We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
Technology
496
Beiträge
196
Kommentatoren
1.9k
Aufrufe
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?
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... No... We should not do this.
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.
-
Tankies live in alternate reality where they think that nationalization is extremely common and is a magical solution to all of societies problems... even though this view is entirely delusional.
For example, only 3 countries have nationalized the entire ISP industry, and those are Cuba, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. All three of which are horrid tyrannical dictatorships with horrible internet. We should NOT be like them. Even when it comes to health insurance, except for 3 countries I just mentioned, every single country allows private health insurance, even if their system is public. Clearly nationalization is not what you think it is.
Tankies
boy howdy you've got the entire strawman army mustered in this thread.
-
Yeah, if they want to make satellites last longer, they could go a bit higher in their orbits. The option is there.
That would also make latency worse and the signal weaker.
Would the small ground starlink dish be able to reach higher orbits? I guess if the satellite is going to stay up longer you could afford to make it's antennas a bit bigger to mitigate that.
-
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.
isn't it amazing how much private companies can do when given hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from the federal teat?
wow. that private enterprise just rocketing up out of the atmosphere by yanking on it's bootstraps so hard.
just, you know, after a few more hundred million, burp. ahem. just a few more.
-
I think that's a complicated question. It's both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the precedent, or at least reinforces, the concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.
remember the halcyon days when NASA could do something and the president might not like it, but they were all FUCKING ADULTS and the grift was well distributed amongst the congresscreatures, so it never devolved into adolescent twitter whining?
goddamn those were better than whatever this shit is
-
Just because something is a “utility” it doesn’t mean that the government should own and run it lol.
By your logic spaceX should stop taking gov $ then.
Just because something is private doesn't mean they should get public funding.
-
That would also make latency worse and the signal weaker.
Would the small ground starlink dish be able to reach higher orbits? I guess if the satellite is going to stay up longer you could afford to make it's antennas a bit bigger to mitigate that.
Well you wouldn't want to put them much higher, but if you raised their orbit by say 40%, they'd be getting significantly less atmospheric drag. It could probably extend their life by 15 years. And yeah, they'll be 40% further away, so slightly more latency. Perhaps going from 70 ms ping to 100 ms ping. Not awesome, but definitely not a huge problem.
-
But they specifically don't want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.
It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.
Who's buying satellites?
SpaceX is putting up satellites for SpaceX, they're the manufacturer and operator...
It's definitely in their best interest to keep them working as long as possible.
That said, they're high end communications devices, very fancy routers essentially. And like all computer technology, these things become obsolete quickly. So even if they could last 20 years, you wouldn't want them even 10 years from now. 100 GB/s speeds might be great now, but 10 years down the road 10 TB/s could be the norm, so at that point why are you still trying to provide service with ancient hardware 100x slower than it should be.
-
The agency that landed people on the moon so long ago most of the people involved have died if old age, and the event will soon pass out of living memory?
The one where when they let a single rocket explode, one time, rocked the nation, because their record was so close to flawless?
The one that constantly gives us new sources for scientific data?
Yeah fuck them. They never made a dick rocket.
I'm sorry... dick rocket? Your issue with SpaceX is that the rockets are.... rocket shaped?
Like everything else notwithstanding, physics dictates the shapes of these things. That is why they all look rather... dick-ish
-
You don’t nationalise a company (SpaceX) just because the existing government owned company (NASA) is significantly worse. What do you think would happen to SpaceX if they did nationalise it? Lol. It would go to hell, like NASA.
The government should not be responsible for things like this. The government should provide services for necessities for human rights and general standards of living, but they shouldn’t take over successful companies just because they couldn’t do it themselves.
NASA was pretty damn efficient with the budget they used to have.
The wasteful NASA storyline is tiresome and busted.
-
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
I'm not sure what isn't viable about it, I mean it's demonstrably viable, it's working now.
-
Nobody knows what your bit is. That’s why you’re getting downvoted.
It's kind og funnier if you don't get it.
-
I'm sorry... dick rocket? Your issue with SpaceX is that the rockets are.... rocket shaped?
Like everything else notwithstanding, physics dictates the shapes of these things. That is why they all look rather... dick-ish
Yes im coming out against dick rockets here.
-
how can you trust a board that trusts such incompetence, for DOD projects no less?
failure up and down.
DOD is also responsible for what they accept.
-
Nasa with less risk aversion. If a Nasa rocket blows up that's big news. If a Space X rocket blows up, that's a Tuesday.
-
NASA was pretty damn efficient with the budget they used to have.
The wasteful NASA storyline is tiresome and busted.
And why do you think they have zero budget? The government lol. You think if the same government takes over SpaceX they'll all of a sudden give them the huge budget that they need?
-
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.
You haven't put your eggs in any basket. SpaceX are a private company. The government owns NASA, they can pour money into that and hire people to do what SpaceX are doing. Hell, they could poach people from SpaceX!
Why do you think they haven't already done this? Because the government don't care about it. If someone else will do it they can use them to provide their services via ludicrously expensive contracts, and give them massive subsidies, as is the Government way.
The government taking over SpaceX is not something anyone with even half a brain should be wanting. It makes ZERO sense. It doesn't matter who owns it privately, just not the government because they will fuck it up and/or neglect it - like they did with NASA and most of their other projects.
