Skip to content

We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

Technology
496 196 1.9k
  • 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.

  • 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.

    Oh, 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.

  • 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.

    Like I said, I value the space telescopes more than the Rockets that take them into space. I like the Mars Rovers more than the penis rockets.

  • You're conflating Musk with his companies. He might be the one who founded them, but these companies run themselves. This goes for Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink. The leadership, research, production, and management are all handled by company employees.

    But that's besides the point, regardless of how you feel about Musk himself, there's clearly a place for private companies in this area. NASA and other space agencies are not businesses, they're research agencies. Their job is to expand scientific knowledge and innovate new technology. They can't run a service like SpaceX, which btw doesn't only serve the government by also other governments and the private sector. It's better for them to just outsource shuttle launches entirely to the private sector which is why they've been doing it for decades. It just so happens that SpaceX provides this service at really good price reliably and safely, which makes them the best choice. It's symbiotic relationship. It's an ecosystem where one sector compliments the other.

    Idk why everyone keeps talking like nationalizing Elon musk companies means changing them? It’s just removing Elon musk from them, and then reordering them to the public.

    Also hello cyber truck called and that was Elon musk at the helm. He’s good for making good teams and bad decisions

  • I know it's asking a lot, but you could give an example instead of insulting me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Yes sorry. We nationalized General Motors in 2009 Amtrak in 1973 the banks in 2008.

    Don’t even get me started on World War II

  • I know it's asking a lot, but you could give an example instead of insulting me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    In the US we would remove the leadership, fix the problems with the companies. In this case it’s Elon who is a military risk and political liability. He has broken enough laws and violated our constitutional rights. We can happily remove him from the seat of his power, which are his companies, especially the publicly listed one. Under new leadership these companies can be returned to the public sector just like with General Motors.

  • this the one time I’m with the commies

    Are you against universal and free healthcare, education and retirement? Are you against improving worker rights, paid holidays, sick leave, guaranteed housing and guaranteed employment? Are you against unionisation of workplaces and collective worker decisions mattering in business? Are you against heavy regulation against climate change and pollution of the environment? Are you against anti-racism, feminism, anti-fascism and the redistribution of wealth from the richest to the poorest? I'm sure you have a lot more common ground with us commies than you think

    No I’m also with the commies on single payer health care and super high tax brackets for the rich. I do hate me a fascism, infact I hate all authoritarians.

    I’m clearly for the workers rights we have fought for and established in this country. And while I can acknowledge the communist impact in these achievements, I would not go ahead and give you guys full credit nor say that these are policies that are specific to you. Most of this stuff is just center/left social welfare and human rights. Commies are the ones that like to do purity tests and isolate anyone that doesn’t agree with 100% of your policy points.

    Pretty big jumps from liberal to leftist to self proclaimed communist ideas on how these ideas and policies look, so yes we agree on general principles and concepts. But we certainly don’t agree on how to bring them about.

    Also, every single self-proclaimed communist is on the suspect list because you guys did a lot of campaigning against Joe Biden to help Donald Trump get elected so I’m just saying I don’t really fuck with you guys anymore. That’s my new purity test. Did you support Joe Biden and Kamala during the most important election in American history?

  • 42 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    F
    I imagine not, though I haven't looked into it.
  • Fatphobia Is Fueled by AI-Created Images, Study Finds

    Technology technology
    14
    1
    15 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    61 Aufrufe
    K
    I pretty much agree. The only thing I would add is that it's not our place to tell others to lose weight or to point out their weight; people already know they are overweight and that it's unhealthy. We shouldn't be policing other people's bodies. It's also possible to be overweight and have body positivity; being overweight doesn't equate to being unattractive.
  • Right to Repair Gains Traction as John Deere Faces Trial

    Technology technology
    30
    1
    622 Stimmen
    30 Beiträge
    126 Aufrufe
    R
    Run the Jewels?
  • Matrix.org is Introducing Premium Accounts

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 15 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    S
    Why call it AI? Is it learning and said-modifying? If not then is it not just regular programming but "AI" sounds better for investors?
  • AI cheating surge pushes schools into chaos

    Technology technology
    25
    45 Stimmen
    25 Beiträge
    114 Aufrufe
    C
    Sorry for the late reply, I had to sit and think on this one for a little bit. I think there are would be a few things going on when it comes to designing a course to teach critical thinking, nuances, and originality; and they each have their own requirements. For critical thinking: The main goal is to provide students with a toolbelt for solving various problems. Then instilling the habit of always asking "does this match the expected outcome? What was I expecting?". So usually courses will be setup so students learn about a tool, practice using the tool, then have a culminating assignment on using all the tools. Ideally, the problems students face at the end require multiple tools to solve. Nuance mainly naturally comes with exposure to the material from a professional - The way a mechanical engineer may describe building a desk will probably differ greatly compared to a fantasy author. You can also explain definitions and industry standards; but thats really dry. So I try to teach nuances via definitions by mixing in the weird nuances as much as possible with jokes. Then for originality; I've realized I dont actually look for an original idea; but something creative. In a classroom setting, you're usually learning new things about a subject so a student's knowledge of that space is usually very limited. Thus, an idea that they've never heard about may be original to them, but common for an industry expert. For teaching originality creativity, I usually provide time to be creative & think, and provide open ended questions as prompts to explore ideas. My courses that require originality usually have it as a part of the culminating assignment at the end where they can apply their knowledge. I'll also add in time where students can come to me with preliminary ideas and I can provide feedback on whether or not it passes the creative threshold. Not all ideas are original, but I sometimes give a bit of slack if its creative enough. The amount of course overhauling to get around AI really depends on the material being taught. For example, in programming - you teach critical thinking by always testing your code, even with parameters that don't make sense. For example: Try to add 123 + "skibbidy", and see what the program does.
  • @chrlschn - Beware the Complexity Merchants

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    57 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    37 Aufrufe
    S
    I'm a big fan of the manta "Make your designs as simple as possible and no simpler". Pointless complexity drives me nuts, but others take it too far and remove functionality by making things too minimal. It doesn't help that a lot of businesses optimize for people who make changes, so the positive feedback loop is change for the sake of change rather than improving the product.
  • 4 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    94 Aufrufe
    V
    Oh, I get it. You're a purposefully ignorant dumbass.