[Gaffer]

I read the linked story, and frankly, it was a disjointed treatise on "how space is good" article with major references to the "SpaceX" program and how it "proved" it could dock a pressurized capsule with the ISS and how it should be an example of something.

The Solyndra link is patently weak, even almost non-existent. Loosely, somehow connecting to Obama's crony funded company (who the government auditors said couldn't work) to SpaceX.

Above all, this remark at the beginning, tells me all I need to know about the author(s):

It’s unfortunate that so many supposed conservatives are opposed to competitive markets in spaceflight, to the point that they embarrass themselves with ignorant rants against the Obama space policy, one of the very few things that the administration has gotten sort of right.

As an engineer who's actually had to run a project to design, build, test and qualify something for space applications, this article is long on political BS and very short on the mechanics of execution...I call bullshit.

[NonZeroSum]

I read the linked story, and frankly, it was a disjointed treatise on "how space is good" article with major references to the "SpaceX" program and how it "proved" it could dock a pressurized capsule with the ISS and how it should be an example of something.

Huh?

The Solyndra link is patently weak, even almost non-existent. Loosely, somehow connecting to Obama's crony funded company (who the government auditors said couldn't work) to SpaceX.

Of course it is weak. In fact, it is non-existent. That was the point of the article. Why don't you try reading it again, this time for comprehension?