Space Stuff

Robert said:

Ron Paul has taken to Fox News to skewer SpaceX

Click to expand...

Why does Ron Paul say that the government favouring one company or dictating requirements on one competitor that it doesn't dictate to another is because Ron Paul ALWAYS says that. The reason Ron Paul thinks we should just treat Russia like another world power and not as an enemy to be eternally militarily engaged with, is because he ALWAYS says that, and the reason he poo poos the "Russia hacked the election" conspiracy theory is because it IS poo poo. I think the implication floated at the foot of the article that maybe Ron Paul is just Putin's lackey against Elon Musk is a bit ... laughable but also, sadly, not funny.

FluffyMcDeath said:

I think the implication floated at the foot of the article that maybe Ron Paul is just Putin's lackey against Elon Musk...

Click to expand...

I didn't take that implication from it and reading it again, hmmm, maybe, maybe not. From "sympathetic to Russia" to Putin's lackey against Elon Musk seems a bit reachy to me. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure Putin is particularly "against" Musk.

This bit though:

the irony of his "monopoly" argument is that it was SpaceX, and its Falcon 9 rocket, that brought competition into the Air Force launch services agreements. Before SpaceX was certified two years ago to compete for national security launch contracts, United Launch Alliance was the sole provider of these services for a decade. SpaceX has since provided launches at a large discount for the military.

Click to expand...

You say he always says that about the government favouring one company.
I'm not aware of him complaining about ULA being a monopoly but if he did, fair enough.

Anyway, I thought the main thrust of it was:

two of his top six corporate donors were Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the parent companies of United Launch Alliance.

Click to expand...

But I suppose we all interpret articles through a lens of our own pre-existing biases.

Robert said:

I didn't take that implication from it and reading it again, hmmm, maybe, maybe not. From "sympathetic to Russia" to Putin's lackey against Elon Musk seems a bit reachy to me. Apart from anything else, I'm not sure Putin is particularly "against" Musk.

Click to expand...

I was exaggerating of course, but the article was posted fairly contemporaneously with (probably a bit after actually) Ron paul speaking in the Senate in support of Rand Paul's motion to repeal to the AUMF - the motion was killed - so it had a bit of a "Ron is soft on commies" feel (else why even mention Russia?) - and, for that matter, why a story on Ron Paul at this moment? It's the gentle undermining propaganda that massages those who think maybe the US doesn't need to be at war all te time. Actually it's often not gentle at all.

FluffyMcDeath said:

why a story on Ron Paul at this moment?

Click to expand...

Because he appears to be selectively and hypocritically criticising one of ArsTechnica's favourite companies.
I'm a daily reader of Ars. They're pretty much on-board with SpaceX, not quite to the point of fan boys but not far off.
Anyone of note who criticises SpaceX will get column inches there.
If said person is squealing "monopoly" at SpaceX but not at it's far-more-monopoly-like predecessor whose parent companies just so happened to be two of his main campaign contributors, then they are quite right to call him out for his self-serving hypocrisy.
This self-serving hypocrisy is what I took to be the point of the article.

It's the gentle undermining propaganda that massages those who think maybe the US doesn't need to be at war all te time.

Click to expand...

If you are seriously suggesting that's the motivation here I can only assume you don't follow SpaceX stories on that site.
If you do and still think the motivation is some kind of "reds under the bed" propaganda? Well, I really don't know what to tell you...

Farewell Cassini! NASA's Saturnian spacecraft waves goodbye for its Grand Finale
But the mission is far from over, say scientists

Robert said:

I'm a daily reader of Ars. They're pretty much on-board with SpaceX, not quite to the point of fan boys but not far off.

Click to expand...

I hardly ever read Ars. I wouldn't know but I can see how they might be fan boys.

then they are quite right to call him out for his self-serving hypocrisy.
This self-serving hypocrisy is what I took to be the point of the article.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's the second to last paragraph implying one part of his reason is to benefit his donors.
But there is also a final paragraph implying that another part of his reason is to benefit Russia.

The two most impactful paragraphs in a news story are the lede and conclusion.

The writer is from Houston which is, I presumed, why the dateline had a very early morning timestamp. I guess it cold reflect more the information environment in which he resides than a conscious attempt to propagandise.
Anyway, the Ron Paul opinion piece it linked to was interesting and pretty much classic Paul. Is Elon really a big supporter of McCain?

FluffyMcDeath said:

Anyway, the Ron Paul opinion piece it linked to was interesting and pretty much classic Paul.

Click to expand...

I don't know much about Paul other than what I've read on here so wouldn't know what "classic Paul" is but if the selective "monopoly" whining is anything to go by (and as yet I see no reason to think otherwise), his "opinion" (actual or paymaster's) isn't one I'd be paying too much attention to.

Robert said:

I don't know much about Paul other than what I've read on here so wouldn't know what "classic Paul" is but if the selective "monopoly" whining is anything to go by (

Click to expand...

or as you said earlier

Robert said:

Because he appears to be selectively and hypocritically criticising one of ArsTechnica's favourite companies.

Click to expand...

which is an impression it seems you have got from the article you linked.

his "opinion" (actual or paymaster's) isn't one I'd be paying too much attention to.

Click to expand...

By which you mean the author's opinion of Ron Paul's opinion - since you don't know much about Ron Paul.

According to open secrets, Ron Paul received money for his 2012 presidential run from Armed Forces personnel, as well as from Boeing and Lockheed Martin (see the top donors here and note the caveat on the page that says these are not donations from the organizations themselves but from individuals and PACs) and yet, Ron Paul was an anti-war candidate. Here is a classic speech from 2009:
If you have the patience here are some highlights from the 2012 campaign foreign policy debates:
He is still very anti-war, writing for antiwar.com among others. Why did people in the war business give money to Ron Paul? Mother Jones tried to take a stab at the question but who really knows. Perhaps people who work in businesses that kill people just want to know, for their own consciences, that the leadership isn't going to use their work (and blood) frivolously.

Now, I agree with Ron Paul to a large degree on his anti-interventionist and constitutional views - but I disagree with him on whether or not the government should spend on things the electorate mandate it to spend on as he is strictly free market and his position on the government dictating to United Launch Alliance exactly what they are allowed to spend their money on is anti-competitive and in line with his historical positions.

Ron Paul retired from the house of representatives in 2013 and hasn't run since and only in 2012 (his presidential campaign) did he get much from Boeing and Lockheed Martin and then it was mostly individual contributors rather than corporate or via a PAC and far less than several other candidates. From open secrets, I can't see that either Boeing or Lockheed Martin are funding the younger Paul (Rand Paul). I'd say the writer made a pretty weak case if he is claiming that Ron Paul is attacking SpaceX on the grounds that employees from Boeing and Lockheed Martin gave his presidential campaign a total of $30,000 5 years ago and now he's retired and not needing funding to run for office. And that is, as far as I can see, the case Berger is making.

FluffyMcDeath said:

... you don't know much about Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

I don't but I did read what seems like a reasonable demonstration of his hypocrisy which you appear to be crying foul over yet, despite a whole lot of dancing around the subject, have so far failed to show otherwise.

Why did people in the war business give money to Ron Paul?

Click to expand...

Yes, that intrigued me too. As you say, who knows, other than the donators themselves (and, perhaps, Ron Paul)?

I'd say the writer made a pretty weak case if he is claiming that Ron Paul is attacking SpaceX on the grounds that employees from Boeing and Lockheed Martin gave his presidential campaign a total of $30,000 5 years ago...

Click to expand...

Maybe but I'd argue the above defense of his position is even weaker as it explains nothing.

Did he also criticise ULA for being a monopoly and if not, why not? Why the hypocrisy?

You said he always says that and, as I said above, if it turns out he did, fair enough but you've yet to show me that.
In the absence of a better explanation, the fact that he received funds from one lot and not the other seems as good a reason as any.

Robert said:

In the absence of a better explanation, the fact that he received funds from one lot and not the other seems as good a reason as any.

Click to expand...

Then my "conspiracy theory" explanation is just as good as your conspiracy theory explanation - until you show me proof that Eric Bergen isn't an anti-Russian propagandist.

Eric did no more than show that (mostly people who work) for these companies donated once back in 2012 - both of whom donated to many other candidates and donated significantly more to Obama and Mitt Romney. He did not show nor do I think he CAN show that Ron Paul or his son are currently receiving any benefit from these companies. I can't even search for any such connection because google (at least for me) is choked with Ron Paul bashes SpaceX stories but even so, if there WAS something juicy of substance I would hope it would have come up. I found nothing, and neither did Eric or he would have used it. Political donations are given to politicians in the hopes of receiving favours from them through their office. Ron Paul retired after his presidential run in 2012 and has held no office since.

Ron Paul may have been right or wrong in his criticism but Eric's response was to smear Paul by claiming that he was doing if for money from Lockheed and Boeing on insufficient evidence and insinuate that Ron Paul was trying to help Putin, also without evidence. It was a hatchet job. ad hominem That's all. it doesn't address what Paul said in the linked article but just attempts to distract from it and to shoot the messenger.

FluffyMcDeath said:

Then my "conspiracy theory" explanation is just as good as your conspiracy theory explanation - until you show me proof that Eric Bergen isn't an anti-Russian propagandist.

Click to expand...

Not really. One offers a potential explanation for Ron Paul's dubiously selective criticism, the other only offers a potential explanation for the criticism of that criticism.

Apart from anything else, your 'theory' started out defending Paul by saying he always calls out monopolies.
But it turns out he doesn't.
It also turns out that he once received funds from an actual monopoly which he never criticised as such.
Then, when a competitor comes along who breaks that monopoly but whom he hasn't received funds from, he calls *them* a monopoly.
Often when hypocrisy like that happens, money is the reason for otherwise difficult to explain actions.

I'll agree this doesn't necessarily prove it is the reason for Paul's otherwise bizarre behaviour but to dismiss it out of hand because 'Berger's an anti-Russian propagandist' and without offering an alternative explanation for what Paul did, gets us nowhere.

it doesn't address what Paul said in the linked article but just attempts to distract from it and to shoot the messenger.

Click to expand...

I have to assume the irony of your last sentence isn't lost on you.

Boffins discover tightest black hole binary system – and it's supermassive
Sitting less than one light year apart in spiral galaxy NGC 7674

Arecibo Observatory 'Still Standing' After Hurricane Maria Ravaged Puerto Rico

NASA, Roscosmos: We're building a lunar space station!
Can't say where. Can't say when. Can't agree on Mars or Moon as target. But it'll happen!

Another Eric Berger article. Don't see too much anti-Russian propaganda in this one but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough:
Here’s what to look for in Elon Musk’s big rocket speech Friday
We want to see how Musk and SpaceX get to Mars from here.