5 ms·

How to usefully say this briefly? The article has some interesting context. The byline is Andy Pasztor, who is known for anti-SpaceX low-quality journalism.

How to usefully say this briefly? The article has some interesting context. The byline is Andy Pasztor, who is known for anti-SpaceX low-quality journalism. This article was relatively tame for him. There's been a long-term press campaign against SpaceX. Apparently coming from old-aerospace. Its narratives have been... unconstrained by reality. And seemingly overlap with parts of the article. Long-term, the press campaign seems to be ramping up. Modulo intense tactical campaigns like Northrop's around loss of Zuma, which lasted only a few days. The many-$B "Senate"LaunchSystem appears in increasing trouble, both internally, and threatened by SpaceX's BFR. So odds are we'll enjoy a lot more of these. > In August, reporters asked Ms. Shotwell how confident she was about the latest timetable. Such difficult predictions “can make a liar out of the best of us,” she said, adding: “I hope I am not proven to be a liar.” This last paragraph... ick. Not worrying about the mischaracterization of delay, that's just Pasztor. But the association of Shotwell and "liar"... Shotwell is known for her honesty. Boeing leadership... very not so much. I do hope this isn't a new meme - that would be remarkably slimy. Meta: There's the idea that knowing some topic, and seeing the press repeatedly get it wrong, causes one to doubt their reporting of everything else. Watching press coverage of SpaceX has introduced me to an unhappy variant. Knowing some political background for a topic, and finding it essential to even "read" press articles, leaves me wondering if I've been unknowingly failing to adequately "read" press coverage of everything else. :/

whatshisface 8y ago
>There's the idea that knowing some topic, and seeing the press repeatedly get it wrong, causes one to doubt their reporting of everything else. Typically, this is presented as the opposite, where most people seem to mysteriously forget how poorly the media treats their own area of expertise when they turn around to trust it in other areas[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect
- exolymph 8y ago
  It goes both ways. Some people have a Gell-Mann revelation, some suffer from the amnesia.
hef19898 8y ago
I'm not sure about this (I don't know that particular journalist or any of his reportings). That there is some kind of PR machine at work from the likes of Boeing and Lockheed, sure bet, they alsways do that. But then SpaceX has Elon Musk, a PR machine all of his own. What did change so, and that I think is directly related to Musk as well, is how SpaceX is perceived now as compared to a few years ago. It all started with Teslas Model 3 issues and the subsequent Twitter issues, after that Musk, and by extension his companies, are seen in a different light by many. Whether this is justified or not is anyones guess. Regarding SpaceX, competitors are now exploiting an opportunity, I just hope that Musk doesn't take the bait. On the other hand, maybe a somewhat more realistic approach doesnt't hurt. When did some "research" into SpaceX lately I saw a change in tone in articles, especially covering the financial side, from article in 2013 / 2014 to now. I have the impression that SpaceX, and Musk as well as Tesla, are also followinng the hype curve. Added background: I'm not so optimistic regarding bith Tesla and SpceX anymore as have been, especially Tesla.
- Tuna-Fish 8y ago
  > Added background: I'm not so optimistic regarding bith Tesla and SpceX anymore as have been, especially Tesla. Not commenting on Tesla, but why are you not optimistic wrt SpaceX? To put simply, SpaceX has won the space launch industry more thoroughly than anyone could have predicted just a few years ago. SpaceX is now routinely recovering every core they fly, and based on publicly revealed data they are cheap to refurbish. This means launch costs they pay are down to a small fraction of what everyone else pays. They have reduced the cost of getting to the end of their launch queue to $60M for basic service, and despite the low sticker price they are still probably making more profit per launch (not profit margin, more flat profit) on those than any of their competitors are. According to Königsmann's recent talk at IAC, they now have a 100 future launches on their launch manifest, priced at about $12B. That's more than the entire rest of the commercial launch industry put together, by a huge margin. Because they now get their first stages back, it means that their stable of launchers grows larger and their launch cadence can improve with every new finished rocket, so they can rapidly turn those deals into actual profit. In just a few years, SpaceX has turned from the scrappy upstart to the 800-pound gorilla who dwarf all their competition. On top of that they have the BFR which sounds fantastic and fantastical, and their satellite internet business which seems designed to make sure they don't run out of launches for their launchers, and both those projects are a lot more risky. But the point is, unlike Tesla with Model 3, those projects can fail and they will still be the most effective and profitable space launch company in human history. They can afford to have a long and explosion-filled development cycle for the BFR. In a lot of ways, they have already won, and that's just the victory lap. Of course, until they get BFR worked out, they are not going to go to Mars.

whatshisface 8y ago

>There's the idea that knowing some topic, and seeing the press repeatedly get it wrong, causes one to doubt their reporting of everything else. Typically, this is presented as the opposite, where most people seem to mysteriously forget how poorly the media treats their own area of expertise when they turn around to trust it in other areas[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

exolymph 8y ago
It goes both ways. Some people have a Gell-Mann revelation, some suffer from the amnesia.

hef19898 8y ago

I'm not sure about this (I don't know that particular journalist or any of his reportings). That there is some kind of PR machine at work from the likes of Boeing and Lockheed, sure bet, they alsways do that. But then SpaceX has Elon Musk, a PR machine all of his own. What did change so, and that I think is directly related to Musk as well, is how SpaceX is perceived now as compared to a few years ago. It all started with Teslas Model 3 issues and the subsequent Twitter issues, after that Musk, and by extension his companies, are seen in a different light by many. Whether this is justified or not is anyones guess. Regarding SpaceX, competitors are now exploiting an opportunity, I just hope that Musk doesn't take the bait. On the other hand, maybe a somewhat more realistic approach doesnt't hurt. When did some "research" into SpaceX lately I saw a change in tone in articles, especially covering the financial side, from article in 2013 / 2014 to now. I have the impression that SpaceX, and Musk as well as Tesla, are also followinng the hype curve. Added background: I'm not so optimistic regarding bith Tesla and SpceX anymore as have been, especially Tesla.

Tuna-Fish 8y ago
> Added background: I'm not so optimistic regarding bith Tesla and SpceX anymore as have been, especially Tesla. Not commenting on Tesla, but why are you not optimistic wrt SpaceX? To put simply, SpaceX has won the space launch industry more thoroughly than anyone could have predicted just a few years ago. SpaceX is now routinely recovering every core they fly, and based on publicly revealed data they are cheap to refurbish. This means launch costs they pay are down to a small fraction of what everyone else pays. They have reduced the cost of getting to the end of their launch queue to $60M for basic service, and despite the low sticker price they are still probably making more profit per launch (not profit margin, more flat profit) on those than any of their competitors are. According to Königsmann's recent talk at IAC, they now have a 100 future launches on their launch manifest, priced at about $12B. That's more than the entire rest of the commercial launch industry put together, by a huge margin. Because they now get their first stages back, it means that their stable of launchers grows larger and their launch cadence can improve with every new finished rocket, so they can rapidly turn those deals into actual profit. In just a few years, SpaceX has turned from the scrappy upstart to the 800-pound gorilla who dwarf all their competition. On top of that they have the BFR which sounds fantastic and fantastical, and their satellite internet business which seems designed to make sure they don't run out of launches for their launchers, and both those projects are a lot more risky. But the point is, unlike Tesla with Model 3, those projects can fail and they will still be the most effective and profitable space launch company in human history. They can afford to have a long and explosion-filled development cycle for the BFR. In a lot of ways, they have already won, and that's just the victory lap. Of course, until they get BFR worked out, they are not going to go to Mars.