SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

23 Monday Aug 2021

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Falcon Heavy, Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Saturn V, Science, Space, SpaceX, Starlink, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Block 5, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Publicity, Space, spaceflight, SpaceX, Vandenberg Space Force Base

The Barn Was Empty, SpaceX Ran Out of Block 5 Boosters

SpaceX activity has been quiet in July and August because they simply ran out of Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters. In June they successfully launched four of their seven pure revenue-producing flights of this year. That, combined with four launches in May for their white elephant Starlink program [SEE: Must Sell Starlink], left them with nothing to put in the air.

The Starship Stack Diversion

They did grab the attention of the SpaceX groupies by stacking a non-flightworthy Starship on a booster in Boca Chica. This allowed them to claim that they finally build a rocket taller than the Apollo Saturn Five rocket…of 50 years ago; however, SpaceX has still not launched a functioning rocket that can rival the Saturn Five.

Heavy lift Rockets and number of successful launches to date.

SpaceX Block Five Returns To Work?

Late this month, SpaceX has a launch scheduled to deliver a cargo ship to the International Space Station (ISS) if they have a booster ready. They currently have eight flyable boosters (1049, 1051, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, and 1067;) however, booster 1051 is beyond its ten flight limit¹ and both 1049 and 1051 are now in California awaiting Starlink polar launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The most likely candidate boosters for the ISS cargo ship are 1058 or 1063. Both were launched in May and have had three months be readied for flight.

[¹The Block 5 boosters were designed for ten launches without refurbishment. Recently, According to Spaceflight Now, Elon Musk stated that they would fly the boosters for the Starlink program beyond ten missions “…until they break…” indicating the risk of losing the payload is a low priority.]

2021 4th Quarter – What To Expect

There are 17 SpaceX missions rumored for the remainder of 2021. Some of these missions are definitely planned and a few actually have dates and/or boosters assigned. Here is a list of the missions:

August (yes, I know that it is not in the 4th Quarter)

28 August – ISS cargo ship from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) – Booster 1061

LIKELY – [NOTE: At the time of publication, the booster had not been identified.] The only question on this launch is why the booster has not been determined. SpaceX has a policy of not offering details of missions to the public, but usually, the booster assignment is eventually revealed in public documents or by SpaceX unofficial sources. At this late date, it is assumed that the booster has been assigned and is ready to be mated with the cargo ship.

September

September (x2) – Starlink Polar from Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB) – Boosters 1049 and 1051.

LIKELY – This mission has been pushed back from July and August. Booster 1049 arrived at VSFB for this mission shortly after its last launch and recovery in May. If it doesn’t launch in September something is wrong. Booster 1051 arrived at VSFB a couple of weeks after 1049. It is possible both missions will be launched in September, but I wouldn’t be shocked if the 1051 mission didn’t happen until October.

15 September – Shift4 Joy Ride from KSC – Booster 1062

LIKELY – Although no booster has been assigned, several should be available for the public relations stunt. It will be a PR boost for SpaceX and they have every reason to make it happen as scheduled.

September 2021, November 2021, & TBD 2021 – Starlink from KSC – Boosters unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has launched 27 missions for their Starlink satellites in 2020 and 2021. That is 27 booster cycles that weren’t used for commercially viable launches. Three of those launches ended with the loss of the booster which cut short the revenue potential of additional launches with those boosters. SpaceX could reduce the risk of future booster losses by using Block 5 boosters that have finished their design lifespan of ten launches for the Starlink missions.

However, SpaceX has now moved their two Block 5 boosters with the most launches (Booster 1051 – 10 launches & Booster 1049 – 9 launches) to VSFB in California. It is unlikely they will move these boosters back to Florida this year. That means if a Starlink mission is launched, SpaceX will have to use a newer booster and risk its loss. It is unlikely that all three missions will be launched if any are launched.

October

31 October – ISS Crew from KSC – Booster 1067

LIKELY – The fact that this is a revenue-producing flight, that it involves the crew for the ISS, and that it is a NASA mission, is reflected by the fact that it already has a scheduled date and a booster assigned.

October – German spy satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – Unless SpaceX is intending on risking a revenue-producing payload on the overextended 1051 booster, they don’t have a booster at Vandenberg for this mission. Certainly, they could move a booster to California or use the new 1069 booster, but this mission has no date, nor booster assigned. An October launch seems iffy.

October – U.S. spy satellite from KSC – Boosters 1064, 1065, & 1066 (Falcon Heavy)

LIKELY – Boosters are tested and ready. It’s a classified mission and the core booster has to be expended to get the payload into a higher orbit. This is not one for a PR show but it is a mission that they need to show potential commercial and military customers that SpaceX is not just a flying circus.

November

17 November – IXPE satellite from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – Since this mission has a launch date three months in advance it would seem that this is a serious mission. There should be several boosters that will be available.

23 November – DART satellite from VSFB – Booster unknown

LIKELY – This will be an interesting booster assignment. The payload has to go into a heliocentric orbit so it is possible, or even likely, that the booster will be expended. That might be a mission they would assign a booster like 1049 or 1051 as both will have had more launches than they were designed for originally.

December

4 December – ISS cargo ship from KSC – Booster unknown

LIKELY – The mission has a date and the ISS needs its cargo, so this is likely to happen but the date might slide by a few weeks, as in the past.

December – O3b mPower satellites from KSC – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – SpaceX has a long history of putting missions on a tentative schedule and then pushing them back. SpaceX will have to divide its boosters up between Vandenberg and Kennedy Space Center to meet their launch schedule. It would seem that at least three boosters will have to be in California to meet the needs of their customers.

December – Transporter3 from VSFB – Booster unknown

QUESTIONABLE – This will depend upon how many boosters are committed to California. SpaceX seems to be making noises about going big at Vandenberg and the schedule indicates that intention. Unfortunately, SpaceX doesn’t have enough boosters to divide between two launch facilities, and moving them around costs money.

4th Quarter – Turksat 5B from KSC – Booster unknown

NOPE – The kiss of death on a SpaceX schedule is for it to be scheduled for ‘sometime in X quarter.’ It seems to be a schedule filler for SpaceX PR people to refer to when they discuss the number of launches planned for the year.

4th Quarter – Maxar Technologies satellites from VSFB – Booster unknown

NOPE – Same as the Turksat mission. It probably won’t happen in 2021.

SpaceX Public Relations: Secrecy is Modus Operandi

04 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Communism, Conservatives, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Government Regulation, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

commercial space, Falcon Heavy, manned space program, privatization, Public Image, Public Relations, space business, space exploration, space flight, spaceflight, SpaceX, static fire test

[UPDATE: Eric Ralph, a writer for Telsalarti, posted an article saying that the Falcon Heavy launch was likely to be delayed and that it was “OK.” Again, Ralph is a knowledgable source but not an official source, so SpaceX is not accountable for the speculation. Source: Teslarati 4 Apr 2019.]

SpaceX is scheduled to launch the new Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy on Sunday (7 April) sometime between 6:36 PM and 8:35 PM EDT. We know this from an official source of information that was made available on 22 March. That information was not provided by SpaceX to the directly to the public. SpaceX reported it as required; however, if not for that requirement, the public would have no information on the time or date of the launch. The public is given the silent treatment while SpaceX collects billions in taxpayer dollars.

While a lot of people are distracted by a Raptor in Texas, 27 Merlin 1Ds are hoping to attract your attention in Florida.

KSC goes into Critical Support from 20:30 Local (March 31) to 20:30 Local (April 1), meaning rollout to 39A likely on Sunday and then Static Fire on April 1. pic.twitter.com/nXUtGIiKsJ

— Chris B – NSF (@NASASpaceflight) March 27, 2019

This tweet by Michael Baylor, a managing editor for NASASpaceflight.com and considered a highly knowledgeable source, was wrong. SpaceX has remained silent.

SpaceX Public Relations: Code of Secrecy

Because SpaceX is a private company, they’re not required to tell the public anything,…and they don’t. This leads to speculation through other sources and that speculation works to their favor. By not making announcements about time or dates, they can’t be held responsible for delays. SpaceX avoids negative publicity by not being accountable to the public. The new reality of public relations in space exploration is that everything is on a need to know basis…and the public doesn’t need to know.

Prep for Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test…in 2018

Falcon Heavy Problems?

This week’s Block 5 Falcon Heavy debut is a prime example of how SpaceX uses secrecy to their advantage. Instead of informing the public, the public relations people at SpaceX are taking a low profile prior to the launch. No announcements, no tweets.

Speculation has been made that the static fire test (a short test-firing of the engines) would occur on Monday (1 April,) Wednesday (3 April,) and now Thursday (4 April.) [Sources: Teslarati 28 Mar 2019 – E. Ralph, Spaceflight Now 1-3 Apr 2019 – S. Clark] Again, not from official sources, but by knowledgeable sources. This type of teasing drives SpaceX fans into a feeding frenzy of speculation, but SpaceX isn’t accountable for any of the speculation, regardless of how knowledgable the source.

This allows SpaceX to miss a projected date or time for the static fire test because they never said when the test would occur. It is likely that the information in the above tweet by Michael Baylor was accurate and something has happened to cause SpaceX to push back the static fire test, but they don’t have to reveal that to the public. They can keep the public guessing until it becomes obvious that the launch date and time will not be met.

This also allows SpaceX to minimize failure while wildly pronouncing a success. If the launch is a success, SpaceX will make public announcements with video of every positive aspect of the launch. If the Falcon Heavy launch fails SpaceX will likely cut video feeds to the public and wait several hours to form a carefully crafted explanation that will suggest the failure was an expected risk of a rocket launch. Then they will go silent.

This is what SpaceX did on the first Falcon Heavy (Block 4) launch when the booster core failed to land on the drone ship. The video feed was cut when the booster crashed near the ship and damaged the engines. SpaceX then didn’t confirm or deny what happened until several hours later, even though they had a continuous video of the event. [Source: The Verge 6 Feb 2018 – L. Grush]

Why Should the Public Know?

Roughly half of SpaceX’s revenue has come from the taxpayers pocket. According to Sam Dunkovich, $5.5 billion of SpaceX $12 billion in launch contracts are from NASA or the U.S. military [Source: RealClear Policy 2 Feb 2018.] SpaceX wouldn’t be in the space industry if it were not for the financial revenue it gains from the U.S. taxpayer. The first launch of a Block 5 Falcon Heavy is a significant milestone of how our money is being spent by this private company.

Space exploration has been a public concern since Soviet Russia launched Sputnik on 4 October 1957. The conservatives desire to privatize space exploration is at best an experiment and certainly is a one-sided political agenda. By withholding information from the taxpayers, the effectiveness of that political agenda cannot be fairly determined.

Secrecy in public relations is a Soviet model and not acceptable in the United States. Withholding information from the public to hide the true situation is still a lie. This is why private business is incapable of overseeing themselves and should be required to inform the public of their true activities and problems.

No Pressure, But If the Falcon Heavy Fails, So Does SpaceX

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

commercial space, Dragon 2, Dragon Capsule, Elon Musk, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, manned space program, manned spacecraft, space business, space exploration, space flight, Space X, spaceflight, SpaceX

SpaceX has put themselves in a corner. Next week’s launch of the new Block 5 Falcon Heavy has to go almost flawlessly or much, if not all, of what they have will go down in flames with the rocket.

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Ignition

SpaceX’s Financial State

SpaceX played a risky game last year focusing on making money in commercial launches. That should have been a big boost to their revenue stream, but in January they announced layoffs. SpaceX also announced a sudden cut in the number of launches in 2019. [Source: Business Insider 21 Jan 2019 – Dave Mosher] That might indicate that SpaceX was offering bargain prices to its customers to land contracts but losing money in the process.

One line in a statement made to Business Insider by a SpaceX representative regarding the layoffs is telling:

This action is taken only due to the extraordinarily difficult challenges ahead and would not otherwise be necessary.

SpaceX Statement

Taken at face value, SpaceX’s rationale for the massive layoffs in its rocket manufacturing division sounds like a proactive business strategy, but why be so forceful in the justification? They insist that the “only” reason for the layoffs is for the “challenges ahead.” SpaceX then repeats itself at the end of the sentence by saying, “and would not otherwise be necessary.”

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Booster Engulfed

The Organization Doth Protest Too Much

The defensiveness of the statement indicates that the layoffs are necessary because SpaceX is already in trouble. By saying the layoffs were to prepare for a grim future, they may have confirmed that they were a reactionary, not proactive move.

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Entire Rocket/Pad Engulfed

The Falcon Heavey Gambit

Up to now, SpaceX has landed customers on bargain pricing, but it is likely that they desperately need to attract customers that can pay top dollar. Enter the U.S. military. SpaceX has yet to gain the full confidence of the U.S. Air Force for their military satellites. Elon Musk may have thought that one successful launch using the old Block 4 boosters would have the U.S. military eating out of their hand, but that didn’t happen.

Now SpaceX desperately needs another spectacular success of the Falcon Heavy to convince those with deep pockets that their bird is equal or better than the competition.

But what if the next Falcon Heavy launch is a failure?

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Stage with payload fall to the ground

What’s at Risk for SpaceX

It is unlikely that SpaceX will experience the worst-case scenario of the complete loss of the Falcon Heavy and its Arabsat 6A satellite, but what would happen if the nightmare happened?

No space cred for the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy would not be in consideration for heavy-lift payloads by the military, nor private customers at any price.

No human-rating cred for Block 5 redesign. NASA requires seven successful launches of the Block 5 booster without a significant redesign to gain a human rating. The 15 November 2018 launch of Booster 1047 was the first with newly designed tanks. Since then, SpaceX has had six launches with the new design. The Falcon Heavy would be the seventh launch. Failure would mean another delay in obtaining the human rating for the Block 5 booster.

Loss of two Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters and one Block 5 core. The two side boosters would be the biggest loss. They are planned to be reused on the next Falcon Heavy flight in July. That flight would have to be delayed for months and SpaceX can’t afford that delay. Remember that layoff? That hit the rocket manufacturing plant the hardest.

More expense with no revenue. Insurance would cover most, if not all, of the loss of the vehicle, but it’s not going to provide more revenue. More cuts would have to follow, pushing back the launch schedule even farther.

Loss of pad, more delays. It would be bad if SpaceX lost the vehicle in flight, but in the worst-case scenario, the loss would occur on the pad. It could be a year or more to rebuild the launch pad. The destruction of the pad and the two side boosters would bring into question whether SpaceX could make the contracted cargo deliveries to the ISS.

Testing of the Dragon 2 crew capsule flights would be jeopardized. If the April launch of the Falcon Heavy fails, Boeing would probably be able to coast into NASA’s crew capsule contract.

Enough Pessimism, What If the Falcon Heavy Flies!

A win for SpaceX would be a successful launch and recovery of at least the two side boosters, but that only buys them three months. The April Falcon Heavy launch is Act I of a two-act play. Act II is a follow-up flight in July of the Falcon Heavy reusing the two side boosters from the April launch. Part of the show is to demonstrate that the boosters can be turned around and relaunched in a matter of weeks.

The U.S. Air Force may give SpaceX a heavy-lift contract even before the July flight of the Falcon Heavy; however, it is likely that they will negotiate a below market price and it may be contingent on both the April and July flights meeting all expectations.

False Bravado

Less than a year ago Elon Musk was boasting that in 2019, SpaceX would have a 24-hour turnaround on a Block 5 booster. [Source: NASASpaceflight.com 17 May 2018 – Michael Baylor] Eight months later SpaceX was cutting their labor force by ten percent. Rather than two launches of the same booster in 24 hours, this year SpaceX is struggling to have more than one launch per month.

SpaceX fans worship Elon Musk’s great vision but there is a fine line between vision and false bravado. Musk is known to continually overstep that line. Now one misstep with next week’s Falcon Heavy launch and SpaceX is risking a lot more than the loss of one satellite.

Is Space.com a Soviet-Style News Agency for SpaceX

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, jobs, Journalism, labor, Management Practices, Marketing, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

commercial space, Dragon 2, Dragon Capsule, Elon Musk, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, journalism, journalism standards, journalistic ethics, manned space program, manned spacecraft, Soviet space program, space exploration, space flight, Space.com

Space.com is in love. They are head-over-heels in love with SpaceX. Reading the articles posted by Space.com writers one might think that SpaceX has already landed on Mars, colonized the Moon, and cured the common cold. It’s not that Space.com writers present false information about SpaceX, it’s just that they tend to overlook…well, almost everything negative.

This style of almost compulsory cheerleading of SpaceX by an alleged news source is reminiscent of the type of reporting from the Soviet days of TASS (Telegrafnoye agentstvo Sovetskogo Soyuza,) Russia’s official news source. From 1925 to 1992, Soviet intelligence agencies often used TASS to put out positive news and disinformation, including crafted stories praising the Soviet space program. For decades, TASS was the mouthpiece for the Soviet government reminding Soviet citizens that the Soviet government was always correct even when they were wrong.

A Fake Starship Prototype?

Space.com demonstrates the Soviet-like reporting in one of its latest articles on SpaceX. Writer Lee Cavendish published an article [Space.com 29 Mar 2019] that gushed about SpaceX’s Starship Hopper. He began his piece as follows:

SpaceX continues to amaze in popularizing space exploration. Not only is it doing fantastic work in reaching and exploring space…

Lee Cavendish for Space.com

For his article, he used this artist’s rendering of the Starship…

Artists rendering of SpaceX’s Starship used by Space.com

However, this is what the actual craft looked like at the test site in January before the top blew off in the wind…

…and this is what it looked like after it fall down, go boom….

…and finally, this is what it looked like for this week’s tests:

A test of a Starship, or a silo with legs?

It’s understandable why the artist’s rendering was used and not images of the real thing. SpaceX didn’t even bother to put the top half of the Starship back on for the test.

Not an expert, but doesn’t that seem to be a wimpy propulsion system?

Close-ups of the bottom of the Starship would indicate that almost no effort was put into making this ‘prototype’ anything but a show for the public. From top to bottom this doesn’t look like anything that can get off the ground, which is may be why Space.com used an artist’s rendering.

Is Space.com Ignoring the Problems?

SpaceX has glaring problems and yet, Space.com has nothing but praise for the company. This week I wrote two articles detailing their problems (SpaceX’s Implosion and SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities] and yet, space-focused media outlets like Space.com seem to have a blind eye regarding the issues that seem to be obvious.

Among the issues that seem to be ignored are:

Hidden costs of relanding the boosters (30% fuel reserved for relanding reducing lift capacity, cost of boosters built for reentry and landing, cost of maintaining an ocean landing pad, costs of launch delays because of weather conditions at the ocean landing pad, cost of transportation of reused booster, costs of refurbishment of a booster, etc.)
Reduction of 10% of their workers when they should be expanding
Failure to test a Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy before launching for a paying customer
A lack of progress on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy testing for most of 2018
Drastic reduction in 2019 launch schedule
Significantly underpricing the cost of a mission while apparently in a financial crisis
A silly prototype test of the SpaceX Starship
Overhyping an unmanned test of the Dragon 2 crew capsule that was essentially a mimic of a cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS)

Space.com: SpaceX’s Public Relations Team

Instead, Space.com publishes an unending series of articles that 1) sing praises of SpaceX, 2) seem to be expanded versions of a SpaceX public service announcement, and/or 3) are based on an Elon Musk Tweet. At times the articles cover the same topic as reported by another Space.com writer or sometimes the same writer will cover the same topic, only days apart.

Below is a list of articles that Space.com has published regarding SpaceX in the last 35 days:

Meet SpaceX’s Starship Hopper [Space.com 29 Mar 2019 – Lee Cavendish]
SpaceX’s Hexagon Tiles for Starship Heat Shield Pass Fiery Test [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
You Can Watch SpaceX’s Starship Hopper Tests Live Via a South Texas Surf School [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Sarah Lewin]
SpaceX Preparing to Begin Starship Hopper Tests [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Jeff Foust]
SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Megarocket to Fly 1st Commercial Mission in April: Report [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Demo-1 Test Flight in Pictures [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Looks Just Like a Toasted Marshmallow After Fiery Re-Entry [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down in Atlantic to Cap Historic Test Flight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Success Heralds ‘New Era’ in Spaceflight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Left Its ‘Little Earth’ Behind on Space Station [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
SpaceX Crew Dragon Re-Entry May Be Visible Over Some of Eastern US [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Joe Rao]
Astronauts Pack Up SpaceX’s Crew Dragon for Return to Earth [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Homecoming Friday May Be Toughest Part of Its Mission [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
VP Mike Pence Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Success at Space Station [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
‘Little Earth’ on SpaceX Crew Dragon Gives Boost to Celestial Buddies [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Robert Z. Pearlman]
New ‘Celestial Buddies’ Earth Plush Is Even Cooler than SpaceX’s ‘Zero-G Indicator’ [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Kasandra Brabaw]
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Docks at Space Station for First Time [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
Trump Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch, Says NASA’s ‘Rocking Again’ [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
SpaceX Adds Adorable ‘Zero-G Indicator’ Inside the Crew Dragon [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
Elon Musk Was Emotionally Wrecked by SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Launch Success — But In A Good Way [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch Heralds ‘New Era in Spaceflight,’ NASA Chief Says [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
With SpaceX and Boeing, Commercial Crew Launches Will Boost Space Station Science [Space.com 1 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
It’s Just About ‘Go’ Time for SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Spaceship [Space.com 28 Feb 2019 – Tariq Malik]
SpaceX Is Launching a Spacesuit-Clad Dummy on 1st Crew Dragon [Space.com 27 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]
NASA, SpaceX ‘Go’ for 1st Crew Dragon Test Flight on March 2 [Space.com 23 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]

Why?

The question is why? Why do Space.com writers seem like they are part of a Soviet-style news agency? One reason is that perhaps they are just fans of SpaceX and Space.com has become a SpaceX fansite. Another possibility is that their access to information regarding SpaceX is conditional on cooperation with the company. It may be as simple as an article that is critical of SpaceX will result in he or she being blacklisted. Maybe the writers are enamored with and afraid of SpaceX at the same time.

Regardless, it would seem that Space.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. In 2003, Space.com won an award from the Online Journalism Association for coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. That was over 15 years ago. Maybe they haven’t won another award because they actually have to do journalism to be considered.

SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities

28 Thursday Mar 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Management Practices, Marketing, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Boeing, cargo, commercial space, Dragon 2, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, human-rated, International Space Station, manned space program, Russia Space Program, Soviet space program, Space, space business, space flight, Space Program, Space Station, spacecraft, SpaceX, Starliner

SpaceX Retreating Launch Schedule

SpaceX has had three successful launches so far this year. The problem is that one launch per month is a major retreat from the 21 launches it had in 2018. Looking forward, SpaceX next three quarters will not improve. Based on the available information they will only attempt ten more launches before the end of the year.

[NOTE: This is a follow-up story to Tuesday’s article – SpaceX Implosion]

The One and Only: The 1st and last Falcon Heavy launch one year ago

Soviet Style Space Program…Everything is on a Need To Know Basis

Much like to old Soviet Space program, SpaceX avoids making public announcements regarding its launch plans. On its website, SpaceX lists the contracts it has by the customer or satellite name in alphabetical order but doesn’t give a date or time for the launch. Most of the information on SpaceX launches is derived from secondary sources and legally required filings. Here is a list of what is known about the rest of the 2019 SpaceX schedule:

ªNL – Launch not likely in 2019.
¹The original target date for launch.
²Author’s best estimate of the likelihood of launch on that day, or during that time period based on multiple sources.
³Launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

[Primary Source: Spaceflight Now Secondary Sources: Wikipedia, RocketLaunch.live, NASA, Brian Webb]

Based on multiple sources, four of these launches are unlikely to occur in 2019. The Starlink flight [14 May] has disappeared from most launch schedule websites. This is a program that would seem to be the lowest priority and would add more expense to SpaceX with little or no revenue in return.

There are some reports that the late June Dragon 2 abort test flight is being pushed back and that the 25 July Dragon 2 test flight with a crew will be no earlier than November at the earliest. This would make the first Dragon 2 delivery of a crew to ISS unlikely until 2020. [Source: TASS 22 Mar 2019] Comments from the unnamed space representative said that the Dragon 2 parachute system would have to be replaced. If true, the launch abort test in June could be significantly delayed and the crew test would hang in the balance of a completely new parachute system, making the crew test unlikely even by November.

Finally, the Sirius Radio Satellite schedule for the 4th quarter of 2019 would seem unlikely based on the flights being pushed back or already scheduled in the 4th quarter.

Falcon Heavy Headaches

Another major issue in the SpaceX schedule is the second Falcon Heavy flight now scheduled for June. Everything would have to go perfectly on the 7 April Falcon Heavy flight for any chance of meeting the planned June flight as two of the three boosters on the April flight are to be reused for June flight. Any issues with the two side boosters in April would require SpaceX to find a replacement booster(s.) It is questionable if SpaceX has any Block 5 boosters to spare.

In addition, the launch pad has to be configured for a Falcon Heavy launch and then reconfigured for a normal Falcon 9 launch. That means weeks of extra work between launches that render the pad useless.

Dragon 2 Human-Rating Race

SpaceX has had an advantage in the race to provide a human-rated space capsule. It already has a cargo capsule that is already operational for unmanned flights to and from the International Space Station (ISS.) Since the crewed Dragon 2 capsule will be under autopilot as its default, the basic spacecraft needed little conversion to fly its first test mission to ISS and back.

Dragon 2 Cargo Capsule – already flying

Many looked at this month’s [2 March 2019] Dragon 2 test flight as a major milestone; however, it really was a cargo flight with seats, a dummy, and an Earth-shaped plush toy. It really proved little about the human-rating of the capsule, but it was a big show for SpaceX.

Dragon 2 Crew Capsule – take out the cargo, add seats and touchscreens

The reason that it’s significant that Russia news agencies are reporting a major delay in Dragon 2 testing is that Russia would have to be contracted to provide ISS crew flights if the United States doesn’t have a human-rated capsule by the end of this year. Since SpaceX doesn’t usually report problems in their space program to the United States media, the first report of the schedule being significantly pushed back would likely come from Russia.

If it is true that SpaceX can’t launch the first crewed test until 2020, it would be devastating to its Dragon 2 program and open the door for Boeing’s Starliner to be tested and rated by the end of this year.

What’s SpaceX’s Problem?

SpaceX seems to be in financial trouble. The ten percent reduction in the staff indicates a severe cash flow problem. The 40% reduction in the launch schedule would indicate the financial issues are more severe than they would publicly acknowledge.

2018 was a year of primarily paying the bills with commercial launches. That may have actually cost SpaceX in the long term. Now they are in a heated race with Boeing to win the crew capsule business and because they only have one test launch of the Falcon Heavy they didn’t land the military contracts they desperately need. Now they are trying to prove that the Falcon Heavy is reliable with two launches in three months. SpaceX fans applaud the company on its brilliant strategy but this year their strategy isn’t working.

Hot Tub “Make It Work Project” Video

24 Thursday May 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Do It Yourself, Ethics, Honor, Life, Make It Work, Management Practices, Marketing, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, Recreation, Respect, selling, Technology, Water

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Balboa Water Group, control pad, controller, DIY, Do It Yourself, heat, heater, home repair, Hot Tub, motor, pump, pumps, Spa

Make It Work: Hot Tub Repair

With a background and a degree in theatre, as well as years of home projects, I often have encountered “make it work” situations. My experiences in electrical and plumbing have allowed me to undertake projects that I would have never attempted as a young man.

A “Make It Work” project is a significant repair or build that is not done by a professional, nor done with a major budget. It is a project that involves adaptation and usually requires resolving several issues that are not part of the standard procedure.

I just completed a major repair on our hot tub (spa) and created a video that records the steps taken to replace several worn out key components.

Balboa Water Group: The Customer is the Enemy

The most significant challenge of this project was the anti-customer relations of the Balboa Water Group. Balboa was the company that made the controller that failed and the replacement. Their philosophy of support is to only deal with spa technicians and shun customers.

That philosophy is understandable as spa technicians require less interaction in troubleshooting a problem because of the technician’s familiarity with hot tubs. Customers require more explanation and are more time consuming. Because of the plumbing and electrical issues associated with a hot tub, most people rely on a professional technician to deal with any spa problems.

However, the customer is the person that actually purchases the product (one way or another) and the company should have some accountability to the customer. Balboa tech support is so anti-customer, the phone maze actually hangs up on the customer once the person identifies themselves as a customer, not a technician.

Fortunately, they will take emails from a customer, and tech support called me almost immediately after I sent an email, but the attitude of the support person was that I needed to hire a professional. He did give me enough information that I was able to know what to test, but he was elusive in giving me direct answers to my questions.

Their lack of cooperation and the confusing electrical design of the Balboa control board was responsible for about one-quarter of the time involved on this project.

Starbucks: The Adults In the Business World

18 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Discrimination, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Human Resources, labor, Lessons of Life, Life, Management Practices, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Respect, Social Media Relations

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

CEO, employee relations, Kevin Johnson, Philadelphia, racism, Starbucks, United Airlines

When you have with 238,000 employees, most of whom interact with the public all day, someone is going to do something stupid. That is a fact of human nature. The question is, how the leadership of a company deals with an incident? In the case of Starbucks, you be the adult and not the five-year-old.

Racists Don’t Think They’re Racist

Racism is a major problem in this country. Racists usually don’t know they are a racist. In their minds, they do what they think is ‘natural’ from their cultural perspective. What is natural is what is correct. This means most racists are in the bigot closet and don’t even know it.

There is no racism test for an employer to give a job applicant. If there were, a lot of people would be unemployable. Closet racists are going to be hired at all major corporations. Sometimes, like at Cracker Barrel, the racism is condoned by the employer; however, most companies avoid hiring overtly racists employees. At least that’s what they claim.

Regardless, when an employee does something that is racist, many executives will attempt to minimize the incident, or attempt to deny the issue was about race. The public relations (PR) people are experts at diluting the obvious by reminding the media that motivations can’t be proven. From a PR perspective, a company, like United Airlines, can do no wrong, even when it does something wrong.

Starbucks Policy of Responsibility

The leadership at Starbucks is probably not perfect, but at least they make every attempt to be aware of what is correct from what is wrong. That is why Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Starbucks wasted no time in responding to one of his employees calling the police on two African Americans for trespassing in a Starbucks when they didn’t purchase something in the store.

In this incident is noteworthy that at least six officers were present to arrest two non-combative African American males. It was overkill that the police were called, and overkill that six police responded. If a white man had robbed the Starbucks it is likely that it wouldn’t have had this response.

The victims of this incident were held for over eight hours after being arrested. They were released after the police admitted they had no crime to with which to charge them.

What Starbucks Didn’t Do

Johnson didn’t offer excuses for his company. He didn’t say the video doesn’t really tell the whole story. The CEO didn’t even hint that it might not have been a racist act.

Instead, Johnson offered apology after apology. Johnson met directly with the men involved. He called the act “reprehensible.” It is unclear what happened to the employee in question, but the employee is no longer at that store.

Most companies today look like children trying to cover up their misbehavior after a public relations incident such as this one. It is good to know that Starbucks is capable of using common sense and decency in responding to this situation.

Sadly, the rest of the employees at Starbucks will be impacted by this one person’s act. We all pay for the bad behavior of others.

Ethics Wins…Always

15 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Discrimination, Donald Trump, Ethics, Gender Issues, Honor, Lessons of Life, Life, Management Practices, Marketing, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Relationships, Religion, Reno, Respect, selling, The Tipping Point, United States, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Car Dealerships, diabetic supply costs, Donald Trump, Ethics, unethical behavior, Unethical Business Practices

People who believe in a deity believe that there is a guiding force in our lives. Most people cling to the idea that, in the end, good will prevail. They want to know that whatever Judgment Day looks like, that ‘bad’ people will fail, and ‘good’ people will win. The need for a deity is secondary because what we really seek is the hope that ethical behavior will triumph over unethical behavior. And it does.

Ethical?: Price of Life for Diabetics

Ethics, Dual Harm Theory, and Time

When someone acts unethically it harms all parties. It, of course, harms the victim(s) of the unethical act, but it also harms the party responsible for the act. Neither of the parties may realize the harm caused at the time of the act. The victim(s) may take years to realize the offense committed. The party responsible may actually have a feeling of pleasure in committing the act. If an unethical act were obvious to the victim(s) and unpleasurable to the perpetrator, we wouldn’t have unethical acts.

But over time, the victim(s) will realize the harm and it will form a negative feeling or reaction that person or party. That negative feeling will become the foundation of the relationship between the two parties and will only be undone by multiple acts of contrition by the perpetrator.

As for the perpetrator, it may take much longer for their feeling of pleasure to spoil. They may even develop a lifestyle based on repeating the unethical behavior, but eventually, they will experience negative repercussions from their unethical acts.

Reaping What They Sow

The first impact of unethical behavior on a perpetrator is mistrust and anger from the victim(s.) This essentially defeats any opportunity for a positive relationship as the betrayal of the perpetrator will determine the relationship.

CASE STUDY: A service department representative at a car dealership gives an estimate of $725 for routine maintenance on a car purchased from them, new, three years prior. When questioned, he offers two other options for lesser maintenance at $600 and $450. The routine maintenance would cost less than $150 anywhere else.

The perpetrator may also become involved in reactions from the victim(s) and/or people who are sympathetic to the victim(s.) Revenge is only one of the possible reactions, as the perpetrator will have people they didn’t even know harbor ill-will toward them. There is no limit to the damage caused by unethical behavior.

Over time, the perpetrator is tainted with the unethical behavior, and all other actions are viewed in light of the previous behavior. Eventually, the perpetrator may realize the offensive nature of the behavior and face an internal conflict of self-loathing compensated with a delusional sense of ego.

Support of Enablers

Some perpetrators of unethical behavior are reinforced by an enabler or enablers. These people prop up the unethical behavior and act as cheerleaders for the perpetrator, while vicariously enjoying the acts of unethical behavior.

The problem for enablers is that a person who is routinely unethical will likely be unethical at some point with the enabler. This eventually leads to enablers to have a limited lifespan of supporting the unethical person.

CASE STUDY: Donald Trump has had 30 notable members of his staff resign or be fired in less than 30 months after being elected President. Most of these people were enthusiastic supporters of Trump. Some of them were let go with little or no notice. In at least one case, the victim learned through a Trump tweet that he was no longer in the position.

Ethical Behavior Builds, Not Destroys

The destruction of unethical behavior is punished over time; however, ethical behavior is rewarded over time. Ethical people tend to be trusted, build lasting relationships, enjoy life more, and have a positive outlook. There is a perverse immediate pleasure that can come from fooling another person into doing something that is not in their interest. That feeling is temporary. Lasting satisfaction comes from doing the correct thing, even when there are other options.

Hey, Small Hands. Don’t Screw With the U.S. Postal Service

14 Saturday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Donald Trump, Economy, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, History, Honor, jobs, labor, Management Practices, Nevada, Panama, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Reno, Russian influence, Taxes, United States, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Amazon, delivery, Donald Trump, FedEx, Jeff Bezos, mail, Post Office, U.S. Postal Service, UPS, Washington Post

Republican Head Witch Donald Trump is doing his Kylo Ren tantrum by attacking the U.S. Postal Service for revenge. He’s mad at Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos because of fact-based articles about him in the Washington Post. I know, it’s confusing and silly, but aren’t most temper tantrums? The problem is that Trump is threatening to screw up a great service for our country because he has the maturity of a three-year-old.

Much Ado About the U.S. Postal Service

Trump is attacking the U.S. Postal Service because it gives a volume discount to Amazon on shipping its products to its customers. The partnership gives the Post Office vital business income and forces it to be more efficient. Amazon gets better shipping fees that help reduce the cost to its customers, and a delivery service that can handle the volume of packages it ships.

Home Delivery: What Makes the United States Great

Jeff Bezos owns both Amazon and the Washington Post, so in Trump’s little mind attacking the Post Office is a way to attack Amazon, which is a way to attack Jeff Bezos, which is a way to attack the Washington Post. Yes, Trump is really that immature.

While we are on the subject, it is reported that the U.S. Post Office will lose $1.50 on average for each package it delivers for Amazon. That amounts to Billions of Dollars. The Failing N.Y. Times reports that “the size of the company’s lobbying staff has ballooned,” and that…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2018

Don’t Screw With a Good Thing

What many citizens may not realize that while the U.S. Postal Service doesn’t break even, it is vital to our country. Most importantly is the security it gives us in sending letters and parcels around the country. In the USA, we take it for granted and become really upset on the rare occasions our mail is lost. That is not the case in many countries.

A person can’t send a letter to someone in Panama and expect it to be delivered. If it is a package, it will almost never be delivered. It takes a very organized, very committed postal service to keep the integrity of delivery that we have in the United States. We trust that we can give something to a stranger and it will arrive at its destination in a reasonable amount of time. That is the exception in the world, not the rule.

The U.S. Postal Service also employees over half a million people in jobs that pay a living wage in communities small and large. For the service we receive, we also have half a million people not looking for a decent job. That has a major impact on our economy.

What About the Alternative Services?

FedEx and UPS have been good competitors with the U.S. Postal Service, but they don’t replace the mail carrier. They even have partnerships with the Post Office to that allow them to focus on more profitable business. They pass off less profitable package delivery that requires more service, such as some residential deliveries with more stops.

Let’s keep the investigations of things that don’t work to the people and services that really have problems…like Donald Trump.

SpaceX’s Magical Block 5 Booster is a No Show

06 Friday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Government, Honor, Management Practices, Mars, NASA, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, Reno, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Block 5, booster, delays, F9, Falcon 9, first stage, promises, SpaceX

Today is 6 April 2018. That deafening roar that you DIDN’T hear yesterday was the SpaceX Block 5 Falcon 9 rocket. It didn’t launch yesterday. Nor did it launch in February…nor in December. SpaceX plans fall short of reality again. The trademark of Elon Musk’s and his companies are their ability to fail to live up to their claims.

SpaceX One Trick: Wasting Money to Reland Junk Boosters

Block 5 Falcon 9 – The Grand Promise

Block 5 is the made-up name for SpaceX’s final version of the Falcon 9. It is critical to their hope to be NASA’s go-to company for the manned space program. There is a catch. SpaceX has to fly the Block 5 booster seven times without making any upgrades or changes before NASA will put humans onboard.

There is another catch. SpaceX entire company has been built around one concept: economical space flight. Their method is reusability, and the centerpiece is the reusable booster. Musk has made grand claims that the SpaceX booster will be used ten times. In addition, some people have been suggesting that the booster will only need an inspection and will be able to be reflown in a matter of days.

To date, the maximum any booster has been reused is once (F9 Boosters B1021, B1023, B1025, B1029, B1031, B1032, B1035, B1036, B1038, B1039, B1041.) Of the eleven reflown boosters, six were relanded after the second flight, but then they were ‘retired’ or junked. The rest were ‘expended’ or destroyed. None of these boosters were Block 5 types.

The Snake Oil of Spaceflight

Any cost savings of the reusable booster have been eliminated by the waste of expending, relanding, and recovering junk boosters. The delays of the Block 5 are costing SpaceX money, and the idea that a booster can be landed, inspected, and reflown in days was the boast of NASA with the Space Shuttle. NASA found out the hard way. It is not possible without endangering lives.

The other aspect of this is that only SpaceX knows how much these launches really cost. They are not making the cost per launch available to the public. They could be charging much less than the actual cost to hide the fact that the reusable booster doesn’t actually save money.

Space Customers Are Watching

The first Block 5 flight is now scheduled for 24 April. The first SpaceX crewed flight was scheduled for December. It is improbable, and likely impossible that SpaceX will be able to have seven successful Block 5 flights in time to meet the December deadline.

This delay comes after a five-year delay in the launch of the Falcon Heavy. The first one was a spectacular success, but there are two more scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy this year. Both have to be on time and successful, or SpaceX will face increasing doubts about its reliability.

Journalism Ethics: Interviewing the Reporter As a News Source

27 Tuesday Mar 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Donald Trump, Entertainment, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Journalism, Language, Opinion, Politicians, Politics, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Republic, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, Traditional Media, United States, Website, Wordpress, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

community relations, Facebook, investors, journalism standards, journalistic ethics, journalists, local news., local tv news, media companies, media organizations, Newspapers, PR, Public Relations, reporters, Standards

News organizations have not evolved as much as they have devolved over the last sixty years. Journalism ethics have suffered the greatest. The priority in news organizations has shifted from high journalistic standards to gaining market share. The news anchor or primary news host now use the reporter as hu’s* news source.

I can't match the anchor's name to any of the CNN faces online

CNN news anchor interview CNN reporter Matt Rivers

How Did We Get Here?

Originally, the news reporter job was to gather the facts, confirm the facts, and organize the facts into a story. The myth of Superman’s girlfriend getting the scoop and landing a Page One, Pulitzer Prize article wasn’t how it really happened.

Good journalism was the verification of the facts, careful research, and exposing lies. In the end, the reporter’s name was the byline, not the storyline. Reporters needed the attention to detail of an accountant, the interrogation skill of a great attorney, the ethics of a great judge, and the knowledge of a college professor, in addition to the ability to write a compelling story.

But when investors began buying up news organizations, money became the priority over journalism standards. Advancement was based who could attract a bigger audience. Women were brought into the newsroom, but the motivation was ratings, not equality. Money flowed to those that could produce shock and awe. The young, idealistic journalism graduate discovered that a reporter was underpaid, overworked, and disrespected.

And while the journalism standards fell, the news source wall went up. Organizations created ‘public relations’ experts to ‘control the message.’ Now a reporter is the person between the news organization looking for ratings and the news source that wants to be a shining star.

Corporate Public Relations Mastery of Orwellian Doublespeak

Not every company believes in lying to the public, but it does seem the bigger they are, the less responsive they are willing to be. The most recent major incident is Facebook’s initial response to the data of 50 million users being collected by conservatives connected to the Donald Trump campaign.

After the story broke on Saturday 17 March, Facebook ran silent for days before issuing any response. Journalists that attempted to obtain information and/or a response were ignored. Major headlines were running about the data breach and Facebook was on lockdown.

Corporate PR has made the company the least likely source of accurate, reliable, and/or truthful information. So now the reporter digs up whatever information they can and becomes the ‘expert.’ The news anchor often interviews the reporter as the sole news source because no one else will talk.

The problem with this is that the reporter can’t speak with authority. They are not privy to the inside information so they can only offer hu’s opinion. That changes journalism into gossip and guessing. No one can be sure of anything because no one knows the truth. That leaves it up to the individual to accept what they want to hear and reject what they don’t want to hear. That is never good for a democracy.

[*Hu’s is a gender neutral pronoun for his or her.]

SpaceX 2018 Launch Schedule Is PR Gold or PR Nightmare

28 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Marketing, Milestone, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

2018, Block 5, commercial space, fairing, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, launch, manned space program, manned spacecraft, NASA, space business, SpaceX, Starman, Tesla Roadster, Zuma

SpaceX is dependent on its reputation of success and reliability. There is no room in SpaceX’s 2018 launch schedule for major failures. The successful launch of the Falcon Heavy with a Tesla Roadster as the payload has repaired the long delays of the program, but in the business of space, you’re only as good as your last mission.

SpaceX’s Starman in Earth orbit

SpaceX’s reputation will be determined by the successful implementation of three critical elements of their program. Failure of any of the three elements and SpaceX could be facing a public relations (PR) nightmare; however, success will prove Elon Musk’s lofty visions for the company might be more than just talk.

SpaceX Must Do No. 1 – Consistency in Payload Delivery

The Falcon 9 program has moved out of the novice phase and into the professional phase. The question remains as to whether or not SpaceX can consistently put payloads into orbit.

Landing the booster after these launches dazzles the public, but has no impact on the effectiveness or cost efficiency of the program. Most of the boosters are the previous Block 3 or 4 versions and will not be reused. There is an issue with the booster landings. How long will paying customers accept SpaceX’s waste of resources on the ‘reusable’ PR parlor trick?

The other issue cropping up is the reliability of the fairing on the nose of the rocket. There are persistent issues with the fairing and while SpaceX absolved themselves of the loss of the super secret Zuma satellite, questions still remain as to the role of the fairing release after launch.

SpaceX Must Do No. 2 – Prove Falcon Heavy is Reliable

The inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy was a spectacular success for SpaceX. The PR kudos continue to pour in with every new sighting by astronomers as the alternate human, Starman, drives his Tesla out further in the solar system.

All that could be lost if the next two 2018 scheduled launches of the Falcon Heavy experience problems. Failed launches of the Heavy would erase much of the PR boost of the first launch and call back into question the wisdom of a 27-engine booster. SpaceX has to duplicate the home run first launch at least twice more before customers will feel warm and fuzzy about the Falcon Heavy.

SpaceX Must Do No. 3 – Success of the F9 Block 5 Version

Block 5 is the final version of the Falcon 9 booster and it goes into service in 2018. It is the booster that will be rated for human spaceflight and much of SpaceX’s future as a commercial space program depends on proving it answers all the concerns of the four previous versions.

NASA is requiring seven successful booster flights of the Block 5 version of Falcon 9 before it will be rated for humans. That means SpaceX has to successfully launch the same version of the booster, without significant redesigns, seven times.

SpaceX has scheduled the maiden and second flight of the Block 5 version for April. It then has to fit five more successful flights between May and November. Once achieved, SpaceX can be approved to send astronauts up on the Block 5 booster in December of this year.

2018 A Year of Glory or Humiliation

Elon Musk has a reputation for promising more than he can deliver. He is a master of overconfidence but now results matter. He knows how to carefully craft a situation to amaze the public.

The Falcon Heavy launch was one of those moments. When they see the video of Starman orbiting Earth in a shiny red Tesla with the top down, people don’t remember that the Falcon Heavy was supposed to be ready in 2013. When they see the first stage of a rocket magically land on the pad, people don’t care that the booster was never going to be reused again.

2018 isn’t going to be a time when showmanship is going to cover up glaring issues. If there are problems meeting this year’s critical goals, people will see the man behind the curtain.

However, if SpaceX manages to achieve these milestones with minimal problems, SpaceX will be the shining star of space exploration.

Hiding Journalists Behind the Paywall

26 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Ethics, History, Honor, Information Technology, Journalism, Management Practices, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Stock Market, Technology, Traditional Media, United States, US History, Website, Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

entertainment, investors, journalism, journalism standards, journalists, New York Times, newpapers, News media, news organizations, packaging news, paywall, paywalls, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

Several news organizations have blocked their website content behind paywalls. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post are noteworthy examples. Paywalls are an attempt to force the reader to pay a subscription to access the news articles of the day. The question is what kind of a journalist wants her or his work held captive from the public?

Paywall News Organizations: The Road to Irrelevance

Out of Sight, Out of Mind, and Irrelevant

The thinking of these organizations is that the value of the content behind the paywall will create a desire for the reader to open a wallet and pay them money. The problem with that theory is that information is not ‘owned’ by a news organization, it is only packaged. News is what happens in the world and is reported in the raw on Twitter, Facebook, and all the other free sources on the Internet.

What investor-owned news media attempts to do is make the reader pay for their packaging of the news, not the product itself, and in an age of the Internet, someone else can offer the same product in a different package for free.

For the writer or journalist that creates the packaging of the news, it means that the public can’t see her or his work…ever. If people can’t see your work, you become irrelevant. The best writer in the world risks becoming invisible when all his or her creative efforts are on a pay-to-read basis.

Even those who are willing to pay for the subscription can’t share an article with others when it is behind a paywall. The benefit of readers discussing a journalist’s work is limited to the subset of those who pay-to-read and in a ‘Share’ world, that is a critical shortfall.

Paying Journalists For Their Work Myth

The organizations that inflict a paywall on the reader and the journalists defend the decision by saying:

Someone has to pay for quality journalism!

But that is a lie. The truth is closer to the statement:

Our investors have to suck as much money out of the work of the journalists!

Note the list of news organizations and, according to Forbes magazine, who owns (as of June 2016) the controlling stake in them.

Behind Hard Paywall (all articles pay-to-read)

Wall Street Journal – Billionaires Rupert Murdoch and Lachian Murdoch
The Washington Post – Billionaire Jeff Bezos

Behind Soft Paywall (limited free views)

New York Times – Billionaire Carlos Slim Helu
Wired – Billionaire Donald Newhouse
The New Yorker– Billionaire Donald Newhouse

No Paywall

Bloomberg Businessweek – Billionaire Michael Bloomberg

The people who control these news organizations don’t need to find new ways to pay journalists. They are just using journalists for greed.

News As Entertainment

Journalism is a philanthropic duty. It is not created to generate profit for investors, it is created to provide information to citizens. The transition from journalism to entertainment is strictly about greed.

Few great journalists become wealthy, but great journalists become the keystone to a great society. The fall of our country can be traced, at least in part, to the fall of journalism. If journalism is about making money then journalists are just prostitutes of news.

McDonald’s Shake Machines Legendary Unreliability

17 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Marketing, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, review, selling, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

employees, fast food, food machines, ice cream, McDonald's, milkshakes, Nevada, Reno, Restaurant, service, shakes, Shamrock Shakes, supervisors, worker

It may be just me, but something seems to be amiss with McDonald’s shake and ice cream machines. My experience tells me it’s a 50-50 chance the machine will not be working when I order a shake. Guess what? It’s not just me.

The six McDonald’s I visited in Reno, NV, USA

Apparently, the reliability, or lack thereof, of McDonald’s shake machines and ice cream machines are legendary in the fast food world. It’s so bad that last year McDonald’s corporate folks announced they were replacing the ice cream machine in every store.

Shaky Reputation For McD’s Milkshakes

An online search found multiple responses to questions about McDonald’s shake machines. On Reddit, one person asked:

McDonald’s employees: why is the milkshake machine always out of order?

Response from an alleged McDonald’s employee was:

This machine is incredibly hard to keep up and running if you have no idea what you are doing. It turns off automatically around 11 pm. It turns back on in the morning about 4 am. …Once a month it will turn off for it to be cleaned… someone must completely take it apart to clean it. If it is put back together improperly or not clean enough it will shut off after about an hour and you must clean it again.

Former McDonalds Shift Manager

On Quora the responses to a similar question were:

Even for machines that produce products like the McFlurry, the cleaning and maintenance required is such that it is easily among the most hated tasks to be performed… a milkshake or McFlurry is a product that is usually made by the cashier. … Each McFlurry represents an added task… any request for that item represents added work for the employee with no benefit to accomplishing any of their main tasks faster… there is little downside to simply not providing this service when at all possible.

Former McDonald’s Employee

1. Laziness…
2. The cleaning process…
3. …complicated piece of machinery…

Current McDonald’s Employee

McDonald's Shaking Up It's Shake Machine?

The New Shake Machine? At least this one was working.

McD’s in Reno, Nevada

I made nine visits to six McDonald’s restaurants in the Reno, Nevada area this week. All occurred in the afternoon to early evening. I had four instances where the shake machine was out of order; however, in one instance they said it would be ready in a few minutes, and we (my son was with me) scored our first Shamrock Shake of the season at that location.

The three other times that the shake machine was out of order all occurred at one restaurant on three consecutive days. Five other McDonald’s had working shake machines.

Will It Be Hunting Season For the Shamrock Shake?

With the famous Shamrock Shake season coming up, will it be hunting season for those who are seeking the elusive green treat? Probably not. If the one problem location is removed from my unscientific survey, the shake machines at most of the McDonald’s restaurants could be considered reliable during peak hours.

It also seems that based on the comments of past employees, the reliability of the shake machine might be more a question of the quality of the employees and their management. I will certainly be cautious of McDonald’s locations that seem to have shake machine issues because it is likely that their problems are not isolated bad machine maintenance.

Forget Stock Market & Bitcoin, Invest in Mendadent Toothpaste

12 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Generational, habits, Health, Lessons of Life, Marketing, Pride, Random

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Colgate, Crest, habits, investing, investment, Marketing, Mentadent, packaging, Sales, Selling, stock market, toothpaste

Those who like to invest in non-existent products might want to rethink his or her strategy considering last week’s mini-stock market crash…uhm, correction. The stock market single week 2,000 plus point losses and Bitcoins $6,000 plus single-month losses left investors with a lot less value in a very short time. Time to think toothpaste.

That’s correct, if a person wants to invest in something of increasing value, try toothpaste. Specifically, Mentadent toothpaste.

Only $89..99 for a two pack refill of Mentadent toothpaste!

Supply and Demand of Toothpaste

This price is real. Mentadent on Amazon.com is currently selling at $89.99/two pack refills. The reality is that this is the last of the line for Mentadent. They discontinued production of the toothpaste last year and now the last remaining packages are selling at a premium price.

Unfortunately, this price is probably the maximum price of Mentadent on the market. It has a limited shelf life and soon any remaining unsold product will be worthless after its expiration date has passed.

End of a Personal Era

I discovered this ‘investment’ when I was trying to order more for my personal use. When I met my spouse she was using Mentadent because she didn’t like half crumpled tubes of toothpaste sitting on the bathroom sink. I liked the taste of Mentadent and gave up the product I’d been using.

That was 23 years ago. My adoption of Mentadent was driven by my aversion squeeze tubes and to the limited choices on the market. I had always hated Colgate, and I had used Crest or Aim most of my life. The switch to Mentadent felt like ‘sticking it to the Man.’

It has been harder to find Mentadent in the last few years as some retail stores stopped stocking it, but somehow I always managed to locate a new source. Now I have reached the end the Mentadent rope. I have to switch toothpaste. Back to ugly and awkward squeeze tubes.

Damn.

[COUNT TO 500: 501st Article in PAULx]

Zuma Mystery: It’s Classified and Invisible…Apparently

01 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Government, History, Honor, Management Practices, NASA, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Science, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

deployment, Elon Musk, failed mission, fairing, Fairings, Falcon 9, Indian Ocean, launch, launch delays, Northrop Grumman, orbital inclination, secret satellite, SpaceX, USA-280, Zuma

On 8 January 2018 the top-secret USA-280 satellite, as known as Zuma, went up, but a funny thing happened on the way to orbit. It was launched to the northeast at a vector of approximately 51° off the equator. A rough course estimate would have taken Zuma south of Great Britain, across Europe (possibly over France, Italy, and Greece,) over Saudia Arabia, and to the Indian Ocean west and/or south of India. According to one unnamed source, that is where the flight of USA-280 ended.

Possible approximate flight path of Zuma

Elon We Have a Problem

The first hint that something was wrong is when Brian Mahlstedt, the launch narrator for SpaceX, paused for 90 seconds after announcing that the fairing (the cover around the satellite) would deploy “…any second..” and then changed the subject when he began talking again. This was also significant because he said that coverage of the launch phase of the would end AFTER the deployment of the fairings. Had the fairings deployed as scheduled it would not have crossed over into the coverage of the landing of the booster phase, which was what happened.

The second hint was when SpaceX public relations (PR) didn’t spike the ball after the launch, praising its success.

By the next morning, sources were quietly saying that the satellite didn’t make orbit. Some seemed to suggest that the fault was with the SpaceX rocket. Some indicated the release platform of the satellite failed, keeping it connected to the upper stage as it fell back to Earth.

SpaceX came out with a qualified statement that didn’t deny the failure to achieve orbit but adamantly implied that the SpaceX rocket performed as intended. Northrop Grumman, the contractor for the super secret satellite and the release platform announced that it didn’t comment on confidential payloads.

Disinformation Campaign

A few media sites suggested that maybe everything was fine and the satellite was safely in orbit. It was a tactic that a covert agency might employ to feed a few trusted sources with a disinformation campaign to calm the discussion of failure, and for the most part, it worked. Few follow-up reports have been made about USA-280.

The evidence, or lack of it, is telling a different story. Astronomy hobbyists, some highly skilled in finding and tracking human-made objects in orbit, have spent the past three weeks trying to find the ‘invisible’ satellite with no success. They have found a satellite lost over ten years ago, but no one has sighted the wayward Zuma satellite.

The Zuma Fairing Mystery?

The chronology of the fairing deployment is as follows:

T+0:50 seconds (50 seconds after liftoff) – A SpaceX announcer begins a live and nearly continuous commentary regarding upcoming events with the Falcon 9 rocket, pausing only for those events to be confirmed by SpaceX control.

T+2:03 – SpaceX announcer pauses as four events related to second stage separation are about to begin.

T+3:06 – SpaceX announcer resumes commentary and confirms a successful second stage separation, and explains at T+3:15 that fairing separation “…should occur any second now” (ejection of protective nose shell around satellite.) He continues on to say that he will confirm the fairing separation after it occurs.

T+3:26 – SpaceX announcer begins a pause that lasts for one minute and thirty seconds.

T+4:57 – SpaceX announcer says, “Alright, so we’ll address the fairing deployment in a second once we have more information, but for now we’re going to shift our transition back to our secondary mission…”

T+5:17 – SpaceX announcer says, “…ah, quick sidebar here that we did get confirmation that the fairings did deploy.”

The launch of Zuma was delayed last November because of an issue with the fairing deployment. The question is whether the previous issue along with the 90-second pause in announcing the fairing deployment indicate there was an in-flight problem with the fairing.

Best Guess?

Everything is speculation. Based on what we know, this is my suggestion of the most likely scenario:

The fairing failed to deploy at the prescribed time, but it did deploy late. (That would fit SpaceX’s non-denial denial.)
The late deployment caused a decision to abort the flight so that it would come down in the Indian Ocean.
Had the abort been held off, the flight might have been able to continue, but point-of-no-return in the abort decision had been reached and the flight was terminated.

This would still allow SpaceX to claim its rocket performed ‘nominally’ and only fudge a little when not admitting the fairing issue. It would also suggest that there was disagreement during the ascent phase and that the incident is a sore spot for the parties involved…

…but you didn’t hear that from me.

[COUNT TO 500: 490th Article in PAULx]

The State of the Union of the United States of America

29 Monday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Crime, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Economy, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Green, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Management Practices, Panama, Politicians, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Relationships, Religion, Respect, Science, Space, Taxes, Technology, United States, Universities, US History, US Space Program, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Congress, Donald Trump, economy, Education, GOP, ICE, Illegal Immigrants, immigrants, Immigration, Paul Kiser, President, public education, Republican, Republican Party, Republicans, roads, Space Program, State of the Union, Tax Cut and Jobs Act, tax cut for wealthy, tax cuts, taxes, United States, United States of America

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the good citizens of the UNITED STATES of America:

We are a country of greatness, that has allowed itself to be taken over by the ungrateful. For centuries we have been the place that the world looks to as a model of what they hope to have for themselves and their families, and yet, in one year that model has become the example of what not to do.

The World Economy

We are the marketplace of the world. Companies in Africa, South America, Asia, Europe, and Austrailia want to capture the market of the United States of America. Our citizens support the world economy, and they know that when the United States falters, the world falters.

And yet, the Republican party would have you believe that if our companies are required to pay their portion of support for the United States of America, they will move their jobs away. It is a twisted logic that accepts companies will move away from their customers, but that is what the Republican party would have you believe in order to fatten the wallets of those who don’t need more money.

It is true that companies in the United States of America have been allowed to hide their money in other countries to avoid supporting the people of the United States of America. The solution to this is not to lower taxes, but to refuse to allow a company to have access to our market if they won’t pay their taxes. The Republican model rewards companies that break the laws of the United States of America by legalizing nonpayment of taxes.

The Power of Government

The Republican party has convinced people that government is inherently evil and that the citizens of this country shouldn’t have to financially support it. They have lied to our citizens by claiming that taxes are wrong, government is evil, and business is holy.

And yet, when we closely examine the ‘waste’ of government we find that typically it is a private business that is stealing from the government, not government waste. Business is based on greed. Government, our government, the government established by our forefathers, the government that financed the railroads, the government that built the water systems, the sewer systems, the dams, the roads and highways, the bridges, government that helped our world neighbors win World War I and World War II, the government that established fire protection, law enforcement, national parks, national monuments, and the government that took us to the Moon and back, THAT government is not evil. THAT government is responsible for all the great achievements in the United States of America.

We are not strong because business made us strong. The history of corporations in the United States of America is one of abuse of workers, deception of neighbors and customers, of mismanagement, fraud, and greed. It has been consistent in our country that when the government keeps a close eye on business, business has succeeded. Government, our government, the government of the United States of America makes for good business, and when government is not there, business brings down our country and our economy, just as the banks did in 2007.

The United States

In this speech, I have not used the word, “Americans.” I don’t use that term to refer to the citizens of the United States of America. Brazilians are Americans. Peruvians are Americans. Panamanians are Americans, Canadians are Americans. And our friends south of our border in Mexico are Americans. All the people of North, Central, and South America are Americans.

WE are the UNITED STATES of America. We celebrate and demand the UNION of our country, not the divisions. What we have is unique. What we have is special. Those that use only the last word in our country’s name fail to understand the importance of the first two words.

As the United States, we are pledged to a government by the people, and for the people, ALL THE PEOPLE, of the United States of America. No one is superior. The wealthy are fortunate, not better. The poor are unfortunate and we have their backs.

Immigrants are our guests until they become citizens, and we will be judged on how we treat them. We don’t need walls, we need paths. Every immigrant should be recognized and assisted as they join our great nation. Anything short of heroic support of the visitors to our nation is beneath the character of the citizens of our country.

Education For All

A miracle has happened in the United States of America. Between 1950 and 2010, our country’s population doubled. In 1950, only 34% of the adults in our nation had a high school degree. Only 6% had a college degree. By 2010, Almost 90% of the adults in our country had a high school degree and 30% of our adult citizens had a college degree.

Our schools, our PUBLIC schools not only kept pace with the growing population, they expanded the gift of education to almost everyone willing to do the hard work of becoming better citizens.

We cannot stop now. Education is the foundation that this country stands upon. Education creates new job possibilities. Not just for the student, but for the employer. When a good employer realizes that her employees have a greater potential than his or her current job requires, they find ways to expand the challenges, and that means the company can stay competitive, and even outpace other companies in countries that don’t have the power of an employee educated in the United States of America.

It is Time

We have been deceived. The Republicans have tried to tear our country down and then claim they are building it up. Our country doesn’t need to be rescued by people who seek only to line the pockets of a few at the sacrifice of everyone else. The stock market is a measure of greed, not of wealth. Our economy is driven by millions with good jobs that pay them enough to have money to spend, not by a few investors making millions off everyone else.

Taxes are the lifeblood of our great country, and when the wealthy don’t pay their fair share, everyone suffers. It’s time we stopped the lies and deception. It’s time we remember who we are and what we stand for…We are the United States of America, and those that don’t support shouldn’t be leading our country.

Employee Relations: The You’re-Not-Getting-a-Raise-Letter

26 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Health, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Taxes, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

benefits, bosses, Business, corporations, Employee, employee morale, Human Resources, letter, Obamacare, pay raise, personnel, salary, SHRM, Society for Human Resources Management, wage

I was reading the example employee relations letter of how to tell an employee that they are not getting a raise. I decided I would give a more realistic letter.

What They Really Think

Hey, What’s Your Name,

Employee relations is important to us and you’re a valuable asset to our organization…wait, who am I kidding, you’re a meaningless drone and it’s time I put you in your place. Every year I get the same stupid question from sniveling employees like you. It’s always, “I’m I getting a raise?” NO, YOU ARE NOT GETTING A RAISE! We pay you more than you deserve and we’re not going to add to our misery by paying you more.

What you don’t seem to understand is that this money is ours, not yours, and our job is to keep as much of it as possible. It’s bad enough that when we hire a new drone, like yourself, we have to pay them more than you because most of the scum out there won’t work for what we pay you now.

We have investors. They are important people and we serve them, not you. When their not happy, they take our bonuses away. Why would you think we would put more money in your pocket that should go in our pockets???

Now I’m sure that you think we’re afraid you’ll leave. HA! To go where? We have connections everywhere and our little birds talk to all the other little birds our there. No one is going to want you once we talk to them.

You probably thought that Obamacare was going to provide you health insurance if you left our company, and now that’s gone. We’ve also decided to reduce our payment on your medical premium and reduce the coverage. Whadya gonna do…fire us?

We’re in a whole new world now, and it’s time you learn just exactly who is in control. Be happy we don’t take more away from you POS. Actually, be happy when we take more away. It’s ours anyway.

Sincerely,

Corporate America

Why the Stock Market is Like a Strip Club

24 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Economy, Ethics, Generational, Government, Honor, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

dancers, girls, invest, investments, men, portfolio, stock market, strip clubs, Women

People and Donald Trump use the stock market as proof that the economy is great. The problem is that the stock market is to our economy as a strip club is to love relationships.

Nothing To Do With Money or Love

A strip club is a place where white men give money to the girl that pleases them the most. It has nothing to do with love. Similarly, the stock market is where hardcore investors give money to the investment that pleases them the most. It has nothing to do with the economy.

In both a strip club and the stock market, customers are looking for the girl (investment) will put out more for them. The man or investor doesn’t care about the larger picture. He is after a short-term gain. In fact, like the guy who goes after the ‘bad’ girl, the investor can bet against an investment and still get what he wants.

Stock Market and Strip Club Feel the Pain

It’s not rocket science to understand that a booming stock market has no connection to the economy…unless….unless the economy crashes. When the economy goes south the wealthy investor discovers that investments are fickle. This is similar to the man who’s real relationship crashes and he discovers that even the girl in the strip club is not going to replace the one he loved.

When you hear a man or Donald Trump talk about how great the stock market is doing, remember he is like the guy talking about how great the girls at the strip club are, and understand he is talking about what’s in his pants, not what is real to the rest of us.

The lesson? Stock markets and strip clubs are for jerks with too much money.

The video below applies somehow…not to strip clubs, but to pompous men who like to tell us how great they are…you know…stable geniuses…

Should the Nuremberg Code Be Applied to Internet Data Collection?

17 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Crime, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Science, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Technology, Universities, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Belmont Report, crimes against humanity, Data collection, Human experimentation, Informed Consent, medial research, Nazi, Nazi Germany, Nazis, Nuremberg, Nuremberg Code, Nuremberg Ethics, Nuremberg Trials, Privacy, World War II

From the war crimes trials of World War II came a set of rules of human research

Privacy and dignity of the customer or user is not a big concern to business in the post-Internet world. Before a person can use software or a smartphone application (app) they are typically required to consent to an extensive agreement that only a lawyer could understand. Businesses may skip a signed agreement and collect personal information on the customer or user regardless of whether the person knows or consents to the data collection.

This type of collection of data on personal activity is often bought and sold for profit. It raises the question of why the business world is exempt from research restrictions that are applied to all other research involving humans. The possession of personal data also presents the opportunity for abuse of less ethical companies and by political and criminal organizations.

Post-WWII Guidelines For Human Experimentation

Prior to World War II, Germany established a set of standards required in human research. When Hitler came to power he wiped these standards away and Nazi researchers were allowed to experiment as they saw fit.

After World War II trials were held in Nuremberg (or Nürnberg,) Germany to bring justice for the crimes against humanity by Nazi war criminals. Among the crimes were medical experiments performed on prisoners without their knowledge or consent. Many people were harmed and some died as a result of these experiments.

The judges of the trials, moved to action by the testimony, created a set of rules called the Nuremberg Code, to define appropriate research from harmful research. This Code is not law; however, it can be used to determine a legal standard when a researcher violates any of the ten rules of the code. Human research in most civilized nations is governed by the Nuremberg Code.

However, the Nuremberg Code has always been applied to medical and scientific research, not to business situations. In 1947, the idea that business would be invading the privacy of their customers and collecting data on human interactions wasn’t a reality that anyone could envision.

The Codes Governing Human Research

In 1972 a 40-year study of African American men in Alabama, known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, was uncovered. The study was performed by the U.S. Health service and they did not follow the Nuremberg Code. They did not inform the participants that they were part of a syphilis experiment, nor did they tell the patients they were infected with syphilis, and after an effective treatment for syphilis was discovered, they continued to leave the men untreated.

After this incident, a conference was held to establish guidelines for all federal research. That conference created the Belmont Report that established three guidelines:

Respect for persons: protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent. Researchers must be truthful and conduct no deception;
Beneficence: The philosophy of “Do no harm” while maximizing benefits for the research project and minimizing risks to the research subjects; and
Justice: ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly — the fair distribution of costs and benefits to potential research participants — and equally.

If a college professor is studying the interaction among college students they cannot collect data on their students without their knowledge, nor can they try different stimulus on their students without their knowledge. All research, even social research, requires oversight by a research committee. Strict guidelines restrict all the aspects of the data collection, and how it is used. This applies to all federal research and all organizations receiving federal subsidies.

Once again, the rules for human research established by the Belmont Report occurred before the Internet was being used by businesses to collect data on consumers.

Business Data Collection 2018

It is common in business, and especially on the Internet, for companies to collect data about their customers or users. The problem is that some of the data has nothing to do with the company or application being used. The organization collects this data to sell to other companies for any use they see fit.

There is a start-up company near Seattle that created a phone app for people to buy and sell personal items. All a person has to do is take a picture of the item they want to sell, post it on the app, set a price, and wait for other users to contact them. It’s a garage sale on a smartphone.

The company received millions of dollars in venture capital, not because the app was expected to make money. The app is free and there is no fee collected on any user transaction. The investors were interested in the data that the app would collect to be sold to other companies.

This is the gold mine of the business world. Save money in advertising by only reaching the people who might need, want, or qualify for the product or service.

Violations of the Nuremberg Code in Business

Under the Nuremberg Code, every business would be required to clearly inform the customer of the data collected, what the data would be used for, and obtain her or his voluntary consent prior to collecting data. The use of the data would have to aim for positive results for society, not just for the financial benefit of the company. The business would also have to prove that it couldn’t be collected in another method.

Data collected would have to be proportion to the humanitarian benefits. It would have to be done by people that understand and are qualified to do the research.

Clearly, the restrictions of the Nuremberg Code are not being followed by most businesses collecting data on their customers. This collection and selling of personal data is so insidious that most people will never know what data is being collected, nor how it is being used to manipulate them.

At this point, there is no oversight of the data being collected. It is an issue that lurks in the background of the business-as-usual environment. It is a practice, like the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment, will likely be misused, if it hasn’t been already.

*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

The Nuremberg Code

Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity.
The experiment should aim at positive results for society that cannot be procured in some other way.
It should be based on previous knowledge (e.g., an expectation derived from animal experiments) that justifies the experiment.
The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injuries.
It should not be conducted when there is any reason to believe that it implies a risk of death or disabling injury.
The risks of the experiment should be in proportion to (that is, not exceed) the expected humanitarian benefits.
Preparations and facilities must be provided that adequately protect the subjects against the experiment’s risks.
The staff who conduct or take part in the experiment must be fully trained and scientifically qualified.
The human subjects must be free to immediately quit the experiment at any point when they feel physically or mentally unable to go on.
Likewise, the medical staff must stop the experiment at any point when they observe that continuation would be dangerous.

Trump Corrupt Public Relations: Using Business PR as the Model

05 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Management Practices, Politics, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Taxes, Traditional Media, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

credibility, deceive, deception, disclosure, facts, misleading, PR, Press Secretary, Public Relations, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, truth, White House

Sarah Huckabee Sanders: White House Deception Secretary

The White House has a corrupt public relations strategy. On 19 December 2017, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stood before the nation and stated, “On the personal side, the president will likely take a big hit.” She’s talking about the tax cut for corporations and the mega-wealthy. Donald Trump even went farther to say that he’d be a “big loser.”

To be honest, I’m not sure if he was talking about himself or the tax plan.

Two days later, after trying to dodge a direct question about whether Donald Trump will personally benefit from the new tax plan passed by Congress, she said, “Look, the bottom line is that a lot of people are going to do really well with under this, the President is an American, and Americans are going to benefit…”

As the White House Press Secretary, Huckabee Sanders is known for her contradictory statements. She seems to have no ethical sense of honesty and factual disclosure. She is the model corporate public relations (PR) person.

Many corporations act as if they have no obligation of full disclosure. They seem to believe that full disclosure is contrary to their business interest. The concept of controlling information, never admitting a negative issue, and never taking responsibility are commonplace in the corporate public relations world. These corporations see the job of the PR person as a corporate cheerleader, not a provider of information.

Government is meant to serve the public and is required to give full disclosure; however, under the Trump administration, public relations is handled under the corporate PR model.

As with corporate PR, the strategy of Huckabee Sanders doesn’t have access to all the facts so that she can honestly say “I don’t know that to be a fact.” She references what other sources state rather than answer a direct question. She uses all the tactics of a corrupt approach to public relations that is designed to deflect and mislead questions and issues.

It is a self-destructive public relations strategy. It requires a constant stream of deception because the PR person has to continue to stay ahead of the discovery of the truth and expand the deception as facts come into public awareness. Eventually, it leads to the loss of all credibility and the PR person becomes the public fool that humiliates herself, and the organization she represents.

Telsa Powerwall Has Product-Killing Questions Unanswered

04 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Green, Honor, Management Practices, Print Media, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Science, solar, Technology, Traditional Media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

batteries, battery, battery cycle, battery lifespan, charge, cycle, discharge, Elon Musk, Fire, fire tests, Galaxy Note 7, journalists, lithium fire, lithium-ion, National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, power per kilowatt, Powerwall, punctured lithium battery, Reno Gazette-Journal, reporters attacked, safety, Samsung, SpaceX, Tesla

What is Tesla trying to hide about its Powerwall?

I have great respect for a person who pushes boundaries and engages in future-vision projects. We currently lack the great visionaries of the past who established our nations great growth in technology and commerce.

That said, I have no respect or love for someone who toys with great ideas in order to build up consumer and investor hopes for personal profit while remaining silent on the issues that may eventually kill the great idea.

Enter Elon Musk.

I have expressed my reservations about his idea to build a space program to go to Mars, and I have additional reservations about his Falcon Heavy booster that is scheduled to launch sometime later this month.

But it is Tesla’s ‘Powerwall‘ product that has gaping issues that seem to be ignored in all the hype and mystic of Elon Musk. Two issues have to do with lithium-type batteries and their limitations and dangers.

Fantasy Cycles?
Tesla has a ten-year warranty on their Powerwall system. That sounds great, but it is the same as saying if you leave raw fish on the counter at room temperature it will be safe to eat in a year.

There are rules in chemistry. Batteries are defined by these rules. Every battery has a limited lifespan even if it is not used. Batteries also have a limit to the number of discharge/charge cycles it can undergo before they are no longer effective in holding a charge.

Lithium-ion batteries are superior to other types of batteries because they hold more charge per kilogram and they can be recharged. This makes them a good choice for a home power application.

However, lithium-ion batteries begin to deteriorate the moment they have been built. They lose about 5% of their charge capacity per month, and even if they are never used the lifespan of a typical lithium-ion battery is two years.

According to one source, lithium-ion batteries in the Powerwall are limited to between 800 to 1000 discharge/charge cycles. Assuming the Powerwall undergoes only one cycle per day, its useful lifespan is less than three years. Considering that with both normal use, and the natural deterioration of the batteries in the Powerwall, it will fail in less than two years.

But they’re under warranty for ten years, so who cares?

The chemical limitations of the lithium-ion battery are a fact. If Tesla strategy is to deal with massive warranty claims, then both investors and customers should be made aware. If Tesla has come up with some miracle technology they need to explain how they have overcome the chemical limitations.

The danger is that Tesla is aware of the limitations and is preparing for an alternative strategy such as bankruptcy in three or four years after they have squeezed the profits out of the company. Without further explanation, an alternate business strategy is the most likely scenario.

Burn Baby Burn
There is a reason that the FAA required a ban on the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 tablets on commercial flights. Bad lithium-ion batteries.

Lithium-ion batteries can overheat and burn or explode under certain conditions. If punctured they can burst into a fire that cannot be stopped by normal fire suppression tactics. The only way to prevent a lithium-ion fire from doing severe damage to the materials around it is to have a non-burnable barrier that can withstand the heat of a lithium fire.

The Powerwall encased in a metal, temperature-regulated, weather-proof housing. To my knowledge, there have been two tests performed on the Powerwall and its casing. Both tests were performed by a trade organization known as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA.) The NFPA is not a government, nor regulatory agency, and no information was found as regarding Tesla’s involvement in the design or limitations of the test.

One test performed a test of overheating one cell group to the point of failure. The fire did not spread to the other cells. The second test applied a steady flame to the exterior of the Powerwall. In that test, all cells overheated and failed, but the Powerwall did not explode, nor did the internal lithium fire breach the casing; however, the Powerwall was not mounted on, nor near any combustible material.

The Powerwall does include a system of heating and cooling to keep the batteries within the range required to prevent failure leading to a fire; however, I cannot find any test of a complete cooling system failure in a hot environment, other than the controlled test done by Tesla and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA.)

I cannot find any testing as to the result of a puncture to the Powerwall. YouTube offers many videos on what happens when a lithium-ion battery is punctured. A puncture test of the Powerwall has not been released to the public, to my knowledge.

If the Powerwall does not have extensive testing in various environmental situations then it may be impossible to know how dangerous the Powerwall is to mount on or near a wall that is combustible.

To my knowledge, Tesla is silent on this issue. On their website, I can find no information as to these issues about lithium-ion batteries or the safety testing done on the Powerwall casing.

In fact, Telsa is extraordinary reactive to journalists and media. In 2015, Tesla security guards used their ATV to reportedly ram a vehicle with journalists from the Reno Gazette-Journal, smashed their vehicle window, and cut their seatbelt to remove them, throwing them to the ground.

The journalists were taking pictures of the Tesla Powerwall plant under construction in Nevada. According to the newspaper’s attorney, Tesla security guards demanded the camera equipment and held the journalists against their will, created an alternate story that the journalist attacked them, and held them until the sheriff’s department arrived.

Image of inside of Reno Gazette-Journal’s vehicle after encounter with Tesla security guard

The incident suggests that Tesla is extremely sensitive to any unmonitored, unbiased release of information about its Powerwall product. The question remains: Why?

Need a New Plan for Gaining Political Support

02 Tuesday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Green, Health, Honor, Information Technology, Internet, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Relationships, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Taxes, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Democrat, Democrats, DNC, PAC, PAG, political action, political ads, political candidates, political causes, spam, spamming

About thirty percent of my emails are requests from political interests. They implore me to give them money to avoid the dire consequences that will surely happen if their cause is not successful. These are from progressive causes targeting liberals, not wealthy conservatives who actually have spendable incomes.

Begging for money works on the street sometimes, but I can’t imagine any intelligent person that will be motivated by street tactics. It is embarrassing that the liberal viewpoint is being represented by groups that have all the skills and tact of a late-night, off-channel, ACT NOW television commercial.

If you want my attention, tell me what you’ve done and why you’ve done it. Tell me how you’ve spent money up to now. Give me a link to a website that I can go to if I want to learn more. Don’t threaten dire circumstances. Don’t beg for money. Don’t send me emails on a daily or even weekly basis. If I support your cause I might follow-up on it, but not if you annoy me.

We have major problems in this country and if a group’s best plan to solve the problem is to send me an email begging for money, then they’ve failed. Political causes HAVE TO STOP listening to political media hacks that tell them how they raised money in 2008 and start thinking of how to mobilize people to respond to the issues of 2018.

In case they haven’t noticed, the wealthy have figured out how to win politics with money, and they are really good at it. It’s time to out think Soviet Republicans and that shouldn’t be difficult, but outspending mega-corporations and the wealthy is not a competition in which I will participate.

Government Regulation Makes USA Business Great

17 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Taxes, Technology, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

corporations, discrimination, enterprise, ethical business, Gender, Government oversight, products, race, regulation, service, Unethical Business Practices

Conservatives trash government regulation as a business killer. Ironically, the fact is that government regulation is what makes business in the United States successful. Without regulation, ethical business is pushed out to make room for people who lust for money. It is a ‘buyer be screwed’ mentality.

Business without oversight destroys ethical businesses

Sam and Joe Comparisons

Sam wants to start up a business. She determines what she must do and obtains all the needed licensing and inspections required, and abides by local, state, and federal laws. As she expands her business, she hires qualified workers and abides by the required payroll laws that protect the worker.

Joe starts up a similar business that competes with Sam’s business, but he sneaks around the laws. He only does what he has to do to not get caught. For code inspections he knows what they are looking for, and lies about what he is doing, so he avoids any government regulations that should apply to his business. As he expands his business, Jake pays people ‘under the table,’ to avoid paying taxes, doesn’t provide his employees with benefits, and doesn’t pay overtime. He warns the employees, that if they complain he’ll close down the business and they won’t have a job.

Which business will provide a more honest and trustworthy relationship with his/her customers? And which business provides good jobs? Which business will contribute more back to her/his community? More ethical? Will make more money?

Ethics and a Level Playing Field

The problem with business is that when the only rule is to make money, unethical practices will provide an advantage over the honest and ethical businessperson. Government regulation creates a level playing field for all corporations so that the honest businesses are not pushed out.

Government regulation and oversight of private business is not about crushing business, it is about saving business. It is empowering our citizens, through government employment, to serve as our protectors as workers and customers. It allows us to trust that a business is ethical and helping our nation.

By demonizing government regulation, unethical people seek to take advantage of other citizens of the United States of America. They swindle them out of money, abusing workers, bringing racism and discrimination into the workplace, and providing substandard and/or dangerous products and services.

Government regulation is not perfect, but until someone can find a better way of protecting the interests of our citizens, it is what we have, and it works.

A Conversation With An Applette

14 Thursday Sep 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Branding, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Information Technology, Internet, Public Image, Public Relations, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Android, Apple, Applette, cell phone, fad, Hype, iOS, iPhone, iPhone X, Samsung, Samsung Galaxy Edge, Smartphone

My iPho….I mean my Samsung Galaxy Edge Phone

Applette: WOW! The new iPhone came out! I’ve got to get me one! Have you heard about it?

Me: A vague reference somewhere.

Applette: They call it the iPhone X.

Me: X for…?

Applette: Most Excellent!

Me: X is NOT always a ‘good’ reference.

Applette: What do you mean?

Me: Ex-con, Ex-spouse, expensive.

Applette: No dude, this phone does everything!

Me: Exfoliate! Does it exfoliate?

Applette: What? What’s ex-foal-ate?

Me: Nevermind.

Applette: Here’s a picture of it! Look at that screen! It goes from edge to edge!

Me: Oh, like this.

Applette: WOW! You already own one!

Me: No, this is a Samsung Galaxy Edge. I’ve had it for over a year.

Applette: Samsung copied the iPhone! Those bastards!

Me: No…the Edge…nevermind.

Applette: It doesn’t matter. This iPhone is sooo much better than the copy cat Galaxy phone! It has facial recognition!

Me: So does my dog.

Applette: Yes, but can you make a call on your dog? HA!

Me: No. I call my dog and she comes to me.

Applette: Well,…wait…what?

Me: Nevermind.

Applette: I’ll bet your dog doesn’t have Siri!

Me: Hey Google, what is Siri?

Google: According to Webopedia, Siri is a built-in “intelligent assistant” that enables users of Apple iPhone 4S and later and newer iPad and iPod Touch devices to speak natural language voice commands in order to operate the mobile device and its apps.

Me: So Siri is Apple’s version of HAL.

Applette: Yeah!…who’s HAL?

Me: Nevermind.

Applette: The iPhone is reliable. Your Samsung is going to catch on fire someday!

Me: Well, that was the Samsung Galaxy Note Pad, but I prefer to think that if I’m lost in the woods in the winter and I have no cell service, I can light a signal fire with my phone. My phone can save my life, can yours?

Applette: Well, it…I…you can’t…

Me: Nevermind.

Applette: You wait. Apple is going to dominate the phone market with the iPhone X.

Me: You think that people are going to pay more to learn a new phone system?

Applette: If it’s an iPhone they will.

Me: But Apple’s name is synonymous with incompatibility. They have products that aren’t even incompatible with other Apple products.

Applette: Man, you’ve got to prioritize. Do you want to be cool, or do you want to get things done?

Me: I want to get things done.

Applette: And THAT is why you don’t have an iPhone, man.

Me: Well, that and paying a lot more for something that isn’t.

Applette: Well, iPhones cost more, but they have Siri and they have facial recognition, Dude. It doesn’t get any better than that!

Me: Actually, it does, but nevermind.