Please. They only exist because of government funding. If NASA had as many rockets explode as SpaceX has, people like you would be screaming about the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Also, it's only a matter of time before starlink satellites crash into each other and start a chain reaction. You can kiss space travel goodbye after that.

Not the person you commented on, but think about the reason why people are wanting SpaceX to be nationalised when NASA exists and is already Government owned.

SpaceX is light years, pardon the pun, ahead of NASA. If SpaceX was taken over by the government, SpaceX would likely end up like NASA as it would be taken over by the same people and have mountains more red tape in order to do anything. It would destroy SpaceX and put space exploration back decades.

Would you support forcing Musk out of his roles in these companies due to his drug useage?

The problem would be that nationalising them in this day and age would mean prices would get even worse for everyone, as the government having a monopoly on these things would mean they can charge whatever they want, and with the amount of debt and deficit they have, they’d charge a lot.

Yeah, we're not going to nationalize the entire economy because that's really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that's fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It's fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they're delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn't just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.

That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I'm with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should've receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn't nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.

As we all know, private corporations don't charge whatever they want, and don't jack up the prices because of a "Fuck you, why not?" fee and bill.

Gotcha. So fascism it is then. How's that working out for y'all? Lmao

Your comment doesn't make sense. You say the US never nationalized and in the next sentence you say that they have. Remember after the 2008 collapse when the automotive industry was nationalized for a while and the government made a profit? Maybe you need to check your own ignorance.

Gotcha. So fascism it is then. How’s that working out for y’all? Lmao

This is going to be shocking for you, but there's more to politics than fascism and marxism

Your comment doesn’t make sense. You say the US never nationalized and in the next sentence you say that they have.

My point was that the US never nationalized any sector permanently for the sake of making it public. It also temporarily nationalized portions of some sectors to stabilize them before making them private again.

Most countries have public options for services and private alternatives as either competitors, backups, or complimentary pieces. It's very rare for countries to completely nationalize sectors, and it's especially rare for them to national that many sectors.

I love how you completely ignore how starlink is only viable for ukraine because the US military industrial complex.

There was satellite internet before Starlink and Starlink should be banned for all the 5ghz interference it creates

Nobody knows what your bit is. That’s why you’re getting downvoted.

It’s hilarious seeing all these “anti oligarch” people come out of the woodwork now that it’s a catchphrase of their political party, despite that party being run by oligarchs.

Like you said, this is how the world has been essentially forever. People are only against it now that their teams oligarchs are upset that they aren’t in as much control as usual.

sure thing freedumb bro.

imho, we've over-privatized and that's what's to blame ULA for. NASA used to design it's own. Bringing spacex into federal control also prevents further idiocy re: starshield, the ISS, and a whole lot more. I get you don't like it, but between Ketamine bro and these spasms of 'I'll cancel dragon! - nyaaah' we have literally put all our eggs in one basket being held by a drug addled manchild.

Compared to previously SpaceX has been seeing more and more failed launches, Starlink is banned in a number of countries and there are already other low orbit internet satellite providers popping up.

how can you trust a board that trusts such incompetence, for DOD projects no less?

failure up and down.

Yep that's my point. Not everything needs be a business.

we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid.

Yes, that's why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it's stupid, and a stupid strawman.

Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it's largest, most important customer, after that customer's trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed's CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

Omg you really think you're smarter than everyone. Of course there's in-between. Lmao glad you were able to clear it up for yourself.

SpaceX's largest customer is the US government; once that relationship has been repaired I'm ambivalent about private/public ownership.

HMmmmM?

because let's be honest, without tons of US GOV'T SUPPORT, SpaceX wouldn't have ever been able to provide all those POPs, terminals and services. Funny thing that.

The precedent that will set and the implications

and what precedent is there for dealing with the executive of your country's entire space launch infrastructure when they become dependent on horse drugs?

No really, what's the precedent here, I want to know. Because if we set a precedent by ignoring it until the problem is impossible to ignore, that's gonna be a far more expensive fix.

So yeah, yeah we should consider this very strongly.