6 ms·

There were protests at SpaceX when it was revealed the Turksat 5B satellite would command and control these TB2 drones, extending their range from operator line

There were protests at SpaceX when it was revealed the Turksat 5B satellite would command and control these TB2 drones, extending their range from operator line-of-sight to near global. Elon decided to go ahead with the launch. At some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company.

georgeg23 4y ago
Correction: Turksat 5A https://wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrksat_5A https://wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrksat_5A
emteycz 4y ago
Is a trucking company a defense company if they ship something for the military? Or the same with air transport?
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  No, but if they truck a bunch of equipment into warzones and have huge government contracts they might be considered one
  - emteycz 4y ago
    Is this a defense company now, then? https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1523497545351278593/photo/1 https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1523497545351278593... Any company doing shipping for the military has large government contracts. The government contracts have turnover limits, and every company this large works with the government a lot.
- simulate-me 4y ago
  If you become an integral part of the logistics pipeline for the military, then yes. Even if the company seems relatively civilian, you can bet it will be forced to focus on the military in the event of a military operation.
- ISL 4y ago
  If they can precisely deliver ~22 tons of material from Florida to anywhere in the globe in ~20-50 minutes, arriving at perhaps Mach 5, one should tend to regard SpaceX as at least weapons-capable.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    > arriving at perhaps Mach 5 Quite a lot faster than that actually; Mach 20+ on reentry. The way the media talks about "hypersonics" without getting into specifics is very misleading. Hypersonic cruise missiles are a tough nut to crack, but hypersonic reentry vehicles are table stakes for ballistic missiles and spacecraft.
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
Do people not consider SpaceX a defense company? At the very least I thought people always considered it dual-use
- xxpor 4y ago
  You can't work there (except possibly in some minor roles) if you're not a US Person as defined by ITAR for a reason.
  - more_corn 4y ago
    ITAR applies because rockets are indistinguishable from ICBMs
    - xxpor 4y ago
      Exactly. Rocket companies are always defense companies.
    - zardo 4y ago
      Until you get down to the details of what makes a good orbital launch vehicle vs what makes a good ICBM.
    - nradov 4y ago
      While there is some overlap, it's quite easy to distinguish between civilian launch vehicles and military ICBMs. All major civilian rockets use liquid fueled core stages. But all ICBMs are solid fuel.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  SpaceX tries not to highlight their military work but it is a majority of their business, even with "commercial" Starlink. A more direct offensive buildup is happening with their government Starlink satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
- robonerd 4y ago
ramesh31 4y ago
>At some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company. They do themselves. ITAR compliance is a prerequisite to employment at SpaceX.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Because rockets
01100011 4y ago
I would venture a guess that nearly every SiValley darling supports the military-industrial complex in some fashion. The military-industrial complex started SiValley, after all. If you don't think there's a military application for AI, self-driving whatevers, logistics innovations, or even social media you are uninformed or willfully ignorant.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  I think they probably don't, if only because government contracting is an absolutely massive pain and having been on both sides (early at a YC co and have worked in local and federal gov) I know that the gov side considers it an issue that they don't have a close enough relationship to tech startups. This was the whole rationale for launching DIU.mil, Afwerx, sofwerx, NavalX, etc. and championing OTAs which helped shorten the procurement process so they could get smaller companies interested edit: spelling error
  - 01100011 4y ago
    If you think supporting the government means working directly working with the government then, again, you don't know the game. Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred? There are many layers to that onion and it is obfuscated for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that I don't think many rock star engineers would be happy if they thought their life's work was being used to fuel the murder machine.
    - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
      I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're discussing then. Is the point in your original comment that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technologies of all sorts for their work and that people who work at startups unknowingly contribute to this? I mean sure, but I can also tell you that the government struggles with buying products commercial off the shelf, this is again a reason you see the push for OTAs and collaborating more closely with the private sector instead of primes. Also, not sure if calling it "the murder machine" is necessary or useful for a discussion. Many people, myself included, believe that a strong military is necessary for the United States to ensure its own survival and apply its protective cordon around NATO, Korea, Japan, etc. and despite its flaws has probably led to much less overall destruction and death than if the U.S. had a very weak military and could not deter more global conflicts.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company What is the real-world outcome you're going for?
belter 4y ago
They are being treated like that already. "Russian space chief Dmitry Rogozin apparently threatens Elon Musk" https://www.space.com/russian-space-chief-rogozin-threatens-elon-musk https://www.space.com/russian-space-chief-rogozin-threatens-...
abc_lisper 4y ago
Well, space x is a commodity service. If not them, someone will be happy to accept Turkish Lira.
baybal2 4y ago
jeffreyrogers 4y ago
The government definitely thinks of SpaceX as a defense company. They have to comply with ITAR because if you have the technology to get to space you basically have the technology for an ICBM.
stefan_ 4y ago
Of course SpaceX is a defense company. Starlink is essentially the next GPS in terms of defense importance.
- nirav72 4y ago
  It’s not just StarLink. SpaceX already has a pentagon contract to develop or revive the Prompt Global Strike program. It’s called something else now. Basically,to use SpaceX launch capabilities to a hit a target anywhere on the planet using conventional payloads on short notice. Something that’s currently done using the B-2 bombers and several hours of transit time to target.
beebeepka 4y ago
That point was almost 20 years ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

georgeg23 4y ago

Correction: Turksat 5A https://wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrksat_5A https://wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrksat_5A

emteycz 4y ago

Is a trucking company a defense company if they ship something for the military? Or the same with air transport?

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
No, but if they truck a bunch of equipment into warzones and have huge government contracts they might be considered one
- emteycz 4y ago
  Is this a defense company now, then? https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1523497545351278593/photo/1 https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1523497545351278593... Any company doing shipping for the military has large government contracts. The government contracts have turnover limits, and every company this large works with the government a lot.
simulate-me 4y ago
If you become an integral part of the logistics pipeline for the military, then yes. Even if the company seems relatively civilian, you can bet it will be forced to focus on the military in the event of a military operation.
ISL 4y ago
If they can precisely deliver ~22 tons of material from Florida to anywhere in the globe in ~20-50 minutes, arriving at perhaps Mach 5, one should tend to regard SpaceX as at least weapons-capable.
- robonerd 4y ago
  > arriving at perhaps Mach 5 Quite a lot faster than that actually; Mach 20+ on reentry. The way the media talks about "hypersonics" without getting into specifics is very misleading. Hypersonic cruise missiles are a tough nut to crack, but hypersonic reentry vehicles are table stakes for ballistic missiles and spacecraft.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago

Do people not consider SpaceX a defense company? At the very least I thought people always considered it dual-use

xxpor 4y ago
You can't work there (except possibly in some minor roles) if you're not a US Person as defined by ITAR for a reason.
- more_corn 4y ago
  ITAR applies because rockets are indistinguishable from ICBMs
  - xxpor 4y ago
    Exactly. Rocket companies are always defense companies.
  - zardo 4y ago
    Until you get down to the details of what makes a good orbital launch vehicle vs what makes a good ICBM.
  - nradov 4y ago
    While there is some overlap, it's quite easy to distinguish between civilian launch vehicles and military ICBMs. All major civilian rockets use liquid fueled core stages. But all ICBMs are solid fuel.
georgeg23 4y ago
SpaceX tries not to highlight their military work but it is a majority of their business, even with "commercial" Starlink. A more direct offensive buildup is happening with their government Starlink satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
robonerd 4y ago

ramesh31 4y ago

>At some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company. They do themselves. ITAR compliance is a prerequisite to employment at SpaceX.

more_corn 4y ago
Because rockets

01100011 4y ago

I would venture a guess that nearly every SiValley darling supports the military-industrial complex in some fashion. The military-industrial complex started SiValley, after all. If you don't think there's a military application for AI, self-driving whatevers, logistics innovations, or even social media you are uninformed or willfully ignorant.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I think they probably don't, if only because government contracting is an absolutely massive pain and having been on both sides (early at a YC co and have worked in local and federal gov) I know that the gov side considers it an issue that they don't have a close enough relationship to tech startups. This was the whole rationale for launching DIU.mil, Afwerx, sofwerx, NavalX, etc. and championing OTAs which helped shorten the procurement process so they could get smaller companies interested edit: spelling error
- 01100011 4y ago
  If you think supporting the government means working directly working with the government then, again, you don't know the game. Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred? There are many layers to that onion and it is obfuscated for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that I don't think many rock star engineers would be happy if they thought their life's work was being used to fuel the murder machine.
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're discussing then. Is the point in your original comment that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technologies of all sorts for their work and that people who work at startups unknowingly contribute to this? I mean sure, but I can also tell you that the government struggles with buying products commercial off the shelf, this is again a reason you see the push for OTAs and collaborating more closely with the private sector instead of primes. Also, not sure if calling it "the murder machine" is necessary or useful for a discussion. Many people, myself included, believe that a strong military is necessary for the United States to ensure its own survival and apply its protective cordon around NATO, Korea, Japan, etc. and despite its flaws has probably led to much less overall destruction and death than if the U.S. had a very weak military and could not deter more global conflicts.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company What is the real-world outcome you're going for?

belter 4y ago

They are being treated like that already. "Russian space chief Dmitry Rogozin apparently threatens Elon Musk" https://www.space.com/russian-space-chief-rogozin-threatens-elon-musk https://www.space.com/russian-space-chief-rogozin-threatens-...

abc_lisper 4y ago

Well, space x is a commodity service. If not them, someone will be happy to accept Turkish Lira.

baybal2 4y ago

jeffreyrogers 4y ago

The government definitely thinks of SpaceX as a defense company. They have to comply with ITAR because if you have the technology to get to space you basically have the technology for an ICBM.

stefan_ 4y ago

Of course SpaceX is a defense company. Starlink is essentially the next GPS in terms of defense importance.

nirav72 4y ago
It’s not just StarLink. SpaceX already has a pentagon contract to develop or revive the Prompt Global Strike program. It’s called something else now. Basically,to use SpaceX launch capabilities to a hit a target anywhere on the planet using conventional payloads on short notice. Something that’s currently done using the B-2 bombers and several hours of transit time to target.

beebeepka 4y ago

That point was almost 20 years ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]