[fabian2k]

The only consistency with Breitbart seems to be that they never let any of those annoying facts get in the way of the narrative. I can't see any ideological justification here, SpaceX getting money from the US government isn't fundamentally different than ULA getting money from the US government.

The article does imply at the end that there is likely someone behind these articles that has a specific interest in this narrative.

[SEJeff]

It actually is different. ULA gets $880 million to $1 billion per year just to keep the factory lights on[1] for the EELV Launch Capability Contract. This isn't money for a service such as launches or new rockets, it is just to keep the lights on. SpaceX doesn't get any of that. If anyone is subsidized by the USG, it is overwhelmingly ULA. SpaceX could have simply charged 1/2 of ULA's $422 million per launch and instead chose to go way below that. This is an example of private enterprise overwhelmingly helping the tax payers through healthy competition. ULA was allowed to essentially rip off the tax payers at $422 million per launch whereas SpaceX is charging < $100 million per launch depending on mission objectives and integration requirements.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance#Controv...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/06/air-force-budget-rev...

[Symmetry]

Lets not be too harsh on the ULA. They offer services like vertical integration that only the government cares about and they've gone over 100 launches without a payload loss. So if I was sending up a $10 billion space telescope they're the obvious choice for that.

I doubt they're going to get any more business for $200 commsats though now that SpaceX is getting on tempo.

[SEJeff]

The reliability standard they've set is indeed impressive, but they're simply milking the fat cow (USG) for cash. They were a perfect Rockefeller style monopoly with an utter lock on the military launch market until SpaceX sued the USAF to make it a normal bidding process.

Shaking that up a bit is a very good thing for overall use of tax dollars. I'll relent and agree entirely with you that there is a place for their extreme reliability. Then again, SpaceX is going to get there and they want to do 1 launch per week (40-50 launches total in 2018). If they don't develop the Vulcan engine and some sort of story for reliability, they're going to go the way of the dinosaurs. SpaceX is fighting for better (and cheaper) access to Space for everyone whereas ULA will soon be fighting to exist if they don't make serious changes soon.

[Already__Taken]

There might not be a business for $10bil telescopes every 10 years when there's an option of 10 $1bil telescopes launching every year.

The launch capacity/cost to propose such thinking just didn't exist.

[SEJeff]

You're not the only person to think that: https://www.spaceintelreport.com/ses-tells-satellite-builder...

[rdlecler1]

And they get more bang for their buck saving taxpayer dollars. The alternative is dependency on Chinese or Russian technology which also seems to be against their isolationiat views. It makes no sense to me. It just seems like they don’t like anyone who is liberal.

[soundwave106]

I scanned the comment section of a few SpaceX stories on Breitbart (examples here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/18/elon-musk... and here: https://www.teslarati.com/breitbarts-nod-elon-musk-scary/ ). Even found another one on Zero Hedge of all places ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-18/elon-musk-sycophant... ).

I'll be honest, based on the comment section, these articles are not working very well. There's some who agree, but an equally vocal section accusing Ron Paul of being a shill for "old school aerospace" ala ULA, or even accusing that these articles are "pro-Russia".

I must say that instinctively, favoring the aerospace "status quo" marketplace over SpaceX certainly doesn't seem like a terribly conservative viewpoint. I'm sure whatever monied interest is pushing these articles (quite likely either old school aerospace, Russia, etc.) kind of wanted to use Musk's "liberal" views on climate, and general anti-government sentiment against "handouts" and "subsidies", to try to justify their attack pieces. But as far as I can tell, a heck of a lot of people are seeing through the ruse this time.

[exelius]

I wonder if it's just Bezos stirring the pot with the hopes of a favorable outcome for Blue Origin...

[AJ007]

One would assume that would be from the Washington Post rather than Breitbart