Regular readers of this space will recall that last week, faux-libertarian and pretender-to-concern-for-the-taxpayer Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute took some cheap shots at Space Exploration Technologies, Inc., in a misleading and fact-challenged piece to which I rapidly responded at the time. Apparently, no lessons were learned, because taking advantage of his undeserved blogging opportunities at Forbes, he has once again sullied that institution with continued disengenuity, repetition of his previous false implications, new rhetorical outrages and smarmy piety.
I plead guilty to the charge that the piece was incomplete — I had much more research material than could reasonably be fit into a single blog posting. This week’s commentary will provide some of that additional material, since it speaks to the points raised by my critics. However, I’d first like to note that last week’s piece actually had some positive things to say about SpaceX and its founder, Elon Musk. I said that Musk “epitomizes the American entrepreneurial spirit,” that he has risked over $100 million of his own money on the venture, that SpaceX seems to be “doing all the things necessary to minimize costs,” and that the company “has delivered much of what it promised.” I also conceded that some of the congressional opposition to SpaceX is politically motivated.
So last week’s commentary wasn’t a one-sided screed.
“Boo hoo, poor poor pitiful me,” Loren Thompson. “I am so misunderstood.” “If I’d only had more space for my hackery, I could have finished the hatchet job last week. It wasn’t one-sided, because I tossed in a few complimentary words about what an inspiring fellow that con man Elon Musk is.”
Spare us.
Let it be noted that in his response, he cherry picks his critics’ critiques, including my own. In his wounded tone, he carries on in exactly the same tedious manner, and ignores the most devastating riposte to his hit piece, instead repeating the mendacity.
This is the lie that has been parroted over and over for the past year and a half, ever since the administration announced that the disastrous and unaffordable Constellation program was going to be replaced by a more forward-looking one that would provide the taxpayers with much more Buck Rogers for their bucks, instead of feeding the traditional cost-plus contractors to continue to put off our space future into the distant future while continuing to suck up billions of taxpayer dollars per year in an era in which we must cut trillions from the future budgets. Despite the fact that SpaceX is only one of several companies on deck to serve NASA’s needs, it has been falsely and repeatedly painted as the sole provider, on which NASA is so dependent.
Because this allows the entire industry – including Boeing, United Launch Alliance, Sierra Nevada, and others – to be smeared as “hobbyists in garages” (never mind that SpaceX’s “garage” in the aerospace-rich South Bay of southern California is one of the largest spacecraft manufacturing facilities in the world, and that the company, profitable for several years now with billions of dollars on the books in launch orders, has over thirteen hundred employees). It allows them to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about the new plans, in the hopes that the ignorant will support the continued fleecing of the taxpayers for dead-end programs like the Senate Launch System. Let me repeat my words of last week, to which this week’s libel has no response, instead simply repeating last week’s:
He doesn’t respond because there is no response. I’m right, he’s wrong.
Ironically, the United Launch Alliance, which actually is a key provider in the new plan (at least two of the crew system providers plan to launch on its vehicles), does stand to gain from SpaceX’s failure, because its own military launch business, over which it has previously had essentially a monopoly, is now at risk from the newcomer. So it wouldn’t be surprising if they aren’t secretly cheering on Mr. Thompson, if not helping fill Lexington’s coffers, as its parent Lockheed Martin does.
Speaking of which, you can read his entire piece and not actually find a response to the accusation that he is on LockMart’s payroll — he simply hopes that in acknowledging his critics’ charge, he will be falsely perceived as having somehow refuted it.
The final point that I made is that of cost:
You will read, and reread, and reread this week’s foul screed in vain, and never see a mention of this. Because, again, he has no response. He is capable of only repeating the few pathetic points he has, and ignoring the rest. He hopes to achieve through repetition that which he cannot with facts or logic: to persuade us that we should end the meager funding to this disruptive upstart that threatens the entire comfortable way of life for traditional Cold-War contractors, and actually open up space.
He hopes, that is to say, that we are fools. His duplicitous hopes, and those of his paymasters, will continue be dashed.
[Update late evening, June 2nd]
Since the publication of this 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.
