this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
47 points (82.2% liked)
Technology
58143 readers
5570 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If SpaceX is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
Nationalizing SpaceX would turn it into nowadays NASA’s system which is risk zero and the expense of pushing the envelope and fast changes. SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up 10 rockets while nasa will spend years to design one and launch it once.
It doesn't behoove us to have one man be capable of derailing entire segments of our national policy at his whim, especially when that man was never elected to anything.
It's not like they'd HAVE to continue with the same policy.
B'sides, at least NASA doesn't blow up a launch pad within a nature preserve just to stay on schedule...
I mean, we didn't nationalize Lockheed-Martin or Boeing or Northrop-Grumman or Raytheon or General Dynamics, etc. I think we can survive without nationalizing the company as we've done throughout our defense history.
Those companies had boards of directors and people at the top who were known to be reliable partners. SpaceX has an idiotic juvenile at the helm. The situations are barely even comparable.
Not a student of history I take it? I give you Howard Hughes.
SpaceX and Tesla now have effective senior management that insulate their divisions from Musk. His impact there is increasingly minimal, if at all present.
Where Musk is allowed to be Musk is Twitter, an emblem of his wonderful management style.
None of those companies had the ability to stop their equipment in the field from working if they decided one day they'd rather support our enemies. And they didn't have a history of being influenced by our enemies.
The article makes it clear that Musk has already gotten Ukrainian soldiers killed with his shenanigans. We should not allow him the chance to do it again.
Remove the SpaceX name from that statement and the statement is just as crazy.
Examples:
It just isn't our country's way to steal a company from its owners or shareholders. Its a bit frightening you think it should be.
Most or all of your examples have meaningfully valid competitors in the space. SpaceX does not, at least not yet.
So your rationale for seizing a private company is that it is better than its competitors?
No, it’s that as an effective monopoly, it has unreasonable power over the government.
You're 17 years too late to use that argument in good faith. Not only is SpaceX not a monopoly (because there are many other companies you can buy launch services from in the USA) but because that wasn't the case in 2006 when Boeing and Lockheed (with USA government consent!) created a TRUE launch monopoly by merging to create ULA (United Launch Alliance).
I’m not strictly arguing for federalization, but you’re arguing through whataboutism. And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.
You're replying to the thread where the OP wanted to nationalized SpaceX. I haven't heard you say different. What are you proposing instead?
No, I'm citing precedent. Its extremely applicable because its the exact same industry, and even existed before SpaceX. .
I don't think you follow spaceflight very much if you hold this statement. I'm assuming the "we" you're using here means US government launch.
Here's US government launches that ULA did in 2022 and 2023 so far: 7 launches
Delta IV Heavy | NROL-68 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA June 22, 2023, 9:18 a.m.
Delta IV Heavy | NROL-91 United Launch Alliance | USA Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA Sept. 24, 2022, 10:25 p.m.
Atlas V 421 | SBIRS GEO-6 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Aug. 4, 2022, 10:29 a.m.
Atlas V 541 | USSF-12 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA July 1, 2022, 11:15 p.m.
Atlas V N22 | CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2) United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA May 19, 2022, 6:54 p.m.
Atlas V 541 | GOES-T United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA March 1, 2022, 9:38 p.m.
Atlas V 511 | USSF-8 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Jan. 21, 2022, 7 p.m.
source
How is SpaceX am "effective" monopoly?
I was arguing a point, not a position.
And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently. StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.
Precedent does not intrinsically imply merit.
Incorrect. The US can and does send astronauts on Soyuz. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS arrived on Soyuz. Additionally, the US chose this path irrespective of companies and vendors when they chose to stop flying the Space Shuttle. You can't blame SpaceX for being successful and Boeing for being unsuccessful as justification to seize a private company.
That is true state for hundreds of services providing by private companies to the US government. Why aren't you arguing to seize or nationalize those?
So this whole thing is an exercise in pedantry?
Look, you seem like a pretty intelligent person from your post history. Arguing a point instead of a position isn’t pedantry, it’s precision. You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope. So it’s probably just best for us both to walk away. I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.
You and I are in complete agreement. Nationalizing a company would have dramatic and catestrophic effects on the free market society in the United States. I do NOT advocate for that. The closest I would come would be good usage of the Defense Production Act.
I appreciate the time you've taken in having the discussion. I hope you have a great day!
Same! Cheers!
So... In your opinion, it should be allowed to operate like any normal company without restrictions? What would happen if, say, a powerful Chinese investor attempted to buy it outright?
I can't tell what you're trying to say with your first sentence. Most companies DO have specific restrictions based upon their industry, environmental impact, and various forms of regulatory compliance. SpaceX isn't an exception.
It likely wouldn't be allowed just like other national strategic companies. What is your point with that?
And what if a nation bought the guy in charge? You know, like has potentially already happened with the PIF
There's a caveat. Most countries will heavily regulate access to limited resources, for example radio frequency bands. SpaceX is occupying defined orbit which means it's perfectly reasonable to ensure society benefits from this privilege.
Meh. Fuck all those corporate assholes.