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.
Assuming /u/NeoNachtwaechter is conflating companies, lumping Starlink in with SpaceX. So that would make him a pro-Russian sympathizer. If not, describe and discuss your evidence.
Just alluding to “people” means shit. Aligning with Putin is shit.
Look - IMHO, Elon and his cars are expensive garbage, but for real accusations on his character and business ethics/acumen to stick, you need to show proof - not hearsay.
There’s nothing but proof that’s publicly available. Now, I don’t have the sourced wall of text post readily at hand (that you would immediately ignore and attempt to wiggle your way out of as you seem a bit of a sycophant), but you’re being disingenuous if you can’t admit that he objectively lacks character/ethics in his business and personal life.
If you do somehow genuinely need an education on how much of a grifter fraud elon is, you start with watching all the videos about him on the YouTube channel called (I believe), thunderfoot. Kudzu search elon and thunderfoot in YouTube.
But I don’t think you’ll be doing any of that… I imagine you’ll be spending your evening sitting in your bathtub in your tesla bot spandex onesie making hyperloop noises and constantly refreshing the order status page for your 6 year old tesla semi pre-order?
Their way of working. It is like a software shop, for example the “fail fast” principle.
This seems disruptive in the world of engineering, and it has caused many people wonder. But it is not the best way if you suddenly have living people sitting in the rockets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
So… In your opinion, it should be allowed to operate like any normal company without restrictions?
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.
What would happen if, say, a powerful Chinese investor attempted to buy it outright?
It likely wouldn’t be allowed just like other national strategic companies. What is your point with that?
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.
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…
SpaceX doesn’t mind blowing up living people, too.
Assuming /u/NeoNachtwaechter is conflating companies, lumping Starlink in with SpaceX. So that would make him a pro-Russian sympathizer. If not, describe and discuss your evidence.
Just alluding to “people” means shit. Aligning with Putin is shit.
get lost, bot.
Bite me. Just because I’m not poisonous doesn’t mean I’m a bot.
What makes you say that?
I mean, Elon, sure, but did the company overall do something I missed…?
Conversations with employees of that company
So no actual proof, eh?
Look - IMHO, Elon and his cars are expensive garbage, but for real accusations on his character and business ethics/acumen to stick, you need to show proof - not hearsay.
That’s the shit he sells.
There’s nothing but proof that’s publicly available. Now, I don’t have the sourced wall of text post readily at hand (that you would immediately ignore and attempt to wiggle your way out of as you seem a bit of a sycophant), but you’re being disingenuous if you can’t admit that he objectively lacks character/ethics in his business and personal life.
If you do somehow genuinely need an education on how much of a grifter fraud elon is, you start with watching all the videos about him on the YouTube channel called (I believe), thunderfoot. Kudzu search elon and thunderfoot in YouTube.
But I don’t think you’ll be doing any of that… I imagine you’ll be spending your evening sitting in your bathtub in your tesla bot spandex onesie making hyperloop noises and constantly refreshing the order status page for your 6 year old tesla semi pre-order?
So you didn’t actually answer anything
I guess the Hyperloop noise is just silence then? As it doesn’t actually exist.
Their way of working. It is like a software shop, for example the “fail fast” principle.
This seems disruptive in the world of engineering, and it has caused many people wonder. But it is not the best way if you suddenly have living people sitting in the rockets.
Who have they blown up?
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.
Its unclear that we are surviving them, or at least not paying them blood money too.
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.
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.