Comments on: The curious case of a deleted Forbes.com commentary on SpaceX

By: ART

ART — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:19:00 +0000

Notice how Musk confronts this stuff personally and publicly, while whatever corporate drones working for the pseudo entity ULA go out and hire weenie sock puppets dressed as journalists (“Limbaughs”) to spew doubt and confusion wrapped in the flag, shoveling Costco apple pie, bible, and thinly disguised ethnic ad hominem at the executive branch.
Sure, SpaceX might become some bastard organization in the future, par for the course for upstarts fast becoming the old power…but not EVERY person, company or even Strongman has gone that route. Washington didn’t, and I bet Musk wouldn’t. If he were out-done by someone better, he would probably cheer them on, and buy up his companies last rocket to take the final ride. He ain’t gonna be hurtin’ for groceries.
SpaceX is a good shop, and they have built a helluva good boat. Loren (is that really a dude’s name?) Isn’t a builder, designer, sailor, or an honest wordsmith. He does’t qualify to sweep my shop, much less comment on the work or doings of his betters.

By: ART

ART — Sun, 31 Aug 2014 05:44:50 +0000

Red, White, Blue.
These colors dont run!…err, the world.
Only open source architecture has EVER had any significant long term benefit to the US, and thus the world economy. Where would we be if not for IBM’s PC, the small-block engine aftermarket, and Unix?
Musk is right on this. Not getting the defense launches put less assurance in their launch schedule..for now… but letting cronies of Oldspace Stink Stick properspirant continue to operate unchallenged on all fronts pushes back the timetable for getting open-source hardware out there.
I smell fear. Mmmmmmm….

By: DocM

DocM — Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:35:41 +0000

Political.com did an article on Thompson in 2010 that’s interesting,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46155.html

“Still, Thompson often draws criticism that his opinions come for a price.

The 501(c)(3) Lexington Institute doesnâ€™t disclose its donors. But Thompson said it receives contributions from defense giants Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and others, which pay Lexington to â€œcomment on defense.â€

The institute brought in $2.4 million in 2009, according to its financial statements. Thompson proposes projects to its clients, such as one he wrote earlier this year denouncing subsidies received by the European Union, an argument used by Boeing for bouncing its competitor EADS from the effort to win the $35 billion tanker contract.”

And so on….

By: Mercy777

Mercy777 — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 05:03:00 +0000

Common Sense and Dick just ‘squashed’ you.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:27:39 +0000

USAF is the launch purchase agent for the DOD. NRO couldn’t buy launches (secret or otherwise) from SpaceX if it wanted to. For better or worse, NRO launch demand goes through USAF.

How Thompson could claim to offer expert opinion on launch issues in the defense sector and not know this fundamental fact about how DOD launches are procured is contradictory. He’s either a liar or an idiot (or both).

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:16:44 +0000

Which reminds me of some problem men start facing in their 50s maybe. Big SUVs, big guns, big rockets, big egos, all things big. Odd isnâ€™t it?

Come on, admit it; you’re a chick, right?

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:14:16 +0000

I wonder if it’s too late to point out that NASA is not a branch of the military in spite of Windy’s long-time insistence that it is.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:08:24 +0000

That smell of decay is not coming from where you think it is.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 02:06:57 +0000

There ought to be a special court where you could go to get things squashed. We could call it a “squash court.”

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:46:03 +0000

Well said, Vladislaw!