Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crew-9 Returns to Earth

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 712 posts

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#631

Post by sophacles »

exodust wrote: post #624
sophacles wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Others have asked, and I'm going to ask: Prove the fraud. That is a specific charge, with a specific meaning - as you point out yourself in your comment. Pointing to money that was spent differently than you think it should be is not fraud, no matter how much you want to claim it. Pointing to money being spent in suboptimal ways is not fraud. Maybe it's waste - but often it's what the law calls for (aka definitionall…

> Show that the money was spent in a way different than proscribed by law When people find loopholes in the law to obtain grants, do you defend their actions because technically it didn't break the law? DOGE is apparently exposing a system of dubious and questionable spending at scale. If "wasteful" is an understatement, don't be surprised when taxpayers use "fraud" to describe the decisions made to blow their money.…

> When people find loopholes in the law to obtain grants, do you defend their actions because technically it didn't break the law?

I don't defend their actions as moral. I think the loophole should be closed. I also think that they didn't commit fraud, as a loophole is by definition legal.

As for all your nonsense about money being spent different than you would like: I get it, you're very upset. As I covered before: money being spend different than you would like it to be spent is not fraud, no matter how much you rant and hate.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#632

Post by pavon »

somenameforme wrote: post #396
pavon wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That interview doesn't really say much. It is mostly an carefully worded, polite but empty statement made after earlier extemporaneous comments by Suni and Butch seemingly contradicted Musk. The headline claim is basically just Butch saying he has no insight into the decision process but he trusts Musk is telling the truth. In contrast other articles Eric wrote talking to people who where involved in the decision of…

I 100% agree he's phrasing things 'politically', but think about how you might also be reading what you want to read. For instance the section where you [reasonably] claim he's contradicting Musk (by claiming the decision was not political) was also not only phrased politically, but even came with a sort of disclaimer starting with "From my standpoint." There were no such disclaimers when stating that Musk made some…

> And again something you can't discount here is that Eric himself has written extensively about NASA frequently carrying out/endorsing poor decisions (SLS/Artemis being the low hanging fruit there) owing much more to political pressure than pragmatic decisions about the best direction for progress.

The reason he was able to write about this was that he had sources within NASA that would tell him the inside story behind the decisions, and how much politics influenced them. Now his sources are telling him that this decision was not political. I don't have any reason to trust his previous sources but not his current ones (especially when many are the same).

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#634

Post by queuebert »

acdha wrote: post #614
queuebert wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1897470032612851893 (Note: I don't know anything about the X account. It was just the first result I found.) Edit: Also it sucks that I can't ask a genuine question on this website without getting downvoted to oblivion. Whatever the answer, it would be nice to get it without being judged.

> Also it sucks that I can't ask a genuine question on this website without getting downvoted to oblivion You asked a question in a confrontational manner, and which had the same misrepresentation as various political operatives have been using. I think you got caught up in looking like you knew the answer but were hoping that readers did not, which is common enough that many people try to discourage it here.

You (and others apparently) applied an incorrect emotion to my unemotional comment. Typical text only communication. The whole point of the "genuinely asking" part was to show I wasn't trying to "gotcha" anyone.

I have barely followed the issue but had heard the astronauts confirmed Musk's side. How else was I supposed to ask about that? What magical wording could I use so that all of you don't try to put me in a belief box?

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#635

Post by sanderjd »

winrid wrote: post #626
sanderjd wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, "no one wants to outright explain what happened" is called "chilling effects" and is one of the explicit goals of an authoritarian regime like the one we have in the US now. Nobody wants to get fired and get death threats just for speaking plainly, so most people don't. Every once in awhile someone will decide it's worth the cost, but most people most of the time will decide it isn't.

Biden signed 162 executive orders. Is Trump somehow different here?

Yes.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#636

Post by sanderjd »

nailer wrote: post #623
sanderjd wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that most people in this thread are likely native english speakers, but that just means that we can understand that the weird narrow read of the words "authoritarian regime" is silly and, based on other comments you've made, very likely just you being purposely obtuse for partisan reasons.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to respond to me on multiple threads. As mentioned elsewhere, I am not the source of the common meaning of the term, I do not edit the encyclopaedia, the newspapers, take the photos or anything else you will see on the front page of Google when you search for “authoritarian regime”. You know what an authoritarian regime commonly means, and you know what you were trying to do, and yo…

Because you're responding about different things in different threads, so I'm responding to those responses.

You're just wrong about the common meaning of the term, and you seem to think that just asserting the same thing over and over is somehow going to make you right about it, but it won't. And I'll keep pointing out that you're wrong about it as long as you keep repeating the same thing.

I'm not being partisan. You're not being partisan in this thread either, you're just repeating this silly assertion about what "authoritarian regime" means. So I'm continuing to rebut that.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#638

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

culi wrote: post #562
piokoch wrote: post #276

There are certain historical inadequacies in the article. "That is, the Apollo Program brought the country together in the turbulent 1960s and helped make everyone feel good about the country" This certainly was not 100% true, as some communities protested against Apollo program [1], even though, overall, the progress it has caused helped eventually those communities as well. Nevertheless there were kind of bipartisa…

Even today this topic is often brought up in rap lyrics. Quest's last album had a song called "The Space Program" which featured the hook: "There ain't a space program for niggas Yeah, you stuck here, nigga" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Program_(song)

What a poet

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#639

Post by somenameforme »

pavon wrote: post #632
somenameforme wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree he's phrasing things 'politically', but think about how you might also be reading what you want to read. For instance the section where you [reasonably] claim he's contradicting Musk (by claiming the decision was not political) was also not only phrased politically, but even came with a sort of disclaimer starting with "From my standpoint." There were no such disclaimers when stating that Musk made some…

> And again something you can't discount here is that Eric himself has written extensively about NASA frequently carrying out/endorsing poor decisions (SLS/Artemis being the low hanging fruit there) owing much more to political pressure than pragmatic decisions about the best direction for progress. The reason he was able to write about this was that he had sources within NASA that would tell him the inside story beh…

No it wasn't. It's based on visible logic, as everybody knows this, well at least everybody within the 'space domain.' People outside of the 'space domain' don't realize how absurdly dysfunctional things like the SLS or Artemis are, and generally have a completely erroneous impression of NASA.

If you want to see this in action search for pretty much any article on SLS or Artemis by him. The one I offered with the former NASA administrator was to clarify to people who might want to claim he was just speculating or whatever. NASA is the posterboy for making bad decisions under political pressure, and not just in contemporary times...

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#640

Post by [deleted] »

majormajor wrote: post #550
somenameforme wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree he's phrasing things 'politically', but think about how you might also be reading what you want to read. For instance the section where you [reasonably] claim he's contradicting Musk (by claiming the decision was not political) was also not only phrased politically, but even came with a sort of disclaimer starting with "From my standpoint." There were no such disclaimers when stating that Musk made some…

How are you possibly parsing "We have no information on that, though, whatsoever; what was offered, what was not offered; who it was offered to, how that process went" as "I can confirm that Musk made that offer and it was declined"? That is a HUGE disclaimer. "no information on that, though, whatsoever" - it doesn't get any bigger than that.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN