3 ms·

So is their argument “the bad guys are against it so it must be right?” They made a point to drop that terrifying B-bomb in the title, sending shivers up the s

So is their argument “the bad guys are against it so it must be right?” They made a point to drop that terrifying B-bomb in the title, sending shivers up the spine of many a HN reader. I see the ULA vs Space X competition as productive in producing innovation, regulatory fairness aside. Regulatory problems are much less of a drag if resulting innovation is a net positive for both private and public sectors

linkregister 9y ago
> They made a point to drop that terrifying B-bomb in the title, sending shivers up the spine of many a HN reader. I chuckled at this. I think your analysis of their rhetoric is apt. That said, the lede of the article is the media campaign pushing the pay-to-play narrative, not the righteousness of SpaceX (which is expected to be taken as a given). Overall, the article was informative because I wouldn't have known that there was a counter argument to Sen. Paul's narrative.