Stakeholder #2

NASA "SpaceX Dragon C2+ just prior to Canadarm2 release" via wikimedia. Public Domain.

There are many key stakeholders in the argument over privatized space flight. Varying from NASA to the companies themselves, to the workers who build and design the components, all of them have different views and claims. Read more about one of them below. 

SpaceX is an up and coming entrepreneurial space company created by Elon Musk, an avid entrepreneur. They are the one of the most well known private space companies, known for their hard attitude for success, new innovations, and ideas.  On the internet, SpaceX often shows up on news sites or magazine as the company that is defining innovation, and is very popular due to its maker Elon Musk. Musk is known for speaking out for the need for SpaceX, stating that humans will need to move away the Earth in order to stay in existence as a species. Physically, the company has named their spacecraft after the mythical dragon and stands out as a new company that will make a difference, in a field of older established companies and the lackluster NASA.Their headquarters, an intimidating wall of metal and concrete, that stands out as modern and sleek, with a simple and sharp logo that shows their brand name. The sweet and nearly perfect weather of Hawthorne, California, highlight this nearly new building, with a bright sun, clear air, and smell of the hedges lining the front of the building, the occasional car rushing by, that epitomizes the essence of SpaceX.

SpaceX:

• “If one can figure out how to effectively reuse rockets just like airplanes, the cost of access to space will be reduced by as much as a factor of a hundred.  A fully reusable vehicle has never been done before. That really is the fundamental breakthrough needed to revolutionize access to space.” - Elon Musk - This type of claim is objectively very important to the idea that private space flight will lead to new innovation. The fact that they are trying to create a new innovation is a good step in the right direction, but he also is exaggerating slightly by saying there has never been a fully reusable vehicle before. There have been reusable vehicle to enter space, such as the X-15, and after this article came out, the Blue Origin rocket which relanded itself on the launch pad, and the Space Shuttle to an extent. And these breakthroughs are more of an evolution on the reusable craft, rather than a new revolution in space, so the claim is valid and important, but not completely accurate. This would be pointed out by engineers and other private companies, to show that the technology isn't all its made out to be.
• "The Space Shuttle was technically reusable, but its giant fuel tank was discarded after each launch, and its side boosters parachuted into corrosive salt water every flight, beginning a long and involved process of retrieval and reprocessing. So, what if we could mitigate those factors by landing rockets gently and precisely on land? Refurbishment time and cost would be dramatically reduced." - This claim is based more in the factual word, seeing that both of the statements regarding Space Shuttle are correct, and the shuttle was regarded as costing too much time to refurbish and too much money to be fully reusable. Therefore, the cost and time would be reduced dramatically, and this advancement would prove to be a great step in space technology. This would also be confirmed by private companies and engineers, but may be toned down by NASA as it is their creation, and they wouldn't want to lose face.
• Musk called the latest development "evolutionary, not revolutionary," adding "If we can recover the booster stage, the chance is there for revolutionary." - This is one of the most factual statements, stating that the evolution of space technology will allow for more revolutionary technologies in the future, and this is where the private companies come, they are allowing NASA to do what it does best, in exploration, and allow companies to push the envelope of efficiency and cost effectiveness. All of the space companies would agree with this, along with NASA staying optimistic for its program. Workers and interested people would be conflicted about this statement, and might disagree with how revolutionary this new advancement could be.