We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
Technology
496
Beiträge
196
Kommentatoren
1.8k
Aufrufe
-
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.
If the government actually nationalized SpaceX, the precedent would be insane. You’d be telling every private company working in defense, infrastructure, or tech that if they become too essential, the government might just take it. Doesn’t matter how much risk or capital they fronted.
SpaceX isn’t just launching rockets for fun—it’s practically a branch of the U.S. space program at this point. GPS, Starlink for military comms, launching classified payloads, putting astronauts in orbit. If we nationalize that over a political pissing match between Trump and Musk, we’re basically saying innovation is conditional on obedience.
And let’s be honest—once you do this to SpaceX, you open the door to doing it to AWS, Tesla’s energy grid systems, Google’s AI infrastructure. Any private company that gets too important suddenly becomes “too critical to stay private.” That’s a fast track to killing private innovation in sectors where we need it most.
If Trump’s threatening funding, and Musk is threatening to walk, and the public’s response is “just take the company,” then we’ve officially politicized the tech-industrial base. That’s not governance, that’s dysfunction.
Nationalizing SpaceX would be a Cold War move in a modern economy. It might feel good in the moment, but long-term, it's a terrible idea.
-
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.
SpaceX is getting the government funding NASA doesn't anymore.
-
They're just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that's something.
Works is a strong word. It's a better choice than dialup or Hughesnet, but that's damning with extremely faint praise. If you need to rely on it you might be in trouble. There are still gaps in the coverage where you will be dropped for a while.
-
So you think those privately funded politicians should be in charge of the state of SpaceX?
No, the private funding of politicians, which nowhere in the world happens as thoroughly or blatantly as in the US, is another issue to solve. It's companies pushing for privatization of services that they sabotage first to show that the government doesn't do well with them. It's like the postal service headed by that Trump appointee that was a big cheese in a transport firma. I forgot his name.
-
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.
LEO does offer legitimate advantages not just to latency but also for minimizing the abandoned space junk left in orbit. The satellites will deorbit fairly quickly after running out of fuel.
Though I'm sure you're correct about the main reason for the choice.
-
Errr... am I mistaken? This is the first time I'm hearing about nationalizing SpaceX and it's from Jacobin....
Does Jacobin make a habit of calling people communists? Pretty sure they advocate for socialist positions usually....
big spiderman pointing at spiderman vibes if true
Jacobin is a late 18th early 19th political spectrum. It is not relevant to this situation.
-
I hate tankies, but not as much as I hate Nazis. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We’re losing 100 years of social advancement. But here you are telling us to protect the fucking corporations that are sucking them up.
This is a false dichotomy. We don't have to accept either Nazis Marxists. Fuck them both, there other options out that are much better.
-
LOL "We should NOT be like them."
And then starts talking about health insurance. What health insurance?
You can only dream of being like Cuba.
But your shithole country keeps licking the boots and are good little servants of the oligarch ruling class.
And that's great, you deserve all you get, all you do is comlain and cry about it online anyway.Cuba is a shithole by every definition of the word. The only people in the world who think Cuba is decent are brainless Marxists online. Even Cubans don't agree with your delusions.
-
Tankies
boy howdy you've got the entire strawman army mustered in this thread.
It seems like you don't know what that term means
-
Yep that's my point. Not everything needs be a business.
My point is that this can be and is often done without nationalizing entire sectors of the economy
-
yeah but if SpaceX becomes NASA then what
Which is the advantage of SpaceX. As it is people are looking to cut money for NASA. Still, NASA has always subcontracted out, so absorbing SpaceX does not seem like it might change much (outside of public opinion)
-
This post did not contain any content.
You have NASA FFS. Just fund it.
-
I agreed with this sentiment six months ago, but now I like public hangings and nationalizing companies
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.
-
Stay uneducated, loser
Get back in your bread line
-
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.
Yes, that's why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it's stupid, and a stupid strawman.
The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it... Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
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.
The government doesn't nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn't make sense to do it.
The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it's quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don't fall under this umbrella.
-
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.
I'm not smarter than everyone, but you are dumb enough to think Marxism and Fascism are economic opposites otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did earlier.
-
Get back in your bread line
Murder some more brown people, lib
-
Murder some more brown people, lib
Sorry, we out here on the streets of LA fighting ICE right now. No time to chat.
-
If not Musk should be forced from his roles in these companies. You cannot be a defense contractor and do ketamine.
Exactly. SpaceX was sunder scrutiny when he smoked doobie on a podcast. Now he is on drugs and nothing happens.
-
Nobody thinks about that, just about hitting the people they don't like. They don't think of consequences, they don't think that nationalization means humongous companies and wealth in fact changing hands in favor of people who already control the government.
That's every fascist regime in history BTW - make your natural opponents hang themselves. Like in Russia in 1999 groups people most hurt by Yeltsin's regime were deceived into voting for Putin, because he managed to create that "Soviet intelligence agent" image, despite being continuation of said regime. Or again in 2004, when he managed to take credit for growing oil prices, which meant that said groups of people feared literal starvation less, and the factor they've grown by compared to 1998 was so huge, that Russia's level of life really didn't catch up, but that was enough. Hold people in misery, throw them bones, they'll be grateful.
Also why most Russians gloated over Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, other oligarchs being beaten by Putin.
Cause the oligarchs seemed the face of that regime, except Putin was its soul materialized. They somehow thought that when he hurts all the oligarchs enough, things will be good.
This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they're also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing "liberal Democrat" companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.
