3 ms·

Perhaps one good thing can come out of this: Since most of Musk's cash comes from selling Tesla shares, perhaps this downward trend is a good opportunity for t

by rvnx 4y ago

Perhaps one good thing can come out of this: Since most of Musk's cash comes from selling Tesla shares, perhaps this downward trend is a good opportunity for the U.S. government to buy SpaceX from him at a discount (or for the SpaceX investors to push for an IPO).

noobermin 4y ago
Does uncle sam have an appetite for owning the company? It seems more likely a defense contractor will buy it if someone would.
stcredzero 4y ago
a good opportunity for the U.S. government to buy SpaceX from him at a discount The only real reason why they'd want to do that, is to get rid of actual innovation in space to get back to the wasteful go-nowhere days of cost-plus contracting as a jobs program.
- rvnx 4y ago
  I'm not sure but I think the DoD has a budget of over $900 billion. I guess they can finance the acquisition by transferring the debt to the company itself (probably an LBO?). The teams are great, so it would be a matter of keeping the operational teams and the board the way they are, a separate entity, etc. I see SpaceX as a very strategic company that can benefit everyone (hence the push for public ownership).
  - stcredzero 4y ago
    I see SpaceX as a very strategic company that can benefit everyone (hence the push for public ownership). This would render it mediocre over time, then it would slowly wilt into the apathetic evil that killed the Challenger and Columbia astronauts.
anon291 4y ago
Given how much progress SpaceX has made in so short a time and that I want the rate of progress to continue, I hope the US government does not buy it.
- _8j50 4y ago
  NASA had been lagging because of personnell, the same readon Space X succeeded. The people that were around during apollo are just now retiring. It was not because of JFK they accomplished so much and it was not because musk overworked or challenged his people they accomplished so much. Blue origin and others are also doing ok, they just were not contract winners or with the best people. DARPA still has the best minds possibly and best inventions as well. Risk taking by leadership is the big difference here. That said, no way musk gives up his desire to rule over mars or control asteroid mining industry over a few billion dollars. Frankly, he seems trumpish by the day. I don't think he has anyone close to him who cares for him and isn't afraid of upsetting him. Surround yourself with yes men and never apologize for anything, the true way of insecure and isolated powerful men.
  - dgoodell 4y ago
    NASA is lagging because of personnel? If by “personnel” includes incredibly, weak leadership, then I agree. NASA leadership seems to think NASA’s job is primarily to set requirements and distribute funds to contractors and to avoid managing, building, or operating anything if it can possibly be avoided. They just want to pay someone to do something and slap a NASA logo on it and pat themselves on the back for their “achievement”.
    - giantrobot 4y ago
      NASA has always set requirements and distributed funds. They've always used contractors. PIs on projects are usually full time university professors and their researchers are PhDs (or candidates) working for them. NASA is mostly setting goals, administering projects, and running the projects with contractors turning the wrenches.
runlevel1 4y ago
The USG wouldn't nationalize Space X. They would revert to preferring ULA and would throw more money at Starliner. I recall ULA being more diversified across states, so it'd probably make a bunch of legislators happier anyhow.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That's not a fair assessment of the situation, I think. ULA does not have nearly the same cost-to-orbit that SpaceX has.
  - runlevel1 4y ago
    The point I was trying to make was that politicians would opt for a more conventional, politically expedient move regardless of its cost to the federal budget.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Ah I see. Ok, but the world has now seen 'reusable rockets with a low cost to orbit', if that advantage gets lost then ultimately someone else will duplicate it and own the market. Customers don't care about politics, they care about costs, and reliability. SpaceX has both of those, right now. Anything recycled or warmed over is not going to satisfy the demand that exists now.
  - crote 4y ago
    The point that is being made here is that cost-to-orbit is not the primary selection metric being used. Take a look at the Space Launch System, for example. It's not the best and it sure isn't the cheapest, but reusing factories built for Space Shuttle components does get politicians re-elected!
mmastrac 4y ago
I just saw a number that valued SpaceX at $180+B on a secondary. I don't think the IPO market is ready for that right now
- jacquesm 4y ago
  GP mentioned the US government as the buyer, not an IPO. So more of a nationalization.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Is it even legal for the DOD and NASA to build their own hardware in-house?

by rvnx 4y ago

noobermin 4y ago

Does uncle sam have an appetite for owning the company? It seems more likely a defense contractor will buy it if someone would.

stcredzero 4y ago

a good opportunity for the U.S. government to buy SpaceX from him at a discount The only real reason why they'd want to do that, is to get rid of actual innovation in space to get back to the wasteful go-nowhere days of cost-plus contracting as a jobs program.

rvnx 4y ago
I'm not sure but I think the DoD has a budget of over $900 billion. I guess they can finance the acquisition by transferring the debt to the company itself (probably an LBO?). The teams are great, so it would be a matter of keeping the operational teams and the board the way they are, a separate entity, etc. I see SpaceX as a very strategic company that can benefit everyone (hence the push for public ownership).
- stcredzero 4y ago
  I see SpaceX as a very strategic company that can benefit everyone (hence the push for public ownership). This would render it mediocre over time, then it would slowly wilt into the apathetic evil that killed the Challenger and Columbia astronauts.

anon291 4y ago

Given how much progress SpaceX has made in so short a time and that I want the rate of progress to continue, I hope the US government does not buy it.

_8j50 4y ago
NASA had been lagging because of personnell, the same readon Space X succeeded. The people that were around during apollo are just now retiring. It was not because of JFK they accomplished so much and it was not because musk overworked or challenged his people they accomplished so much. Blue origin and others are also doing ok, they just were not contract winners or with the best people. DARPA still has the best minds possibly and best inventions as well. Risk taking by leadership is the big difference here. That said, no way musk gives up his desire to rule over mars or control asteroid mining industry over a few billion dollars. Frankly, he seems trumpish by the day. I don't think he has anyone close to him who cares for him and isn't afraid of upsetting him. Surround yourself with yes men and never apologize for anything, the true way of insecure and isolated powerful men.
- dgoodell 4y ago
  NASA is lagging because of personnel? If by “personnel” includes incredibly, weak leadership, then I agree. NASA leadership seems to think NASA’s job is primarily to set requirements and distribute funds to contractors and to avoid managing, building, or operating anything if it can possibly be avoided. They just want to pay someone to do something and slap a NASA logo on it and pat themselves on the back for their “achievement”.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    NASA has always set requirements and distributed funds. They've always used contractors. PIs on projects are usually full time university professors and their researchers are PhDs (or candidates) working for them. NASA is mostly setting goals, administering projects, and running the projects with contractors turning the wrenches.

runlevel1 4y ago

The USG wouldn't nationalize Space X. They would revert to preferring ULA and would throw more money at Starliner. I recall ULA being more diversified across states, so it'd probably make a bunch of legislators happier anyhow.

jacquesm 4y ago
That's not a fair assessment of the situation, I think. ULA does not have nearly the same cost-to-orbit that SpaceX has.
- runlevel1 4y ago
  The point I was trying to make was that politicians would opt for a more conventional, politically expedient move regardless of its cost to the federal budget.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Ah I see. Ok, but the world has now seen 'reusable rockets with a low cost to orbit', if that advantage gets lost then ultimately someone else will duplicate it and own the market. Customers don't care about politics, they care about costs, and reliability. SpaceX has both of those, right now. Anything recycled or warmed over is not going to satisfy the demand that exists now.
- crote 4y ago
  The point that is being made here is that cost-to-orbit is not the primary selection metric being used. Take a look at the Space Launch System, for example. It's not the best and it sure isn't the cheapest, but reusing factories built for Space Shuttle components does get politicians re-elected!

mmastrac 4y ago

I just saw a number that valued SpaceX at $180+B on a secondary. I don't think the IPO market is ready for that right now

jacquesm 4y ago
GP mentioned the US government as the buyer, not an IPO. So more of a nationalization.

Rebelgecko 4y ago

Is it even legal for the DOD and NASA to build their own hardware in-house?