18 thoughts on “SpaceX “Moving” to Texas?”

  1. There are several very slanted articles out now bashing SpaceX. It seems the ULA and others threatened by SpaceX are on the attack. Forbes.com had an article by Loren Thompson [“When SpaceX Falters, Washington Looks The Other Way”] but the link is broken now.

    Another article here on Forbes by Thompson alleging; “Senate Could Hand SpaceX A Monopoly In Military Satellite Launches” seems dubious at best. Note Thompson states: “Disclosure: Boeing and Lockheed Martin contribute to my think tank; Lockheed is a consulting client.”

    1. No one seems to be saying anything about SpaceX’s other competition SNC and Orbital. They are both playing the government game.

      1. Those are SpaceX’s competitors, but they are not ULA’s competitors. SpaceX is. Small guys generally don’t pick fights up the chain until they know they can win.

    2. ULA are the ones who have an effective monopoly, which they forced on the USAF, after entering a competition where there was an explicit policy for two suppliers. If the USAF actually bothered competing their launches better both SpaceX and Orbital could launch a lot of missions, like the GPS satellites, quite easily.

  3. Given how little it apparently costs to buy a “journalist” these days it’s probably the most cost-effective expense ULA has incurred lately.

    As to the piece itself, it’s hard to pick a silliest part – such a target-rich environment – but I’d say it’s probably a tie between the author’s text, turning the $85 million of its own funds SpaceX intends to spend building out Brownsville into an alleged government handout, and the non-seqitur-on-steroids photo of a Shuttle on a flatbed chosen as the illustration for the piece.

    Fortunately, the commenters overwhelmingly gave the piece the fisking and bitch-slapping it richly deserved. If the author intended to lead a bunch of low-information voter types around by their noses, he didn’t succeed.

    What is truly appalling is that such a piece of dreck should sully the namesake site of the fallen giant of straight-arrow reportage. Mr. Street may or may not be prosecutable for libel, here, but whoever is editing the Breitbart site should certainly be indicted for desecrating a grave.

    1. Calling Loren Thompson a “reporter” may be degrading even reporters.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington_Institute

      Lexington Institute
      Key people Merrick Carey
      Loren B. Thompson
      Budget Revenue: $2,350,609
      Expenses: $2,220,847
      (FYE December 2012)[1]
      Location 1600 Wilson Boulevard
      Arlington, Virginia

      Most of the budget of the Lexington Institute comes from the Cost+ Contractors’ Club. It’s no surprise yet another of their bought and paid scribblers are selling swill about people changing the Space Industry from one where politics is of primary importance to one where engineering is of primary importance.

  4. Maybe the reporter thinks that SpaceX should have built its launch site (for low inclination launches) in California? I’m sure he thinks there are loads of sites there for eastbound over-water launches.

    Clearly, the editors at Breitbart are, at best, asleep at the switch.

  5. Rand – Chriss Street is the former treasure of Orange County. Former, because knowing he was about to lose re-election, he decided not to run . This was because of a number of reasons, but mostly because of his handling as trustee of a bankruptcy trust.

    As others have pointed out, this is a complete joke. Misinformation and fact out lies. Fortunately, almost all the comments called him out, yet, he was still making excuses, the best one being, SpaceX vendors were the ones who told him. Of course, anyone in the aerospace industry knows that launches moving from Florida to Texas, is not going to cause manufacturing of the rockets to move from California. Incredibly, he then says he has no malicious intent toward SpaceX, then proceeds to write another hit piece, also on Breitbart.com, attacking SpaceX in regards to the lawsuits against them. Instead of legitimate articles about the cost of doing business in California, the job killing regulations and laws, and actually stories about companies leaving California or expanding in other states instead of California, he chooses to essentially invent a story. Sadly, garbage like this hurts our case about business exodus from this state.

    Unfortunately, this continues a trend of Republican and “conservatives” attacking not just SpaceX, but Elon Musk and anything he is affiliated with, as you have documented and responded to, because he donated once, to Barack Obama, never mind the Republicans he’s donated to.

    As Bill Dale mentioned in the first comment about the latest Loren Thompson hit piece on SpaceX, does anyone have any idea why it was removed. I read this afternoon and a couple of hours later it was gone.

    1. I read it in google cache, somebody over at NSF had a link to the cache version of the forbes article that was taken down.

      I suspect SpaceX’s legal staff may have had something to do with that.

  6. Let’s assume this is true:
    “However, many Southern Californians are appalled that after multi-billionaire SpaceX Chairman Elon Musk suckered the state Legislature into a wildly advantageous crony capital tax exemption for SpaceX, Musk would take his next slurp of crony capitalist cash from Texas. ”

    If more business would suckered politicians, is this not the only way to stop crony capitalism?
    I get how the story is simply not true. But I don’t get how it’s the fault of business, and not completely and utterly the fault of politicians.
    So if there is contracts violated, then there would recourse within the law, but otherwise what possible thing could SpaceX do which was not ethical in this regard?
    Or if there is any screw up connected to this, it has to the fault of those making the law, not those which simply follow the law which politicians have created.

  8. Given that I am more-or-less a Tea Party Republican (at least at heart), I am fascinated by how much I hate so many Republicans. What exactly am I supposed to have in common with some clown in Congress whose only interest in space is bringing pork back to his district? His views on abortion? Maybe, but I’m not really interested in legislating it. His views on small government? Guess not. His views on Defense? I want the US to stop thinking they have to be able to Police the World. So what’s left? He’s less awful than a Democrat? Maybe.
    Then too, many Tea Party politicians would probably defund all of space, because they are against any government spending they don’t understand. Oh well. Tell you what: wake me up when Rohrabacher runs for Congressman of all 50 states.

    1. “Then too, many Tea Party politicians would probably defund all of space, because they are against any government spending they don’t understand.”

      Tea party in space:
      “The TEA Party in Space Platform is grounded in American exceptionalism and the TEA Party core values of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

      Our goal is nothing less than the expansion of American civilization into the solar system. ”
      http://teapartyinspace.org/?page_id=10

      If Tea Party wants to de-fund things, they start to federal EPA [have EPA run by each State] and could also defund UN- as UN supports wars and terrorism- and hopelessly corrupt [and useless].
      One save more money from ending federal EPA:
      “Overall, the agency’s budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, would be $7.9 billion, about $309 million less than enacted for the current fiscal year. For years, the administration has been under pressure from Republicans and some centrist Democrats to shrink the EPA, which they view as an overly aggressive regulator. Last summer, House Republicans pushed unsuccessfully for a 34% cut in funding to about $5.5 billion.”
      http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/04/2015-budget-trimming-epa-funding/
      In terms of international body, one should be formed that focus what is important. It’s main purpose would be to prevent genocide, slavery, and right of any citizen to leave their hell hole country. So in other words, Cuba and N Korea obviously could not be a members, and this international body would united action which would end such States- and any and all acts would be considered valid which would bring this about in shortest period as is possible.

      1. The self-proclaimed “Tea party in space” group (or individual) has no real link to the “Tea Party” in general (hard to define such a vague group), other than sharing some ideas.

  9. Good comment. I agree with your take on Republicans.

    Then too, many Tea Party politicians would probably defund all of space, because they are against any government spending they don’t understand.

    Scaling NASA back to a more NACA-like role in fostering research and technology makes more and more sense to me.

Comments are closed.