We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 00:48 zuletzt editiert von knightfox@lemmy.world 6. Sept. 2025, 02:49
A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn't want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn't pay him what it's worth to take it over.
What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It's all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don't like, but after we give them that power what's to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
Let's not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn't made a precedent for changing the rules.
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 01:44 zuletzt editiert von
I disagree.
-
You already have a government space agency. Maybe give them more funding so they don't have to rely on space-x to get their stuff into orbit?
-
There's a national telecom network already in place. It at least has the potential to be faster and more reliable, if it isn't already... At least compared to low earth orbit satellite coverage.
There's no good reason to continue providing Elon or his companies with any government handouts. Pull that funding and give it to.... I dunno, students who have more debt than homeowners with a mortgage..... NASA.... Literally anything that helps people?
-
-
This post did not contain any content.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 01:48 zuletzt editiert von
I am not saying that I don't agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.
-
I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.
no, it's simply business as usual, nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and fuck you america, that's the way it has to be because reasons.
I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don't you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don't you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?
Do you really think soldiers sailors and airmen (and spacemonkeys) should have to rely on that HORSE DRUG ADDICTED PRICK for their mission critical infrastructure?
If you do, fuck right off, you're either a musk fanboy or stockholder.
Either way, get bent.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 02:45 zuletzt editiert vonAre you sure you're not on drugs? Because this is quite the unhinged rant
-
sure thing bud. I'm not going to waste my afternoon going through your shitstream to point out how you're wrong, I simply have better things to do with my life. in fact, gonna block you now, QOL plus
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 02:52 zuletzt editiert vonPlease do. I would very much not see a clown on my feed who accuses others of things they don't even understand.
-
These last few years they've had very little successes, but the point is it should stay competitive and not be automatically handed to these doofuses. Even the USSR maintained a competitive rocketry sector.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 04:30 zuletzt editiert vonHow has spacex had very few successes? Their Falcon 9 rocket is basically operating like clockwork. They launch more rockets than the rest of the world combined.
The starship failures are higher profile but even those failures are typical when testing new vehicles, especially one as experimental and complex.
-
These things only exist and are as good as they are because they’re not government owned and run.
Look at NASA compared to SpaceX to see why this would be an absolutely terrible move. Government is where projects like these go to die, while making every politician and contractor involved filthy rich.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 04:41 zuletzt editiert vonSo how come NASA was doing all these things before SpaceX even existed? SpaceX never put anyone on the moon. NASA did.
-
I'm sorry were you talking to me? Because nothing in your response had anything to do with what I actually said.
I never claimed to like Elon. I don’t.
I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.My argument is about the moral, ethical, and historically dangerous precedent of nationalizing a private company.
That drug-addled sycophant stood before the most powerful political body on Earth wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt while the Vice President of the United States told President Zelensky to put on a suit.
Unbelievable.
Where the hell do you get off making wild, baseless assumptions about things you barely understand? What exactly prevents you from engaging in civil discourse like an adult, instead of spouting off like you did in that comment?
Fine if we’re slinging assumptions now, here’s mine:
You strike me as a fedora-wearing, vape-huffing, woman-hating neckbeard. Am I wrong? Don’t care. That’s the image your words paint.schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 04:44 zuletzt editiert vonI never claimed to like Elon. I don’t. I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.
you just defend his right to run spaceX on specialK.
mmkay bud.
-
So how come NASA was doing all these things before SpaceX even existed? SpaceX never put anyone on the moon. NASA did.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 06:43 zuletzt editiert von freedomadvocate@lemmy.net.au 6. Sept. 2025, 08:44And NASA hasn't put anyone on the moon in how long? Did NASA make a re-usable booster? Were they even trying to? Were nasa planning to send people to Mars?
NASA has gone down the drain over the last say 30 years, would you agree?
-
I am not saying that I don't agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 06:53 zuletzt editiert vonYes it's the right long term goal, but the US is nowhere near ready for strong nationalised enterprises, they would just stop getting funding and die. There is a requirement for strong, positive minded government and a shared understanding of the benefits of having nationalised societal services before it can work.
-
Who doesn’t hate Musk these days?
He’s pissed of everyone except the ones who want to be ruled by a technobro king.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:05 zuletzt editiert vonWho doesn’t hate Musk these days?
Probably the ones that don't always speak about him
He’s pissed of everyone except the ones who want to be ruled by a technobro king.
No, he pissed off everyone that think that the world is black and white: the US. The rest of the world is indifferent about him
-
Yeah wait until we we have someone in power who gives a shit about science and then re-fund NASA and nationalize SpaceX under the NASA umbrella. (Pipe dreams, I know)
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:10 zuletzt editiert vonI don't think that the US currently can go back to the times when Kennedy announced that in 10 years they will put a man on the moon, by a long shot.
To have someone in power that give a shit about science, you need a revolution to wipe out the current political class and radically change the mentality of the population. -
Who needs this bs space program anyway?
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:10 zuletzt editiert vonRight. Now go back to live in a cave.
-
A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn't want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn't pay him what it's worth to take it over.
What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It's all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don't like, but after we give them that power what's to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
Let's not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn't made a precedent for changing the rules.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:15 zuletzt editiert vonWhat people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
The problem they don't see is that once a precedent is set, also the other party can do it. What you point out is valid also like "XYZ company refuses to establish a DEI policy because the shareholders voted agains ? Well not the democratic president can seize it".
Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.
Tipical case of not looking beyond one's nose
-
No, we already have NASA
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:16 zuletzt editiert vonThen make it work.
-
The only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.
So we had one launch company, then spaceX made it two providers, now its back to one because B-mart is using antiquated launch systems (single use).
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:18 zuletzt editiert vonThe only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.
To compete even worse
-
Best time would've been when he pulled that stunt in Ukraine, second best time is now
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 07:42 zuletzt editiert vonNow when a Putin simp is leading the country?
-
I didn't say it was a bad thing, I wanted to know about some of the broader implications, e.g. govt ownership doesn't remove legal obligations. I doubt the govt could continue to offer service under the previous T&C, some sections would need revision. And Starlink's T&C are slightly different in some countries, as are the operating conditions. Some countries who are nominally friendly with Starlink/SpaceX to allow ground stations, POPs, etc, might not be so keen on the US govt controlling things.
These are just some of the things that popped into my head when I read the article.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 11:04 zuletzt editiert vonUsually the US government would take over an important business, replace the leadership, stabilize the business and return it to the public sector.
Elon was tampering with connections in Ukraine during live combat. I’m surprised anyone would trust or want to support one of his businesses. He should’ve been thrown in a black site after that incident.
-
Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 11:05 zuletzt editiert vonVery true. It seems like the most greedy destructive people inevitably rise to the top.
-
Sending something one way into space isn’t hard. Having it come back is. Having it, and all the parts that it took to get it there and back, be safely returned to earth and able to be reused is stupidly hard.
schrieb am 9. Juni 2025, 11:06 zuletzt editiert vonOh, I know, man I’ve been following the SpaceX project for the last 12 years. I’m a huge fan of outer space. But now that they’re slashing my science budgets for weapons budgets it makes me sad. And a bit mad.
-
-
Brave browser blocks Windows feature that takes screenshots of everything you do on your PC
Technology496 vor 15 Tagenvor 20 Tagen1
-
-
eSIM Vulnerability in Kigen's eUICC Cards Exposes Billions of IoT Devices to Malicious Attacks
Technology496 vor 26 Tagenvor 28 Tagen1
-
[JS Required] The OpenAI Files Document Broken Promises, Safety Compromises, Conflicts of Interest, and Leadership Concerns
Technology 18. Juni 2025, 18:311
-
-
30% of South Korean schools have adopted AI-powered digital textbooks since the country's education ministry began a full-scale rollout in March 2025
Technology 18. Mai 2025, 08:091
-