Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.8k
  • how can you be so casually apathetic about saddling our soldiers sailors airmen and spaceforce with the products of a horse drug addled asshole?

    What kind of prick tells these people VOLUNTEERING TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY "hey man, the ketamine kid is the only way!" - how are you comfortable or confident in the products produced when he's tripping balls in the oval office?

    meh. this is a pointless argument, I'm never going to convince these elon fanboys their hero is a prick

    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.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    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.

    I disagree.

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

    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.

    Are 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

    Please 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.

    How 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.

    So 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.

    I 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.

    And 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.

    Yes 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.

    Who 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)

    I 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?

    Right. 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.

    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.

    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

    Then 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).

    The 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

    Now 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.

    Usually 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.

    Very true. It seems like the most greedy destructive people inevitably rise to the top.

  • Indeed, Glassdoor to cut 1,300 jobs amid AI integration, memo shows

    Technology technology
    13
    114 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    B
    When being asked about the hole in my resume I hope I can save face by saying : "I used AI to replace my employer for the said time because AI is such a revolutionary technology" .
  • Firefox is fine. The people running it are not

    Technology technology
    206
    1
    851 Stimmen
    206 Beiträge
    804 Aufrufe
    O
    Sounds like some deliberately obscure concentrations of power. The fear bit is really problematic though as scared people are not ideal decision makers.
  • Tech Giants Team Up With Teachers Union on $23M AI Academy

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    8 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    D
    incorrect assessment: unions will gladly collaborate with 3rd party corps if it benefits them. Also unions protect interests of their members, not entire humanity...
  • How data brokers shape your life

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    31 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 131 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    P
    This is a tough one for me: I'm opposed to femicide, but I only wish the absolute worst on influencers.
  • Front Brake Lights Could Drastically Diminish Road Accident Rates

    Technology technology
    337
    1
    595 Stimmen
    337 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    M
    I always say there are drivers out there who only survive by the grace of other drivers.
  • Fake It Till You Make It? Builder.ai’s $1.5B AI Scam Exposed

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    70 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    63 Aufrufe
    W
    Religion and fiat are always at the top
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.