I’ll probably try to update the post itself over there, but I’ll also note here that, since the publication of my piece yesterday, I have been reliably informed that the United Launch Alliance has no budget for this sort of thing, and if it did, it would spend it more effectively than on the sort of second-rate hackery put out by Mr. Thompson.
17 thoughts on “An Update On The Loren Thompson Piece”
Comments are closed.
I thought you were accusing LM of buying Thompson’s services, not ULA?
I was, but some inferred my comments to include ULA as well.
Ah got it. And now that you’re back, can we look forward to some biting commentary on the recent foray into space policy of two of your favourite senators? The hysterical fury over at NSF.com is making me want to go out and buy some popcorn. 🙂
NSF.com? “The Public Health and Safety Company” website? Eh?
Sorry, I meant http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/.
I suspect its more likely that just as you have such strong feelings for SpaceX that you are willing to spend your valuable time advocating for it for FREE, Loren Thompson also has same strong beliefs in traditional space firms.
Unlikely as Mr Thompson is on the record as saying he would never work for free.
I’m pretty sure LM is connected to that screed directly or indirectly. At least one high company official has clearly expressed disdain for SpaceX.
MPM,
You are assuming an Op-Ed is work:-)
Do you mean because it is free publicity?
MPM,
Yep, which also doesn’t imply he was paid to do it.
However, if you had spent the time to read the bio piece at the bottom its easy to see a link with LM that would justify his doing it without any special payment.
[[[Loren Thompson is Chief Operating Officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute and Chief Executive Officer of the private consultancy Source Associates. The Lexington Institute receives money from many of the nation’s leading defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and other space launch providers. Source Associates provides technical services to several companies that compete in space launch, including Lockheed Martin.]]]
So I don’t know why anyone should be surprised if he appears biased. But one doesn’t need to invent any conspiracy theories to explain it either.
What do mean conspiracy theories? His known association with LM is the reason for doubting his motives.
MPM,
LM secretly paying him specifically to write that piece has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory given he has more then sufficient reasons to do so on his own.
The conspiracy theory appears to be your own invention. Look at what Rand actually wrote:
Why does Mr. Thompson write these tendentious pieces? Why so many misstatements of both omission and comission? Is it really his faux concern over the “risk” that NASA is taking in “relying” on one of several companies? The Lexington Institute claims to be a free-market libertarian entity, which is funny (and as an actual free-market libertarian, I resent), because according to Harper’s magazine (subscription required), it’s actually “the defense industry’s pay-to-play ad agency.” Thompson is quoted as saying:
“I’m not going to work on a project unless somebody, somewhere, is willing to pay.”
Lockheed Martin is a major contributor. Lockheed Martin has contracts being threatened by the new way of doing space business. Follow the money. And then recognize these hit pieces for what they are.
I’m paid to write software.. there’s no “conspiracy” between me and my employer. What language are you talking with?
MPM,
Ah the mind of a conspiracy theorist at work 🙂
Again, just because LM is one of the firms that support his institute doesn’t mean they hired him to write that op-ed.
Again, just because LM is one of the firms that support his institute doesn’t mean they hired him to write that op-ed.
That’s more or less what I was saying…