Tag Archives: privatization

SpaceX Public Relations: Secrecy is Modus Operandi

04 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , , , ,

[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.


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.  

Space Exploration Isn’t Profitable, It’s Transformative

16 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Apollo, Business, Economy, Education, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Generational, Government, Higher Education, History, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, NASA, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Saturn V, Space, SpaceX, Taxes, Technology, Travel, United States, Universities, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Space exploration ROI (return on investment) sucks. Exploration doesn’t make money, it costs money. It’s not a place for private business. If the question of space exploration is, “What’s in it for me?” you’re asking the wrong question. Space exploration isn’t profitable, but it is transformative.

Apollo Saturn V

The five massive Rocketdyne F-1 engines of the Apollo Saturn V first stage booster. Twice the lift of SpaceX’s 27-engine Falcon Heavy

Exploration Creates Economic Growth

In the 15th century, when the government of Spain financed Columbus to explore a new trade route to the markets in Asia, he discovered the Caribbean. He brought back a few captured natives from the Bahamas, some gold, and a few birds. It didn’t pay for the cost of the voyage.

But what came next transformed Spain and Europe. The year of the discovery of the Americas (1492) is considered the start of the Golden Age of Spain. After Columbus first voyage to the new world, Spain continued with more voyages, and eventually the full exploitation of Central and South America. Most historians focus on the resources that were returned to Spain, but what happened at home was even more important. 

Shipbuilding entered a new phase of design and construction. Jobs at home created a new wealth for the working class. Craftsmen, as well as sailors, became vital to the needs of the Age of Discovery. That new wealth created secondary jobs, along with new businesses selling imported goods. All of this economic growth was a direct result of the exploration pushed forward by the government of Spain.

Exploration created massive economic growth for decades, but exploration didn’t give an immediate ROI for Spain.

The Model Space Program

Not all space programs are successful. The Soviet space program became mired in conflicts between good science and engineering versus political priorities. The administration was pushed into risky decisions and failure was not without punishment. In addition, new technology was considered a State secret so the development of commercial uses was not an option.

The United States approach for the space program was for the use of non-military government oversight of private contractors. The government remained accountable to the voters, which kept both the government and their contractors in a stable environment for decision making.

The result was a massive increase in highly-skilled, well-paid jobs that created a new wealth for the middle class. Space exploration supercharged the United States economy and created new technology that continued to develop for decades after the Apollo program ended. It was the model space exploration program.

A Failure of Vision

Once the United States had landed on the Moon conservatives and liberals united to kill the space program. Liberals could only see the money being spent to explore space as money that could have been used to help the poor. Conservatives could only see money not going into their pockets. As it would turn out, both viewpoints were flawed.

Money spent on for space exploration created new, high paying jobs that created a need for improved education and pumped billions of dollars into the economy that created new tax revenue that could be used for government programs to help the poor engage in the new economy.

The flood of new money into the economy helped small companies grow dramatically while increasing profits. It didn’t result in the wealthy becoming dramatically richer, but it did create prosperity that helped everyone.

Missing Greatness

Today the United States is wading in a stagnant economy. Wages aren’t growing as fast as prices are rising. The available jobs pay so poorly that they aren’t worth the cost of working them. If we are missing greatness, it is because we are killing our economy with a focus on profit for a few.

The goal of private business is never to create jobs, nor is it to create high paying jobs. Jobs are created when business has been given a mission to accomplish something. Giving tax breaks does not give business a reason to create more jobs, nor pay employees more.

However, if our country made a serious commitment to the goal of expanding space exploration, and funded it with the tax breaks we are giving billionaires, we would see our economy transformed. It is that simple.

The Privatization of the Presidency

08 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Aging, Business, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Management Practices, Politics, Privacy, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Respect, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Leadership in secret isn’t in the public’s best interest

The one of the Commandments of the Bible of Conservatism is that government should be privatized. This idea has been proven to cost more, create more corruption, and more inefficiencies, and yet it is still on the banners of the conservative fanatics that don’t need facts, because they have faith.

Donald Trump has now taken the Privatization Commandment to a new level: The Presidency of the United States of America. Trump is operating his administration as if he doesn’t report to the public. He uses the government to promote and fund his own private business interests. He doesn’t believe in transparency, and acts as if the government is his private corporation, where information is to be closely guarded, and the media is the enemy.

The model he is using is a return of a King George type of model, where he is the absolute leader that cannot be questioned or challenged, and uses force to impose his will. It is exactly the type of leadership that our country rejected when it declared independence from Great Britain.

This model of secrecy of leadership is almost always used to hide unethical acts. It is even worse than when Richard Nixon tried to cover up the illegal acts of his administration during Watergate. Like Nixon, Trump believes that he is untouchable. Let’s hope he is not.

Is Higher Education Doomed? (Part III): The missed opportunity – a viable alternative to the status quo

04 Friday Feb 2011

Posted by in College, Ethics, Government, Higher Education, Independent Studies, Internet, Politics, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Taxes, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

by Paul Kiser
USA PDT [Twitter: ] [Facebook] [LinkedIn] [Skype:kiserrotary or 775.624.5679]

Paul Kiser

Article first published as
Is Higher Education Doomed? (Part III): The Missed Opportunity – A Viable Alternative To The Status Quo
on Technorati.com

Part III
(Click on link for Part II)

In Part I of this series we reviewed the factors that are setting the stage for a major paradigm shift in Higher Education. In Part II we discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the two people who matter in higher education: the Professor and the Student.

Is the Sun setting on the state-run university?

Unfortunately, when considering how to resolve the current financial crisis confronting higher ed, state-run university administrators have tended to focus increasing class sizes, cutting class offerings, and replacing permanent faculty with less costly contract lecturers as is the case in Iowa (Article:  Iowa State increases class sizes.) No one can defend this strategy as beneficial to the Professor or the Student.

So what is the solution?

Some have proposed replacing public, state-run universities with private, for-profit schools (See: Are America’s University In Danger of Being Privatized?;) however, substituting a public bureaucracy with profit-motivated, uncaring people does not solve the financial pressures crushing higher education. Past attempts to privatize public sector industries demonstrates that the concept rarely offers the results promised (Ellen J. Dannin paper on privatization.) Existing private, for-profit universities are already under fire for mining federal loan programs for their financial gain (See: For-Profits High Risk Loan Strategy.)

Another alternative are online and/or independent study programs. These programs have been around for decades; however, both have a questionable track record with some programs being too expensive, lacking quality learning objectives, and/or being illegitimate scams to trade money for a diploma. The parent university accreditation group (The Council For Higher Education Accreditation or CHEA) encourages universities to aggressively discredit any higher education program that might be a ‘Diploma Mill’ (CHEA paper,) so most alternative higher education programs risk unwanted negative publicity from traditional schools.

Yet, the current crisis in higher education offers an opportunity for a Socrates-type model of learning that re-establishes the Professor/Student focus without the costly baggage of a brick and mortar university. The use of Social Media blogs, webinars, and other online connection tools have the potential to re-invent higher education; however, there is little evidence that these tools will replace the traditional university system of teaching.

No one can doubt that higher education will survive this crisis, because it has too. Our economic success is driven, not by people who have a college degree, but by people who have a higher education. In the end, the success of any post-secondary teaching program will be measured by how well it educates, not how much it costs.


More Articles

Business: Public Relations, Management, and Social Media Related

Rotary Related

Science Related

Personal Experience Related

Our Country and History Related