Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday January 23 2018, @12:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the rocketing-to-the-future dept.

[Updated: 2018-01-23 @ 00:58 UTC --martyb]

A more recent article at Ars Technica notes SpaceX gets good news from the Air Force on the Zuma mission:

A little more than two weeks have passed since the apparent loss of the highly classified Zuma mission. Since then, SpaceX has publicly and privately stated that its Falcon 9 rocket performed nominally throughout the flight—with both its first and second stages firing as anticipated.

Now, the US Air Force seems to be backing the rocket company up. "Based on the data available, our team did not identify any information that would change SpaceX's Falcon 9 certification status," Lieutenant General John Thompson, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, told Bloomberg News. This qualified conclusion came after a preliminary review of data from the Zuma launch. That's according to Thompson, who said the Air Force will continue to review data from all launches.

[Original story follows]

Ars Technica has described how "far-right" critics of SpaceX (such as The Federalist) have attacked the company following the apparent failure to deploy a secretive "Zuma" spy satellite payload for the U.S. government. Northrop Grumman could be responsible for the failure of the payload to separate from the Falcon 9's second stage, but nobody will confirm that officially. During a recent hearing about commercial spaceflight, one Congressman brought up the claims of a Forbes hit piece written by the COO of an institute backed by the United Launch Alliance (ULA):

Now, at least one of the post-Zuma criticisms can be linked to SpaceX's competitors in the launch industry: Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the parent companies of United Launch Alliance. A recent opinion article in Forbes raised like-minded concerns about SpaceX's reliability under the rubric of "doubts." This was authored by Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of The Lexington Institute, which derives revenue from contributions by Lockheed, Boeing, and other major defense companies.

Thompson's article appeared to be coordinated with a hearing on commercial spaceflight this week in the US House. While most representatives asked good, probing questions about delays in the commercial crew program—the effort by Boeing and SpaceX to build spacecraft to carry astronauts to the International Space Station—Congressman Mo Brooks was an exception.

Brooks represents the northern tier of Alabama, including the Decatur region where United Launch Alliance builds its rockets. During the hearing, Brooks said, "I'm going to read from an article that was published earlier this week, entitled 'Doubts about SpaceX reliability persist as astronaut missions approach;' it was in Forbes magazine." Brooks, who has received about $70,000 in donations from Lockheed and Boeing during his congressional career, then went on to read critical parts of the piece into the record.

[...] If SpaceX truly did no wrong, which seems likely, full exoneration for Zuma will probably only come through one of two ways. The payload adapter's manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, could admit to a fault. (The company has so far not commented). Alternatively, the US government could announce the cause of the failure. (So far, the Pentagon will not even acknowledge there was a failure of Zuma). Neither seems likely in the near term, if ever.

The uncertainty after Zuma, therefore, has offered fertile ground for SpaceX's critics to reemerge after the company's success in 2017. In the meantime, its commercial satellite customers seem content.

NextBigFuture recently defended SpaceX against The Federalist's claim that SpaceX wastes taxpayer money. (Spoiler Alert: It is actually the United Launch Alliance and the Space Launch System that waste taxpayer money.)

Previously: SpaceX's Mysterious Zuma Mission May Soon Take Flight


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:16AM (5 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday January 23 2018, @04:16AM (#626417) Journal

    That's not editorial bias. I didn't post or edit the story.

    It's also not bias, but simple fact.

    As for your submissions, maybe it's time to gas cull a few.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:51AM (3 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @06:51AM (#626431) Journal

    Hmm, it says "takyon writes"? No auctorial responsibility?

    As for my submissions, you might read some of them before you rush to your unbiased prejudical decision to reject. Some of them may actually be interesting and about important events! And don't worry, there will be more. Lots, and lots more.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:19AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:19AM (#626455)

      Some of them may actually be interesting and about important events!

      There may also be a pearl at the bottom of a bucket of shit.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:39AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @08:39AM (#626463) Journal

        a pearl at the bottom

        This is so true! And it is why we must appreciate our eds.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:12PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 23 2018, @07:12PM (#626700) Journal

      You should post them in your Journal when they're rejected. They still might be worth a discussion and if they're frontpage-worthy a case can be made.

      I put all sorts of flamebait in mine!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @11:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 23 2018, @11:51PM (#626861)

    Aristarchus seems to have toned down his submissions.

    I think the submission about the dank memes is good. What the story really needs is an angle showing how dank memes demonstrate the failure of the lamestream propaganda outlets to reach out to struggling populations who are seeing that they don't have it as good as their parents or grandparents.

    Of course, the additional layer is the failure of the dank memes to correctly identify why the "native Americans" don't have it as good as previous generations. We can demonstrate their plight objectively, and the press fails to engage them or even acknowledge what is happening to them. So, we get dank memes in the absence of any kind of high-level national discussion about wealth disparity.

    Basically, the alt-right exists because the One Party failed them, and dank memes are our window into that.