WSJ: Musk Called Out for Using SpaceX Resources for Boring Co.

A Wall Street Journal report says SpaceX investors called out Chief Executive Elon Musk about using the space exploration company’s resources for his tunnel digging effort the Boring Company.

Musk has been known to leverage assets across his various technology company’s. Musk personally borrowed $20 million from SpaceX to help fund the electric-car company. He is the chief executive and largest shareholder of both companies. In 2015 and 2016, according to regulatory filings, SpaceX purchased more than $250 million worth of bonds from SolarCity, the solar-panel installation firm where Mr. Musk was chairman and its largest shareholder. Later in 2016, Tesla acquired SolarCity after other bidders passed.

“The arrangement alarmed some longtime investors in SpaceX, including its largest outside backer, Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, some of the people said,” according to WSJ. “The investors learned in recent months that despite the diversion of SpaceX resources and staffing to the fledgling Boring startup, it was Mr. Musk who was in line to receive almost all of any future profits, these people said.”

The report said Founders Fund partners debated what to do about the diversion of SpaceX resources. Their concerns reached a SpaceX board member and other company officials. The SpaceX board never voted on devoting resources to Mr. Musk’s new venture.

SpaceX received about 6% of Boring stock, “based on the value of land, time and other resources contributed since creation of the company,” a SpaceX spokesman told WSJ. He declined to comment further on the circumstances surrounding the transaction. The report said SpaceX hasn’t formally notified its investors of the exchange.

In a tweet, Musk called the WSJ report “incredibly misleading.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1074918904852504576

The Boring Company is set to unveil Tuesday its first test tunnel. The entrance to the two-mile-long tunnel is in the SpaceX parking lot at its headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif.

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Kind of off topic but with some similarities...

Dan

 

[ecarfan]

I want to take that ride! I noticed that Musk and King were sitting in the second row, and that the front seats were modified, looked very minimal, but there was someone sitting inthe drivers seat during their ride.

Kind of off topic but with some similarities...

Dan

 

[strangecosmos]

Saying that the Zuma satellite loss was SpaceX's fault was just one of those.

Was that article ever retracted or corrected?

 

[Rockster]

Oh, and I just noticed, too, that the Wall Street Urinal article just happened to be on the same day that the Boring Company showed off their first completed tunnel. Classy.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Oh, and I just noticed, too, that the Wall Street Urinal article just happened to be on the same day that the Boring Company showed off their first completed tunnel. Classy.

The Boring company doesn't advertise either.

Nice company ya got there, be a shame something should HAPPEN to it.

 

[Electroman]

Was that article ever retracted or corrected?

@Eclectic who trusts WSJ more should be able answer that.

That, sir, is a question I will not answer, as the WSJ shows up on time every day while I'm still waiting for the things Musk promised four years ago at the P85D launch event...

 

[Eclectic]

@Eclectic who trusts WSJ more should be able answer that.

I actually don't know what the error was in the first place, but looking through the WSJ archives the story from Jan 11 2018 includes this:

"In the wake of the event, industry and government officials focused on operation of certain hardware, called an adapter, which attached the payload to the rocket and was supposed to release it. The mechanism, according to some of these officials, was supplied by Northrop Grumman instead of SpaceX."

Is that what you think needed correction?

 

[Grendal]

Was that article ever retracted or corrected?

No. It was not. WSJ even more recently did a similar hit piece with "unnamed sources" on Elon that was just as bad. It wasn't WSJ but the 60 Minutes piece was edited to make Elon look bad. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[strangecosmos]

I actually don't know what the error was in the first place, but looking through the WSJ archives the story from Jan 11 2018 includes this:

"In the wake of the event, industry and government officials focused on operation of certain hardware, called an adapter, which attached the payload to the rocket and was supposed to release it. The mechanism, according to some of these officials, was supplied by Northrop Grumman instead of SpaceX."

Is that what you think needed correction?

It may have just been the headline and framing of this article:

U.S. Spy Satellite Believed Lost After SpaceX Mission Fails

A reader not knowing anything about the situation apart from this article could easily assume that SpaceX failed, rather than another company.

I think the standard for journalism should be not just whether something is technically, literally true as worded, but whether the impression that the news item leaves in the typical reader’s mind is true.

the 60 Minutes piece was edited to make Elon look bad. It's getting ridiculous.

I assume they had good intentions, but 60 Minutes’ editing was frustrating to me. The interviewer asked Elon if he “handpicked” Robyn Denholm. He said, “Yes…handpicked her? I asked for a chair, and the rest of the board was very supportive of that.” 60 Minutes edited it down to just “Yes”. Who actually nominated Robyn? Was it an independent Board committee that excluded Elon? Was it the Board as a whole? Cut down to just “Yes”, it sounds like Elon made the decision unilaterally. With the whole answer, that doesn’t look clear at all.

It’s a reminder that we can’t just trust journalistic institutions to do all the work for us. We have to be critical consumers of news.

 

[Electroman]

"In the wake of the event, industry and government officials focused on operation of certain hardware, called an adapter, which attached the payload to the rocket and was supposed to release it. The mechanism, according to some of these officials, was supplied by Northrop Grumman instead of SpaceX."

Is that what you think needed correction?

Yes. The should have corrected it stating, SpaceX was responsible for the overall mission and failed causing billions of dollars loss to American public. And added a foot note that, since SpaceX has been very unreliable, unnamed sources confirm that NASA and the military are considering cancelling all future contracts with SpaceX.

Now that would match the headlines.

 

[Eclectic]

Yes. The should have corrected it stating, SpaceX was responsible for the overall mission and failed causing billions of dollars loss to American public. And added a foot note that, since SpaceX has been very unreliable, unnamed sources confirm that NASA and the military are considering cancelling all future contracts with SpaceX.

Now that would match the headlines.

Ah, I see. Well, you'll be very angry to find out that after the government conducted an investigation into what happened and released its report, the WSJ again blamed Northrop.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Yes. The should have corrected it stating, SpaceX was responsible for the overall mission and failed causing billions of dollars loss to American public. And added a foot note that, since SpaceX has been very unreliable, unnamed sources confirm that NASA and the military are considering cancelling all future contracts with SpaceX.

Now that would match the headlines.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you think SpaceX was at fault.

It does not appear that SpaceX was the general contractor. If anything, it appears that Northrop Grumman was, and they just purchased launch from SpaceX.

More info: Investigation into Zuma failure reportedly lays blame on Northrop Grumman – Spaceflight Now

 

[ecarfan]

Yes. The should have corrected it stating, SpaceX was responsible for the overall mission and failed causing billions of dollars loss to American public. And added a foot note that, since SpaceX has been very unreliable, unnamed sources confirm that NASA and the military are considering cancelling all future contracts with SpaceX.

Now that would match the headlines.

Wow, you really have no idea what actually happened during that mission do you?

The government report that was issued about that mission stated that everything SpaceX was contracted to do, it did successfully. The payload did not reach orbit because of a problem with the payload mount and release mechanism that Northrop Grumman was 100% responsible for. SpaceX had nothing to do with it.

Your approach to reasoning is much like the WSJ: publish a misleading headline, make factual errors, and never retract them but act like everything that was published was correct. In short, live in a fantasy world of your own making.

 

[Electroman]

Wow, you really have no idea what actually happened during that mission do you?

The government report that was issued about that mission stated that everything SpaceX was contracted to do, it did successfully. The payload did not reach orbit because of a problem with the payload mount and release mechanism that Northrop Grumman was 100% responsible for. SpaceX had nothing to do with it.

Your approach to reasoning is much like the WSJ: publish a misleading headline, make factual errors, and never retract them but act like everything that was published was correct. In short, live in a fantasy world of your own making.

Take your angst against Eclectic who thinks WSJ is a paragon of truth and will trust those slimy yellow rag over Musk, who according to him has delivered nothing, whereas he gets WSJ everyday.

I was just being sarcastic.

 

[ecarfan]

I was just being sarcastic.

Next time use this and we’ll know.

Sarcasm often doesn’t come across accurately between strangers communicating via text on a page.

 

[CarlK]

It's a much ado about nothing article (but with a sensational and misleading title) with no purpose other than to give Elon detractors something to click. Even the same article said the board had decided to give SpaceX some Boring Company shares to compensate for the involvement. No investor, including Peter Thiel whose name was brought up in a weird way, was unhappy of it. As for all those stories of how Elon borrowed money from one company to finance the other these were just common transactions. There is nothing illegal or unethical about them. Can't believe a paper with name Wall Street on it does not understand it.

 

[WarpedOne]

For explicit amount of $ I can not understand whatever you like.

 

[Electroman]

Can't believe a paper with name Wall Street on it does not understand it.

Oh, they do understand. They are vile and write FUD.

 

[CarlK]

Oh, they do understand. They are vile and write FUD.

Sure. That's was just a sarcasm. And they did not bother to write stories of how its owner Murdoch does financial transations between companies he owns.

 

[Sertis]

Cross discipline knowledge transfer is one of the greatest techniques to find out of the box solutions in any industry. The fact that there's stock makes it effectively paid consultation, which everyone does, just like licensing technology with support. If there is a stockholder out there who actually objects, I'll gladly buy his shares if he's so unsatisfied about the project.