OK, maybe not lies. Maybe he’s just so completely clueless that he doesn’t know that SpaceX has received less than three hundred million dollars from NASA. The rant starts off with absurdity:
This week’s Bloomberg Businessweek contains the latest adulatory media profile of Elon Musk, the California entrepreneur who is said to be shaking up the space-launch industry. As usual, the profile is long on Musk’s opinions and short on any details about how his space business is actually performing. Good thing for Musk, because so far his inspiring rhetoric about making access to space cheap and easy just isn’t panning out in real life. In fact, compared with the performance of his Space Exploration Technologies Corporation — popularly known as SpaceX — the traditional launch providers he regularly derides seem like paradigms of efficiency.
Note that he provides no data with which to demonstrate the “efficiency” of the traditional launch providers, which helped NASA spend over ten billion of the taxpayers’ money on Ares and Orion with nothing to show but a single giant bottle rocket test, and a half-completed capsule. He goes on with the typical mindless SpaceX bashing:
Musk’s track record to date is not encouraging. Consider:
— The initial launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 1 vehicle was delayed over two years, and then suffered three failures before finally achieving a successful launch five years late.
— The initial launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 5 vehicle was originally expected to occur in 2005, and never happened at all.
— The initial launch of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 vehicle was delayed three years, and the company is now trying to back out of price commitments it made.
Nobody ever said that getting into space would be easy, but when a company has suffered three catastrophic launch failures in a mere seven missions, that’s not a good sign.
Yes, three “failures” constituted a test program. The first three flights failed, with each flight getting closer to success as bugs were fixed, and the final two flights were successful.
As for Falcon 5, it never happened at all because they decided to switch their efforts to the Falcon 9, so I don’t understand the point of this. Other than, of course, to try to put the company in the worst possible light.
And what is he talking about, as far as “backing out of price commitments”? He doesn’t say. Likely because he’s making it up.
And of course, let me rewrite that last sentence: When a company has a steadily improving record, with the successful development of one operational rocket after three test flights, and the successful development of a much larger rocket, that has had two successful flights, with no failures, the second of which delivered a pressurized capsule that was successfully and flawlessly recovered on its first flight, all at a cost to the taxpayers of less than three percent of that expended on Constellation to date, that is the sign of a company that is maturing rapidly and high on the learning curve. He doesn’t note the order of the failures and successes, or that they involved two different rockets, because it doesn’t play into his false implication that the failures are random events, and that the next vehicle has a three in seven chance of failing.
The next line, though, takes the cake for mendacity:
Nonetheless, NASA can’t seem to get enough of SpaceX, shelling out $2 billion to get its launch vehicles to a point where they can begin lifting payloads into orbit to support the Space Station and other missions.
As noted above, SpaceX has received less than three hundred million dollars from NASA to date. It has a contract with a theoretical value of $1.6B, but it doesn’t get paid that until it actually starts delivering cargo to the ISS, at which point it will be doing it for far less than the Shuttle was costing NASA.
It’s interesting to note that Musk and his investors have only put about one-tenth of that amount into SpaceX, even though they present the company as an entrepreneurial, market-driven undertaking.
Even if the numbers were right, this is absurd. He is complaining because the revenue generated by a product or service is much larger than the original investment? Yes, it is interesting, but not for the reason he thinks. It’s interesting because it demonstrates what a great investment it is, while offering a better cheaper new service to a customer who needs it. This is how real businesses work, though probably Dr. Thompson doesn’t understand that kind of business, having spent so much of his career in the traditional space industry, where companies are reimbursed for labor and material, not paid for performance.
I hesitate to ask you to read the whole thing, because it’s so outrageous.
[Update a few minutes later]
Oh, the irony:
The Lexington Institute of Arlington, VA is a libertarian, free market think tank, founded in 1988 by Merrick Carey with help from Robert L. Severns of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.[1] Its annual revenue is roughly $2.5 million, having received funding from corporate sponsors.
I wonder who some of those “corporate sponsors” might be? This might be a hint:
Loren B. Thompson argued in favor of continued C-17 production in 2009 and against this production in 2010.[10] He has also said that the United States is likely to engage in war against Vietnam again and so needs the EFV to storm their beaches.[11] He has also called for a shift in American defense spending towards items such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II that can be exported to allies.[12] Thompson has said that “The United States cannot continue to spend, especially on defense, the way it has been over the past decade.”[13]
I’m guessing that he’s a Lockmart flack, though he may be getting Boeing money as well. But the notion that this has anything to do with free markets, or libertarianism, is ludicrous.
[Update a few minutes later]
Space News (I think this is Warren Ferster) isn’t impressed, either.
He’s just another out of touch with reality fanatic.
Yes, you would be correct. He’s well-known as a bought-and-paid-for LockMart spokesman in defense circles.
He has also called for a shift in American defense spending towards items such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II that can be exported to allies. Thompson has said that “The United States cannot continue to spend, especially on defense, the way it has been over the past decade.”
This is rich coming from a Lock-Mart shill. Let’s look at their recent track record, shall we:
1. F-22: Grossly overbudget
2. AEHF: Late, over budget, first vehicle left in a useless orbit, spending a lot of time to try and nurse it to a good orbit, serious questions about the health of the comm payload.
3. SIBRS (Space Based Infrared): Years late, grossly over budget, first GEO one is scheduled for launch tomorrow.
4. F-35: Running late and grossly over budget.
5. How about Lock-Mart’s LCS? “On 12 April 2007, the Navy canceled the contract with Lockheed Martin for the construction of LCS-3 after negotiations to control cost overruns failed.”
6. Orion. ‘Nuff said.
Another war with Viet Nam? Why? They are practically su#k#$g or di#$s as it is to get us to help buttress them against Chinese interests.
This guy needs to put the crack pipe down and back away slow.
If Lockheed is paying this guy I hope they can get a refund cause those goods are defective.
If he is a shill for Lockheed Martin, wouldn’t his arguments make more sense if he described how the established cost-plus contractors will be able to better compete for future pay-for-performance contracts because their development costs are already sunk and because of their deep experience and history of launches? Even if such arguments are weak, it has to be better than making crap up.
Well, you’re assuming he’s a smart shill, but that might actually be an oxymoron.
Despite his supposed PhD…
What’s the PhD in? Could be just a political science degree.
I personally think he’s talking sense.. SpaceX *are* willing to make claims no-one else is.. what makes him stupid is that he’s confused who’s honest and who’s crooked.
Even if this tool’s 2 billion number for Nasa funds for SpaceX is true (which it isn’t because 1.6 billion of that will only be paid on completion of cargo flights), simple math tells us that 2 billion is less than the 20-26 billion orion will cost for a marginally more capable craft. This article shows a complete disregard for the facts. Like Rand said, all of the Spacex failures were at the beginning of the program, not in the most recent launches. I hope Elon keeps coming back at these people and destroying their false premises.
Nothing crushes criticism like success.
In the past, Loren Thompson and the Lexington Institute worked for Northrop Grumman, and they were a think tank that really just promoted propaganda and press releases to get Northrop contracts. Loren is just part of the standard Washington DC game, and he will keep saying bad stuff about SpaceX, until SpaceX pays him a $20,000 a month retainer to say nice things about SpaceX for the DC press. He has no credibility outside of DC, because he is a hired mouth piece for the defense contractors.
The real issue is that the Atlas V rocket will not exist after 2013.
The Centaur upper stage production facility in California is being shut down, and the Atlas V 1st stage production tooling will not be moved to Alabama from its present location in Denver. The Denver Atlas V production is being shut down (although managerial engineering functions will remain).
ULA hopes that NASA or the Air Force will pay for their Advanced Centaur upper stage and for a 5-meter diameter version of the Atlas V 1st stage (i.e. use the Delta IV tooling in Alabama for Atlas V), but this has not been decided yet…..if ever. ULA has stated they want some of this ready in 2017 or beyond.
The Atlas V as we know it won’t exist anymore after 2013, and ULA will only have the low performance and higher cost Delta IV left, which none of the CCDEV2 entities want to ride on.
The CCDEV2 companies know this already and no one is taking the Atlas V rocket or ULA seriously for rockets. Government people and politicians take ULA seriously, but the facts are that the only rockets credible for commercial crew are from SpaceX and Blue Origin.
Any rational business person who knows the facts already knows to ignore Loren Thompson and ULA rockets. It is just another Government boon doggle.
The real issue is that the Atlas V rocket will not exist after 2013.
First time I’ve heard that. Are you sure this is true? I have no doubt that ULA would like to get paid to develop EELV Phase 1 and/or 2, but I’ve never heard this would be necessary for the continued existence of Atlas.
The CCDEV2 companies know this already and no one is taking the Atlas V rocket or ULA seriously for rockets.
Huh? I thought everybody liked the Atlas V and was assuming it would continue to exist for a long time.
According to this 2010 article, Atlas booster production was scheduled to be moved to Decatur in 2010, followed by Centaur production in 2011. Your “concerns” appear to be unfounded.
The Atlas V as we know it won’t exist anymore after 2013, and ULA will only have the low performance and higher cost Delta IV left, which none of the CCDEV2 entities want to ride on.
Boeing has designed their CST-100 capsule so it can ride on the Atlas V, Delta IV, or Falcon 9. I think this is a very wise decision.
Yes the Atlas V claim seems a little fishy, especially since everyone in CCDev 2 but SpaceX is planning on using Atlas V, including ULA’s co-owner Boeing. Why claim to be using Atlas V if it won’t even be around when they are going to launch?
We need some citations to that claim.