Space News buries the lede
In reporting the information revealed in an audio report of two SpaceX engineers to Elon Musk, Space News completely misses the main reason Musk posted this video.
The focus of Jeff Foust’s report is the technical problems the engineers revealed that occurred during the descent of Superheavy during the last flight. According to them, one particular parameter related to the Raptor engines was one second away from demanding an abort, whereby the rocket would not attempt to be captured by the tower chopsticks but instead crash along side it. In addition, these engineers reported the worrisome consequences when a chine on the booster ripped off shortly before landing.
All interesting, but the real reason Elon Musk posted this clip from a much longer audio report is what one engineer says about two thirds of the way through:
Given that that is the first launch [#6] in a long time — well, really, ever — that we’ve not been FAA driven, we’re trying to go do a reasonable balance of speed and risk mitigation on the booster, specifically.
Musk wished everyone to know without question the perspective of his employees when it comes to the red tape of the FAA. It hasn’t been our imagination. For the past three years the FAA has determined the test schedule, slowing it down significantly while costing SpaceX a lot of money.
Space News, which generally has been in the tank for the regulators and the FAA, puts this quote to the very end of its article, almost as an aside. I suspect the outlet would have liked to leave it out.
I have posted the video below, so my readers can listen at their leisure.
T150 clear in 3:25. Too much time spent killing minions vs elites. Had <3 min potential. pic.twitter.com/oYRqqpVyGe
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 25, 2024
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
In reporting the information revealed in an audio report of two SpaceX engineers to Elon Musk, Space News completely misses the main reason Musk posted this video.
The focus of Jeff Foust’s report is the technical problems the engineers revealed that occurred during the descent of Superheavy during the last flight. According to them, one particular parameter related to the Raptor engines was one second away from demanding an abort, whereby the rocket would not attempt to be captured by the tower chopsticks but instead crash along side it. In addition, these engineers reported the worrisome consequences when a chine on the booster ripped off shortly before landing.
All interesting, but the real reason Elon Musk posted this clip from a much longer audio report is what one engineer says about two thirds of the way through:
Given that that is the first launch [#6] in a long time — well, really, ever — that we’ve not been FAA driven, we’re trying to go do a reasonable balance of speed and risk mitigation on the booster, specifically.
Musk wished everyone to know without question the perspective of his employees when it comes to the red tape of the FAA. It hasn’t been our imagination. For the past three years the FAA has determined the test schedule, slowing it down significantly while costing SpaceX a lot of money.
Space News, which generally has been in the tank for the regulators and the FAA, puts this quote to the very end of its article, almost as an aside. I suspect the outlet would have liked to leave it out.
I have posted the video below, so my readers can listen at their leisure.
T150 clear in 3:25. Too much time spent killing minions vs elites. Had <3 min potential. pic.twitter.com/oYRqqpVyGe
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 25, 2024
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
I’m still not convinced this wasn’t just a bit of carelessness by Elon, which he’s now decided to shrug off and run with, but I’m also open to the idea that your theory is right, Bob.
But either way, we can all agree that this recording confirmed something many of us, especially you, have suspected for a long time: The FAA has been the main driver of the Starship testing schedule. And everyone on the Starship team appears to know it — and share Elon’s frustration.
Now, finally, we get to see what happens when they are not the driver.
Richard M: For only the sixth launch. The seventh will likely introduce a new flight plan, and the FAA will once again dither about it — unless there is new leadership in the White House.
They aren’t as bad as THE SPACE REVIEW, which censored/eliminated my comment on two anti-spaceflight authors
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4875/1
Remember that study about who was willing to fight if America was invaded–now they have spun it to where folks who don’t support forever wars have their patriotism questioned:
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-immigrants-canada-native-born-citizens.html
Jeff Wright,
Foust has disappeared some of my comments recently too. Being a past article contributor doesn’t seem to earn one any courtesies. The more and more heavy-handed content moderation at The Space Review is of relatively recent vintage. I think what Elon – correctly – refers to as The Woke Mind Virus – is having its way with Foust more and more. Gary Church still seems to enjoy carte blanche to post his venomous woke progressive fantasies, but pushing back against left-wing authors and commenters is getting to be more and more of a crapshoot – one can never be quite sure what will set Jeff off. If this tendency continues, it probably won’t be long before Foust follows in the footsteps of Doug Messier, who killed off his own Parabolic Arc site after instituting even more draconian “content moderation.” I miss Jeff’s old website Space Politics which went dark when he joined the staff of Space News and which was a wide-open forum. Get Woke, Go Broke as the saying goes.
And, of course, Bill Nelson wants an investigation..
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-administrator-nelson-says-report-205147472.html
Ine a politician, always a politician. :(
Jeff Foust, of course, runs both Space News and The Space Review. He has had a light, almost nonexistent moderator hand at Space News, but a much heavier one at The Space Review.
Our friend Gary Church is responsible for some of that, even as it’s difficult discern exactly what kind of restrictions Jeff imposes on Gary, whom Foust has banned multiple times, only to eventually allow him back (apparently after private appeals by Gary) under one of his endless pseudonyms. Gary’s recent TSR posts have been somewhat tamer, but he still packs in bitter political rants that Foust allows through. I’ve never had a post blocked by Foust on TSR, so it’s hard for me to judge his larger pattern of handling commentary there. Others, like Jeff and Dick, have not been so lucky.
But stepping back from the combox issues….look, Jeff is pretty obviously a political liberal, and he has a modestly (and, unless I miss my guess, increasingly) critical posture toward SpaceX generally and Musk particularly. He came of age in the space industry as it existed at the beginning of this century and it shows. I think there is still great value in what his sites offer – they both fill niches no one else really does – even if the paucity of his editorial staff is hard to miss at times. If he’s smart, he’ll stick to (reasonably) objective news reporting and continue allowing a broad spectrum of opinion submissions. He’s also dependent on industry advertising and access at Space News in a way that he’s not with The Space Review, though, so I expect that to continue shaping how he runs the site. It does make you wonder, though, what would happen if SpaceX suddenly started spending a lot of money in advertising on Space News? (Yes, I know, it will never happen!)
45 second video and transcript of part of a speech Elon Musk made campaining for Trump:
ELON DOCS @elon_docs
Elon Musk: The larger government gets, the less freedom you have.
“The larger government gets, the less individual freedom you have. I think that’s really the core thing.
Your freedoms have just been eroded year after year with more and more government, laws and regulations and regulatory authorities.
When I looked it up, there were apparently 428 federal agencies. What the hell do you need 428 agencies for? Why do you even need 100? This is crazy.
They’re currently making new agencies at a rate of two per year. And every one of them is chipping away at your freedom.
So, it’s essential for us to unwind that process and restore your personal freedom. And with that will come great prosperity and personal happiness, I believe.”
Pittsburgh, October 20, 2024
11:49 AM · Oct 26, 2024
https://x.com/elon_docs/status/1850248416099746275
Richard M,
Space News has been around for 35 years so Foust is not among its founders. The current owners of SN acquired it in 2012. I don’t recall exactly when it was that Foust joined SN, but, so far as I know, he is just a hired hand there, though easily its most prolific one. His opinions, doubtless, carry some weight with SN management, but I am not aware of him having any formal managerial role there. So I don’t think he has any decisive say about who gets to post what on the comment threads. If you have some definite knowledge that Foust does exercise significant editorial control of SN, please pass along the details – I’d be quite interested.
You are quite correct, of course, that SN no longer appears to employ any copy editors – a fact painfully obvious to anyone who is a regular reader. Corporate journalism has long since ceased to be a lucrative business and the economies taken in order to attempt even bare survival have had obvious effects on the quality of the product. Add in the increasingly apparent left-wing biases of both managements and staffs and the considerable incentives to flog – and even to invent – “stories” that would never have passed erstwhile muster in order to try attracting clicks and subscribers – and, hence, advertisers – and we are now well into a journalistic dark age anent legacy outlets of all kinds. New journalistic entities have sprung up in profusion and some may prove to have staying power, but these matters are still very much in flux.
As you also correctly note, advertisers now have even more effective influence on journalistic product than in days of yore. In the space industry, in particular, we have a situation of a single dominant player which has risen to prominence at considerable expense to the legacy players whose roles have been reduced to those of metaphoric spear carriers. But the new giant buys no ads. Thus the legacy space firms, which still do, find ready allies when it comes to throwing shade on the upstart King of the Mountain in the thinning ranks of remaining legacy publishers and latter-day outlets alike. Add in political motivations and one arrives at the current state of the Propaganda-Industrial Complex. It ain’t pretty.
Hello Dick,
Thanks – I *did* elide the issue of Space News’ structure, I’m afraid.
It is, as I said, a very small staff. *Formally*, there are three people in executive positions worth mentioning: Felix Magowan, who is the Chairman; Paige McCullough, who is the (brand new, as of 2024) President; and Brian Berger, who is the editor-in-chief. Foust, whose official position is “senior writer,” joined SN in 2014 after he finished up at his Space Politics site. Berger has been at SN the longest, joining in 1998. Berger (whose BA in journalism seems outclassed by Foust’s planetary science PhD) doesn’t seem to have actually *written* anything for SN since 2015.
It has never been made formally clear who actually oversees or moderates the comment boxes, but I can recall moderation incidents where both Berger and Foust were mentioned in some way. (Sorry, I just don’t have time to track them down now.) I assume the job *should* be Berger’s; but my sense is that Foust exercises an outsized role. If SN had a “face,” Foust usually seems to be it; he certainly puts in the hours in a visible way. It may be the case, as it sometimes is, that on such a tiny staff, responsibility for certain things may be fluid. The moderator hand is so light, I suspect, because the tiny staff simply does not have time to bother dealing with it.
Anyway….however you cut it, the senior staff have been around the industry for a while – as in, turn of the century, if not always at SN. I think advertising and access drives what prejudice or focus there is in their editorial choices. The result is an industry-focused media outlet, with heavy emphasis on American space industry, Europe to a lesser degree and the rest of the world bringing up the rear. SpaceX, as you say doesn’t advertise, and doesn’t seem to give Jeff or Sandra special access, so I think it shouldn’t be a surprise that they lean more in content and outlook on legacy companies (and yes. regulators and political leadership) who do give them more advertising and access. And after all, that’s really the audience they care about. It’s what keeps them alive. There’s still value in that, so long as you’re aware of it.
Interesting trivia: Space News was originally founded and owned by the Army Times.
Army Times…I had no idea. Poor Gary is going to have a stroke (I might too, due to bad circulation.)
Where Gary takes offense, I get a good chuckle at being downvoted..like that means anything.
One of the best lines I ever heard about unpopular discourse was “your hate makes me beautiful.”
Richard M,
Thanks for taking the time to share all of that. Based on what you report, SN seems about as lean as it is possible for a journalistic enterprise to be and still function. No surprise there. Most legacy media outlets are mere shadows of their former selves in terms of headcount these days. How the heck the L.A. Times, for example, still manages to stay in business has been a mystery to me for some years now.
One notable effect of Foust’s recent foray into content moderation is a considerable reduction in the total comments a typical article attracts. TSR articles used to routinely draw dozens – sometimes even hundreds – of comments. Now, a total of a mere couple of dozen is more the exception than the rule with most drawing fewer. I think this diminution is due even more to the closing of comments on every article after about 10 days than it is to Foust “disappearing” some of them. In “olden days,” some TSR articles would continue to draw comments weeks or even months after their initial postings on the site.
I speculate that one reason for the comparatively “barely there” comment moderation at SN is that high comment counts are indicative of reader engagement, something advertisers prize as much or more than just page views. TSR, in theory, takes advertising, but I can’t recall ever seeing any even back in the day, so catering to advertisers does not, in practice, seem to be a thing there.