The following is from Robert Block, Vice President of Communications for SpaceX in response to this post from contributor Loren Thompson.
One of the oldest tactics in Washington is repeating a falsehood in a voice of deep conviction often enough that it eventually becomes the conventional wisdom. Loren Thompson, who masquerades as an independent, disinterested party, apparently believes in this approach.
Repeating the distortions, innuendo and outright lies from his first blog post, Thompson -- a paid consultant for big aerospace companies -- is trying to sow doubt about SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft to make it seem that NASA is somehow betting the farm on an unproven company. However, while SpaceX is currently the provider furthest along in the NASA effort to develop cargo and crew capabilities to serve the International Space Station (ISS), there are many others. NASA has a diversified portfolio of players, including the Boeing Co. and Orbital Sciences Corp. And in fact, SpaceX supports competition, which we believe is good for the entire industry, the taxpayer and the country.
Thompson seems to relish in going on about how SpaceX has missed its schedule, yet fails to acknowledge slips of major government developments like the now defunct Constellation moon program and the fact that it was costing NASA an order of magnitude more money for a program that was falling many years behind schedule before it was finally cancelled. Even the Space Shuttle, about to be retired after 30 years of service, was itself three years late to the launch pad, and that was after Shuttle main engines blew up on their test stands.
Thompson has referred to past test flights as “catastrophic failures." In spite of the fact that there was nothing catastrophic about them, test flights are designed to uncover problems, similar to Boeing’s first Delta IV-Heavy test in 2004 which lost its payload and failed to reach its intended orbit because sensors shut down its three main engines prematurely. Lessons learned from these flights are then applied to subsequent flights. It’s a practice that is considered part of sound rocket development. In fact, data from every Falcon 1 launch was used to make our two Falcon 9 flights a huge success, which is even more remarkable when you consider that 50% of new rocket designs fail in their first launches.
Finally, Thompson claims SpaceX is busting its budget. This is completely untrue. Commercial providers only get paid a fixed sum of money when they meet performance-based milestones. By contrast, the Orion capsule, made by Thompson’s benefactors at Lockheed Martin, has already cost upwards of $5 billion, and is still many years and billions of dollars from completion. Compare that to the mere $300 million that NASA has spent to get the Dragon test flight on the Falcon 9 last December.
Thompson's most frequent editorial campaigns have been undertaken on behalf of industry stalwarts such as Boeing, Lockheed and Pratt and Whitney, against the Northrop Grumman/EADS tanker proposal and in opposition to GE and Rolls Royce’s alternative F-35 engine. Most recently, he’s decided to take on the “non-traditional” commercial space industry and has targeted SpaceX.
Why? His expressed reason in his articles is that he is just a concerned citizen, worried that NASA should not be gambling away its future. Given his client list and intentional distortions, somehow this excuse rings hollow.
Subterfuge is defined as the use of deceit in order to achieve one’s goal. So why does Thompson choose this tactic? As SpaceX continues to advance and even Boeing has a commercial spacecraft in development, it becomes more difficult to defend Lockheed Martin's multi-billion dollar Orion capsule. One day Orion might be able to take astronauts to space, but at the moment no one can even say how much it will cost, when it will fly, where it will fly or even on which launch vehicle.
Loren Thompson is entitled to his opinions, but distinguished publications such as Forbes and its readers should not confuse subterfuge with news commentary.
