21–30 of 72 posts
If you just assume that about 100% of what you read on the internet, see on the tv news, or read in a newspaper is bought and paid for by someone with a economic interest in the topic, you'll probably be right about 90%+ of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safety practices for people going into space? Honestly.. Pretty sure people going out of the atmosphere, inches away from an instant, unimaginable death are aware that it's not exactly safe. The company obviously has a huge vested interest in not having people die but it's kind of inevitable when you're in such a high stakes game. NASA has had plenty of deaths
From the space people I talk to, many in the very recent past harbored this notion that SpaceX was irresponsible with their early move-fast methods. However, as predicted, that all slowed down to a similarly glacial pace once they became entrenched in the red tape machine. Parity in that reguard is rapidly approaching. And a nitpick, NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech, the…
Individuals have very different risk tolerances, often based on their deepest values. But I don't think we should say it's wrong to want to e.g. go to Mars, even if there's an 90% chance of failure. It's a reasonable tradeoff to make.
If you succeed, you'll be hailed as a new civilization's Pilgrims, and will continue in that culture's oral history for as long as it exists. Children will sing songs about your feats, and dress up in crude facsimiles of your space suits on Landing Day. Adults will proudly trace their genealogy to members of your party, and speak admiringly about the values you instilled. Many people would trade their lives for a 10% chance of such a fate. As a society we should let them.
The underlying message is that Boeing isn't confident they'll beat Crew Dragon to orbit. They've already stacked the deck with more funding due to their "legacy overhead" but apparently even that isn't enough.
I think the story is more complicated as always - If you watch Scott Manley's channel, I think there's a few mission profiles that ULA can do better than SpaceX. One launcher can't do everything well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safety practices for people going into space? Honestly.. Pretty sure people going out of the atmosphere, inches away from an instant, unimaginable death are aware that it's not exactly safe. The company obviously has a huge vested interest in not having people die but it's kind of inevitable when you're in such a high stakes game. NASA has had plenty of deaths
From the space people I talk to, many in the very recent past harbored this notion that SpaceX was irresponsible with their early move-fast methods. However, as predicted, that all slowed down to a similarly glacial pace once they became entrenched in the red tape machine. Parity in that reguard is rapidly approaching. And a nitpick, NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safety practices for people going into space? Honestly.. Pretty sure people going out of the atmosphere, inches away from an instant, unimaginable death are aware that it's not exactly safe. The company obviously has a huge vested interest in not having people die but it's kind of inevitable when you're in such a high stakes game. NASA has had plenty of deaths
From the space people I talk to, many in the very recent past harbored this notion that SpaceX was irresponsible with their early move-fast methods. However, as predicted, that all slowed down to a similarly glacial pace once they became entrenched in the red tape machine. Parity in that reguard is rapidly approaching. And a nitpick, NASA was the pioneer, and pushed hard during the cold war to develop ICBM tech, the…
NASA did not develop ICBM technology; the USAF did. NASA used ICBMs in their early days, particularly Atlas missiles. There may well have been some cross-pollination of basic rocket design technology. But NASA was not in the business of making ICBMs and had nothing to do with MAD or the nuclear triad.
Short version of the article: One op-ed article attacking SpaceX's safety practices appears in the newspapers of several space-industry-oriented cities. The article is not written by the person it is attributed to, but rather by two people apparently affiliated with a PR firm in Washington, DC. One of the three main clients of said PR firm is Boeing, SpaceX's direct competitor.
To be pedantic, he -did- write the article, but not for a newspaper. It was submitted to multiple large newspapers in space-heavy cities around the country as an Op Ed without his awareness (or at least, "ostensibly on his behalf") by the PR firm.
Short version of the article: One op-ed article attacking SpaceX's safety practices appears in the newspapers of several space-industry-oriented cities. The article is not written by the person it is attributed to, but rather by two people apparently affiliated with a PR firm in Washington, DC. One of the three main clients of said PR firm is Boeing, SpaceX's direct competitor.
Safety practices for people going into space? Honestly.. Pretty sure people going out of the atmosphere, inches away from an instant, unimaginable death are aware that it's not exactly safe. The company obviously has a huge vested interest in not having people die but it's kind of inevitable when you're in such a high stakes game. NASA has had plenty of deaths
Should we disregard safety on their account, too?
If you just assume that about 100% of what you read on the internet, see on the tv news, or read in a newspaper is bought and paid for by someone with a economic interest in the topic, you'll probably be right about 90%+ of the time.
Short version of the article: One op-ed article attacking SpaceX's safety practices appears in the newspapers of several space-industry-oriented cities. The article is not written by the person it is attributed to, but rather by two people apparently affiliated with a PR firm in Washington, DC. One of the three main clients of said PR firm is Boeing, SpaceX's direct competitor.
> 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.
Since the article claims to be about one op-ed piece submitted to many places, it seems reasonable to assume he wrote it, but that the mentioned PR firm then submitted it far and wide.
It's also not clear from that wording if they actually spoke with Hagar (they "attempted to reach" him), or if this information comes from another source.
In any case, it's still an obvious smear campaign.