure perfect isn't the enemy of good. There are more factors to consider than merely what is the current state of the art technology and using only that.

    1. Re:Technology choices versus progam choices by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Economics and sometimes politics play a role too.

      I'd say in this case they are totally at odds with one another, and politics is winning. Is there any less economical way to get people into space than SLS?

  97. Sour grapes by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a good friend who works range optics at Vandenberg and knows a lot of people from the various launch teams. He says the ULA people hate SpaceX.

    Sure, they had a comfy cozy little business and suddenly they've been exposed for the incompetent leaches they really are. I bet they don't like SpaceX but that's just sour grapes and I really don't give a shit. They had decades to do better and they sat on their asses. Now SpaceX is handing them that fat complacent ass and they don't like it? Cry me a river.

    SpaceX has never been about being a rich mans game. He is using sort of the same model he did with Tesla where you build the expensive one and use the money generated from the sales for that to fund the next round, and repeat, getting cheaper and scaling each time.

    Yep. Literally every business Elon has done since PayPal has been basically about bringing economies of scale to a business or business segment that did not have them before and driving costs down. It's not easy to do but when it succeeds the rewards are immense. He's moved several industries more in the last 10 years than they have moved in the last 50. It's why I wish the guy well... not because I care about Elon but because if he forced GM to make a better EV or ULA to make a cheaper launch vehicle or gets solar panels on every roof then that benefits us all. We need people who are change agents like that driving inefficiency out of industries that have gotten complacent.

  98. (Based upon his limited social media postings, Hagar appears to be more interested in conservative politics than in space these days).

    Why, that's terrible!

    I'm sure glad that leftists have no interest in politics!

  99. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumpers are now called snowflakes?

  100. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like how 350 newspapers conspired behind the scenes to all release an editorial on the same topic on the same day This happened, it's not a conspiracy theory.

    yes it happens, almost every fucking day. It is how news content is delivered now, it is not a conspiracy, they all pay the same syndicated providers for the content.

  101. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like how Monsanto's relationship with ketchup was far fetched?

  102. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's so farfetched about SpaceX's competitors hiring a firm to conduct a PR campaign?

    Absolutely nothing. Engaging in possibly criminal activity involving identity theft, however...

  103. Paid shills? Riiiiiight... by sjbe · · Score: 1

    "Rei" is a Slashdot account run by a bunch of paid Musk shills

    I'm always amused when people make the idiotic argument that Slashdot matters enough to draw "paid shills". It certainly has enough crazies saying stupid things (exhibit A above) but it's pretty safe to say neither Elon Musk nor anyone he employs have time or money to give a shit about what some random idiot message board bloggers say on slashdot. Slashdot hasn't been relevant for YEARS and even at it's peak it didn't matter much. It's mostly a bunch of folks like me who hang around and argue for old times sake to amuse themselves. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why I continue to bother when I see stupidity like what I'm replying to here.

  104. Re: Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny that you think the newspapers don't know about the exact origins of the articles. How naive

  105. It takes money to save the world by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Yeah, so cut the crap about Musk trying to save the world. He is just another guy grabbing money.

    Making money and "saving the world" are not mutually exclusive. And frankly to do much that really matters you need money to do it. There are legitimate criticisms you can make about Musk but I don't think this one is among them. If all Elon cared about was money he sure as hell wouldn't have started SpaceX or Tesla. The guy has taken HUGE risks which he didn't have to with those companies. He could have just checked out after the PayPal buyout if money was all that mattered to him.

    I've never seen so many people taken in by such a cult leader.

    As opposed to you who is too cool for school and just sits around trolling nonsense?

  106. Obsess much? by sjbe · · Score: 2

    It is because I think the is a scam artist who takes public money to enrich himself which convincing all of his followers he is out to save the planet and take them to Mars.

    This argument is just ridiculous and stupid. First off Tesla isn't taking any public money. The got a loan a while back (far less than GM incidentally) which they repaid quickly. The tax incentives for purchasing their vehicles don't bring a dime directly to Tesla and frankly probably don't have more than a marginal effect on sales. People who buy $100,000 cars aren't doing it for the tax writeoff and in any case Tesla has burned through the tax rebates available to their customers and yet people are still lining up to buy them. As for SpaceX, yes he launches government satellites and works closely with NASA. So what? So does every other launch company because governments are who launch such devices and NASA is in charge of that sort of business. Furthermore SpaceX has SAVED public money on such launches by lowering cost to orbit. Would you prefer the tax payers pay ULA's jacked up rates instead? Or maybe you would prefer we pay the Russians instead of a US company? SpaceX also has a large launch manifest of non-government clients too which you conveniently ignore. Furthermore please find me a large company that doesn't take full advantage of tax laws and government contracts whenever feasible for them to do so. I think you are being rather selective in your focus on thinking Musk run companies are somehow unusual in that regard.

    I also hate cults.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    I think he is a disgusting human being.

    Maybe he is and maybe he isn't but you seem a little fixated. Did Musk pee in your breakfast cereal or something? Let it go dude. Nobody cares if you like him or don't but at least he's doing something creating value in the world. What have you don't that makes you such a moral paragon that we should give a shit about your opinion of Musk?

  107. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's not what the article says. The articles says nothing on whether Hagar wrote the op-ed, it says he didn't submit all of them to the numerous newspapers that published it. Essentially he submitted it to one or two newspapers, and then this PR outfit appears to have pushed it out to other newspapers, with or without his consent.

    Here's what the article says (my bolding):

    To try to understand his viewpoint, Ars attempted to reach Hagar by phone and email in September. In the course of this process, we learned that he did not actually submit many of these op-eds.

    He didn't submit many of the op eds - his authorship is not in question, just whether he submitted the op eds to the papers that published them. He didn't submit many of the op eds - the fact he submitted some is not in question either.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  108. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not syndication, Ars Technica was able to track down who submitted it to various newspapers, and instead of finding the papers themselves or a syndication outfit, found instead both the original author (for one or two), and a lobbying company.

    It's interesting, but this is the way things work these days. As someone who's provided so much ammunition to anti-train groups who lobby using his bullshit arguments behind the scenes, it's nice to see Musk on the other end for once.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  109. SLS versus the world by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Is there any less economical way to get people into space than SLS?

    Yes. I refer you to the Space Shuttle, the Apollo program, and pretty much any other heavy launch vehicle NASA has developed. The cost per Apollo launch was (inflation adjusted) about $1.2 billion per launch. The SLS is projected to cost considerably less than that though like most programs still in development the real numbers are still a bit fuzzy. It's also unlikely that the SLS would cost more than the Space Shuttle launches since it uses a lot of the same tech but is a notably less complex design. (presuming of course a similar number of launches to amortize the development costs over)

    It's not clear to me that we need the SLS program in light of the apparent success of Falcon Heavy and some of the upcoming heavy launch systems but let's not pretend it is worse than other NASA launch programs. I think the justification for it is really as something of a fall back option in case SpaceX and the rest go tits up unexpectedly. That seems increasingly unlikely to happen but until the private sector options number more than SpaceX and ULA it's probably a good idea to have a back up plan just in case so we don't have to keep bumming rides off the Russians.

  110. Re:Good by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

    Instead, they need to pre-fuel the rocket and have it boiling off cryogenics while they have far more people working around it that don't have the convenience of a launch escape system?

    That sounds far more dangerous to me.

    Load up the payload, whether it be breathing or not, clear the pad, pump in the fuel, launch. If anything happens while pumping fuel, the only people around have a solid rocket motor to lift them away from the danger and deposit them out of harm's way.

    Why is this a difficult concept?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  111. Re:Not Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... my offsprings' heirs will die without issue, my genome will become dust as yours will, all the history struggles art and works of Men throughout all time will come to nought as the passage of time erases all evidence that we ever did exist.

    As gently as I can say it:

    Without begging the question, can you specify what valuable thing is lost in this scenario?

  112. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I am just a regular person that thinks they are a joke operated by a delusional dick wad. Go figure. I know it's inconceivable for those living in the bubble to believe that people may just think a company is a joke being run by a dick wad. Musk actually asks states to change laws just for the precious privilage of doing business with him. A lot of states don't take too kindly to that sort of thing, nor should they.

  113. Musk as a disruptor? Yes, but... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    ...Musk is in trouble with the SEC because he lied, period. Markets have rules, and one of the rules here is "Don't misrepresent your intentions." With that said, your hagiographic defense of Musk is admirable, because we need forward thinkers and doers like him if we are going to think ourselves out of the crapsack world we are heading towards. But we don't want to cure the disease by killing the patient. Musk has some really good ideas, but he also has some really dated (read: flawed) ideas about the role of markets and of labor. fwiw, he seems to be adapting strategies that were successful for a class of entrepreneurs in the late 18th century that created the conditions that produced our current political-economic paradigm. Look up "robber baron" if you want some insight into Musk's style of disruption. We need to recognize and correct the errors in our current economic and political models, and it is going to take disruptors like Musk to keep those errors front and center -- to keep reminding everybody that the current paradigm is seriously flawed and in need of serious re-thinking.

  114. Don't Nasa me, bro! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering about this kind of stuff since the week Taser was to go public, and suddenly stories started appearing how it was really very deadly.

    While that could be a real concern, the timing suggested someone was trying to force the IPO valuation down.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  115. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a solid rocket motor to lift them away

    You don't know how Dragon 2's launch escape system works, do you?

  116. Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk is all about Mars.

    EV is for Mars. Boring is for Mars. SpaceX is for Mars.

    The flamethrower was probably because he needed to clear weeds from his lawn or something. But the rest is Mars.

    It puts amazing accomplishments as mere stepping stones to his insane end-game.

    1. Re:Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars is the official target... keep your eye on the ball.

  117. bless your heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike Charlie Sheen, Elon's company regularly sends supplies to the International Space Station. Cheaper than anybody, ever.
    But other than that, yeah, they're both just as delusional.

  118. Pretty sure Seattle is the space city by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    After all, we make them. You guys just party a lot.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  119. Re:conspiracy whack jobs seem to run this place no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and if someone is submitting without permission, that's not paying license fees

  120. Why NASA no longer puts people into space by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Astronaut safety is NASA's number one priority on any space mission.

    If safety is above mission success then we all are just hiding under our beds. There's a safety risk in everything, and launching people outside the atmosphere will carry all kinds of risks we would not have otherwise. If safety is above getting people into space then we never go to space. Safety cannot ever be the number one priority, safety needs to be second or third on the list if we are going to space. First priority is success. Second priority, in the case of private space programs, will be profit.

    Maybe that's not even the right rank of priorities, profit is likely top on the list. Then comes mission success, as if you can't make money then you can't keep operating to try again. Safety is then third but then obviously dependent on priorities 1 and 2, as few will want profit if they don't survive to enjoy it and a company cannot be successful for long if people are killed or injured in the process.

    Safety cannot be the first priority, because nothing is absolutely safe.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  121. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malicious Anarchists and Greedy Aryans

  122. Does not surprise me at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just seeing the amount of pro union stuff that appears out of nowhere in local newspapers when Boeing is around, itâ(TM)s almost funny to watch. Itâ(TM)s so out of place and obviously paid for in some areas.

    This is standard playbook.

  123. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >destroying the excellent slashdot community

    Ha. Somebody's new.

  124. Re: "Conspiracy theories for the nuts" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were Reddit, 90% of the comments would be that Eric Andre "Who killed Hannibal?" meme.

  125. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, except we all know the world is more likely to take your money, pop you into an incinerator, and make some shit up. Get real.

  126. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the boomer "I deserve it all, you deserve nothing" generation. Now tell us all about how you died a hero in Vietnam, grandpa!

  127. NASA top priority was safety?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to the Challenger crew and the Columbia crew.

  128. Space X does it "Cheaper" by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    because it's not a pork barrel project. NASA money is used to buy votes for other things from the Senators who have NASA projects in their states. Well, that and the government did all the real hard stuff in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  129. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nitpicking details is definitely a way to disqualify the entire statement.

    Oh, wait, it absolutely isn't, and just shows you can't be bothered to actually speak to the matter at hand.

  130. Don't need Mars by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Musk is all about Mars. EV is for Mars. Boring is for Mars. SpaceX is for Mars.

    Maybe so but that matters little in the here and now and none of what he is doing actually requires going to Mars. What Musk's companies are doing has immense value even if we never send so much as another probe to Mars. Electric vehicles area good idea even if we never go to space again. SpaceX lowering cost to orbit has huge value far beyond anything relating to Mars. Better and more efficient tunnel making can make our current 2D infrastructure 3D which we desperately need in many densely populated places. Solar power development and battery tech don't need to leave earth to justify being a good idea. We need clean power and we need it as soon as we can get it.

    The flamethrower was probably because he needed to clear weeds from his lawn or something. But the rest is Mars.

    The flamethrower (which genuinely isn't a flamethrower - it's a roofing torch in fancy packaging) was genius marketing and fundraising inspired literally by the movie Spaceballs.