15 ms·

Pentagon looking to make sure SpaceX doesn’t abandon them in war

129 points by campuscodi 4y ago

falcolas 4y ago
> Pentagon Looking to Make Sure SpaceX Doesn’t Abandon Them in War Again SpaceX having morals and not wanting to support one side or another in war is fine by me. But they should have stopped well before selling a ton of gear to the Ukraine (some of which was on the US Government's dime) and then shutting it all down after the checks had been cashed.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  They've only prevented Ukraine from using Starlink as a guidance system. They're fine with it being used for the originally envisioned purpose of communications, even within the armed forces.
- joachimma 4y ago
  Is that what they did? Last reports suggests StarLink works just fine inside Ukraine with some congestion issues. My impression is that Ukraine bolted StarLink dishes to offensive drones, possibly the remote controlled boats that struck Sevastopol. Personally I am a hawk on the Ukraine War and hope they utterly destroys the Russian Military, that includes the one inside Russia. But I find it deeply hypocritical that the US Military, who won't let Ukraine use the weapons given inside Russia, has a problem with a private company who does not want their civilian tech used in offensive weapons.
mnd999 4y ago
In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites. If enough men with guns then up at Starlink HQ what is Elon going to do?
- zapdrive 4y ago
  Disable them with a cryptographic lock, at the least.
  - mnd999 4y ago
    https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
  - agilob 4y ago
    In European countries there are laws that a government take over your car, home, or horse if the military needs it urgently. I learnt about this at schools years ago and I don't know if USA has such laws, but pretty sure such laws were extended to laptops and solar panels. I think this is either NATO or EU regulation. It would be unwise to oppose a military at such times having such powerful tools.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      There's a film called Warhorse, about a kid whose pet horse gets seized to serve as a draft animal in WW1.
    - thephyber 4y ago
      In the US, all government power is derived from the US Constitution. The 3rd and 5th Amendments provide some protections of civilians from the military. But in practice, all civil rights only exist to the extent that they can be enforced. When martial law is enacted, there are no civil rights protections.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        In the war of 1812 the president had to run away from Washington because of the British. His party wanted to sleep in a farm house, the farmer rejected the present. The president and his part left.
        mnd999 4y ago
        That’s just him being a good politician. He chose to be better than the other side and be seen to be better. It’s a trade off, in this case the hearts and minds won.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites. In a war, DoD could buy the satellites, but the 5th Amendment takings clause does not have an exception for war.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    How long have we been doing civil asset forfeiture?
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      That's only for the poor and minorities. They will not dare touch a corporation, let alone owned by some high-profile billionaire with a significant public presence.
      - jjoonathan 4y ago
        Yes, but power can get what it wants without rights too. Power matters, rights do not.
  - nitwit005 4y ago
    They don't have to provide a fair price for it. The Defense Production Act allows demanding the production of goods, even at a loss to the company. Which might theoretically be unconstitutional, but the courts have a history of ignoring the text of the constitution during wartime.
- otikik 4y ago
  Tweet
modeless 4y ago
My understanding from news reports a few months ago is that SpaceX literally asked the DoD to fund Ukraine's ongoing use of Starlink for war and they refused to cover it. I don't know what the reasons were, but I'll bet SpaceX would let Ukraine do whatever it wants if the DoD was paying for it.
- brutusurp 4y ago
  Agree. SpaceX said their services are not free for SpaceX, and requested help in funding the effort. Is Bezos trying to get a foothold in the effort, to help fund launch of his 3K satellites? https://spacenews.com/amazon-planning-3236-satellite-constellation-for-internet-connectivity/ https://spacenews.com/amazon-planning-3236-satellite-constel...
  - brutusurp 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - brutusurp 4y ago
    [flagged]
- zpeti 4y ago
  Because how could a democrat white house possibly justify paying money to a Musk affiliated company? That’s how bad politics is now. If Musk were actually the asshole people made him out to be, he would have just pulled starlink until payment. He didn’t. No one seems to appreciate or even realise this on the musk hater side.
  - kcplate 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - qsdf38100 4y ago
      You support Elon? It’s becoming obvious that he is on the Kremlin side nowadays. You can’t even pretend he’s both siding it anymore. He never criticizes Russia interests, and parrots the Kremlin discourse quite consistently. You need to recognize that supporting Musk in 2023 is supporting the Kremlin. Is that really what you want to support?
xiphias2 4y ago
,,Dickinson said that the Pentagon needs to make sure that all sides understand their legal obligations and have a full understanding of the military’s expectations before those moments occur.'' I'm not an American, but as far as I know US is not in war with Russia. Executives are smart enough to know that whenever US gets into war SpaceX will have to take part in it (and get compensated in contracts).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sorokod 4y ago
  > as far as I know US is not in war with Russia Even Ukraine is not at war with Russia. Even Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Turns out that many lives and a lot of hardware can be expended without a war. Welcome to the 21st century where the there are gaps between contract law (that governs the relationship between the Pentagon and SpaceX) and international law (that spell out the rules in case of war but not necessarily in a case of "conflict" in which US has a geopolitical interest).
neom 4y ago
This seems somewhat moot given in a time of war, the president can just use the Defense Production Act? "The Act currently contains three major sections. The first authorizes the president to require businesses to accept and prioritize contracts for materials deemed necessary for national defense, regardless of a loss incurred on business. The second section authorizes the president to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the president to control the civilian economy so that scarce and critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs."
- gpm 4y ago
  There's a long distance between "the pentagon is involved in a military operation (or even war)" and "the defense production act is invoked". The pentagons role is not solely to prepare for total war scenarios.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Defense production act was invoked for several covid things. Total war is not necessary.
- itsyaboi 4y ago
  Is the US at war?
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    It doesn't matter, the criteria to apply the Defense Production Act of 1950 don't refer to a state of war in any way; it applies to activities which the president "deems necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense".
dotnet00 4y ago
This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones. On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. It seems more than a little absurd to argue that SpaceX - unlike literally every other defense contractor - should both be footing most of the bill for the service and should have no say over how the service is then used. Then, adding on to that, there's a huge difference in terms of regulations between a US company essentially supplying long range guidance systems (and ongoing services which enable those systems) of its own volition to a foreign nation involved in a war and a US company contracted by the DoD to supply the same. This should especially considered in the context that the US has been extremely careful in limiting the range of the weapons it has supplied to Ukraine (with exactly the same reasoning SpaceX has used of not wanting to enable an escalation in the conflict), while Starlink is able to handle guidance well beyond that. This idiotic senator might as well be asking how they can trust ULA to keep launching satellites for the DoD when they won't unconditionally launch Rwanda's 300k satellite megaconstellation for free.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Indeed. And if Starlink is used in guidance for offensive drone operations, Russia is going to view those satellites as legitimate military targets. I’m not convinced the people criticizing SpaceX’s decision to not do that (for free) have thought this all the way through.
  - kirushik 4y ago
    Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate military target for Russia right now? (I'm pretty sure GPS is used for guidance of drones and missiles pretty heavily there.) Or for a satellite top be a legit target the communication needs to be two-way? In such case I suspect Türksat satellite should be considered within scope, since Bayraktar TB2S (which reportedly has been used by Ukraine in this war) uses it for SATCOM. What about other military uses of Starlink, outside of guidance systems? Those are plentiful, and it's hard to see why there would be a drastic difference between guiding a drone and providing communication backbone for military operation coordination in the eyes of the Russians. After all, they are bombing civilian infrastructure just fine, and didn't even care to formally declare this "special military operation" a war... My point being, I don't think "legitimate target" has to do anything with Russia not shooting down any satellites; it's either lack of capacity or fear of retaliation, both being rather orthogonal to the targets "legitimacy" IMO.
wazer5 4y ago
Common sense and circumstantial evidence suggests Elon was planning major DoD support including global missile defense as early as 2001. - SpaceX first contract was DARPA Falcon Project (part of Prompt Global Strike). Possibly even where the Falcon name came from. (mentioned in parent article) - SpaceX founding contracts with NASA were awarded by Elon's friend Michael D. Griffin https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career who architected global missile defense and designed space-space interceptors for SDI. His NASA COTS program was an unprecedented award and given to SpaceX before they had even flown a rocket. He also awarded CRS to SpaceX just before leaving office. This constituted 85% of all SpaceX funding (remaining 15% was Elon and a few investors). https://wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_1_and_first_orbital_launches https://wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_... Griffin was so important to Elon that it is rumored he named his first son after him (Griffin Musk). - Griffin went on in 2019 to start the Space Development Agency where he advocated for global satellite constellations of sensors and space weapons. First contracts were given to SpaceX after Starlink seemed viable. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities Lately it's unclear if Elon is still supportive of said programs as fervently as he did in the early days. He's still hiring for Starshield..
unnouinceput 4y ago
This is a non-issue. In times of war government can simply nationalize the company. They did it in 1st war world with rails companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization) and that was a harsh lesson for those companies when 2nd war world came around - they got their act together so no such act was necessary anymore. Pretty sure if SpaceX does not fully complies with government demands in times of war, it will suddenly be a subsidiary of NASA.
- wmf 4y ago
  I would predict that our government no longer has the stomach to nationalize anything.
  - baq 4y ago
    In a direct war the public would demand nationalization of starlink the moment Musk disagreed about anything at all. Government would happily comply.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  If NASA could run it, why don't they have a Starlink?
douzemars 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > One of the theories on why MOC had to be ganked What?
  - areyousure 4y ago
    Probably https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+O'Church https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+O'Church https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gank#Verb_2 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gank#Verb_2
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Its mind blowing how people can just claim things with such convinction when they are 100% wrong. Literally just in the last month the DoD announced a new space procurement program increase the opportunity for private sector and particularly for startups. Not to mention many other activities related to space where the DoD has explicitly looked for more private contract for things like space communication and other space services. For everything in space at least, the opposite of your statement is true.
unethical_ban 4y ago
I don't like musk for a number of reasons, but did he sign any legal contract with any entity regarding starlink services to Ukraine?
eecc 4y ago
My take is: Starlink just reminded Pentagon they’re a mostly civilian operator, and they’re not ready to defend from direct cyber warfare, it without investment and someone to pay for that. Which is reasonable, IMHO
- azinman2 4y ago
  And Ford was a civilian operator until they needed to build heavy machinery for WWII. Wartime is different.
Kukumber 4y ago
What do they mean It's similar to FBI "buying people data" they can already access for free SpaceX is a US Defense program Similar to how Google got funded https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
photonbeam 4y ago
There’s no way DOD can have Musk as the CEO of Starlink, he’s not predictable enough
- panick21_ 4y ago
  He is the longest running CEO in the space industry and in the car industry. The companies have been successful and very much execute their plans. Other then overachieving most predictions, they are predictable. So what is this passed on, twitter comments?
  - MagicMoonlight 4y ago
    Yes its based on his ADHD instability that causes him to make irrational decisions based on twitter comments and constantly flip flop

129 points by campuscodi 4y ago

> Pentagon Looking to Make Sure SpaceX Doesn’t Abandon Them in War Again SpaceX having morals and not wanting to support one side or another in war is fine by me. But they should have stopped well before selling a ton of gear to the Ukraine (some of which was on the US Government's dime) and then shutting it all down after the checks had been cashed.

dotnet00 4y ago
They've only prevented Ukraine from using Starlink as a guidance system. They're fine with it being used for the originally envisioned purpose of communications, even within the armed forces.
joachimma 4y ago
Is that what they did? Last reports suggests StarLink works just fine inside Ukraine with some congestion issues. My impression is that Ukraine bolted StarLink dishes to offensive drones, possibly the remote controlled boats that struck Sevastopol. Personally I am a hawk on the Ukraine War and hope they utterly destroys the Russian Military, that includes the one inside Russia. But I find it deeply hypocritical that the US Military, who won't let Ukraine use the weapons given inside Russia, has a problem with a private company who does not want their civilian tech used in offensive weapons.

mnd999 4y ago

In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites. If enough men with guns then up at Starlink HQ what is Elon going to do?

zapdrive 4y ago
Disable them with a cryptographic lock, at the least.
- mnd999 4y ago
  https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- agilob 4y ago
  In European countries there are laws that a government take over your car, home, or horse if the military needs it urgently. I learnt about this at schools years ago and I don't know if USA has such laws, but pretty sure such laws were extended to laptops and solar panels. I think this is either NATO or EU regulation. It would be unwise to oppose a military at such times having such powerful tools.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    There's a film called Warhorse, about a kid whose pet horse gets seized to serve as a draft animal in WW1.
  - thephyber 4y ago
    In the US, all government power is derived from the US Constitution. The 3rd and 5th Amendments provide some protections of civilians from the military. But in practice, all civil rights only exist to the extent that they can be enforced. When martial law is enacted, there are no civil rights protections.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      In the war of 1812 the president had to run away from Washington because of the British. His party wanted to sleep in a farm house, the farmer rejected the present. The president and his part left.
      - mnd999 4y ago
        That’s just him being a good politician. He chose to be better than the other side and be seen to be better. It’s a trade off, in this case the hearts and minds won.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites. In a war, DoD could buy the satellites, but the 5th Amendment takings clause does not have an exception for war.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  How long have we been doing civil asset forfeiture?
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    That's only for the poor and minorities. They will not dare touch a corporation, let alone owned by some high-profile billionaire with a significant public presence.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      Yes, but power can get what it wants without rights too. Power matters, rights do not.
- nitwit005 4y ago
  They don't have to provide a fair price for it. The Defense Production Act allows demanding the production of goods, even at a loss to the company. Which might theoretically be unconstitutional, but the courts have a history of ignoring the text of the constitution during wartime.
otikik 4y ago
Tweet

modeless 4y ago

My understanding from news reports a few months ago is that SpaceX literally asked the DoD to fund Ukraine's ongoing use of Starlink for war and they refused to cover it. I don't know what the reasons were, but I'll bet SpaceX would let Ukraine do whatever it wants if the DoD was paying for it.

brutusurp 4y ago
Agree. SpaceX said their services are not free for SpaceX, and requested help in funding the effort. Is Bezos trying to get a foothold in the effort, to help fund launch of his 3K satellites? https://spacenews.com/amazon-planning-3236-satellite-constellation-for-internet-connectivity/ https://spacenews.com/amazon-planning-3236-satellite-constel...
- brutusurp 4y ago
  [flagged]
- brutusurp 4y ago
  [flagged]
zpeti 4y ago
Because how could a democrat white house possibly justify paying money to a Musk affiliated company? That’s how bad politics is now. If Musk were actually the asshole people made him out to be, he would have just pulled starlink until payment. He didn’t. No one seems to appreciate or even realise this on the musk hater side.
- kcplate 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - qsdf38100 4y ago
    You support Elon? It’s becoming obvious that he is on the Kremlin side nowadays. You can’t even pretend he’s both siding it anymore. He never criticizes Russia interests, and parrots the Kremlin discourse quite consistently. You need to recognize that supporting Musk in 2023 is supporting the Kremlin. Is that really what you want to support?

xiphias2 4y ago

,,Dickinson said that the Pentagon needs to make sure that all sides understand their legal obligations and have a full understanding of the military’s expectations before those moments occur.'' I'm not an American, but as far as I know US is not in war with Russia. Executives are smart enough to know that whenever US gets into war SpaceX will have to take part in it (and get compensated in contracts).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sorokod 4y ago
> as far as I know US is not in war with Russia Even Ukraine is not at war with Russia. Even Russia is not at war with Ukraine. Turns out that many lives and a lot of hardware can be expended without a war. Welcome to the 21st century where the there are gaps between contract law (that governs the relationship between the Pentagon and SpaceX) and international law (that spell out the rules in case of war but not necessarily in a case of "conflict" in which US has a geopolitical interest).

neom 4y ago

This seems somewhat moot given in a time of war, the president can just use the Defense Production Act? "The Act currently contains three major sections. The first authorizes the president to require businesses to accept and prioritize contracts for materials deemed necessary for national defense, regardless of a loss incurred on business. The second section authorizes the president to establish mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate materials, services and facilities to promote national defense. The third section authorizes the president to control the civilian economy so that scarce and critical materials necessary to the national defense effort are available for defense needs."

gpm 4y ago
There's a long distance between "the pentagon is involved in a military operation (or even war)" and "the defense production act is invoked". The pentagons role is not solely to prepare for total war scenarios.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Defense production act was invoked for several covid things. Total war is not necessary.
itsyaboi 4y ago
Is the US at war?
- PeterisP 4y ago
  It doesn't matter, the criteria to apply the Defense Production Act of 1950 don't refer to a state of war in any way; it applies to activities which the president "deems necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense".

dotnet00 4y ago

This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system for drones. On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its importance, they should've just done that. It seems more than a little absurd to argue that SpaceX - unlike literally every other defense contractor - should both be footing most of the bill for the service and should have no say over how the service is then used. Then, adding on to that, there's a huge difference in terms of regulations between a US company essentially supplying long range guidance systems (and ongoing services which enable those systems) of its own volition to a foreign nation involved in a war and a US company contracted by the DoD to supply the same. This should especially considered in the context that the US has been extremely careful in limiting the range of the weapons it has supplied to Ukraine (with exactly the same reasoning SpaceX has used of not wanting to enable an escalation in the conflict), while Starlink is able to handle guidance well beyond that. This idiotic senator might as well be asking how they can trust ULA to keep launching satellites for the DoD when they won't unconditionally launch Rwanda's 300k satellite megaconstellation for free.

remarkEon 4y ago
Indeed. And if Starlink is used in guidance for offensive drone operations, Russia is going to view those satellites as legitimate military targets. I’m not convinced the people criticizing SpaceX’s decision to not do that (for free) have thought this all the way through.
- kirushik 4y ago
  Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate military target for Russia right now? (I'm pretty sure GPS is used for guidance of drones and missiles pretty heavily there.) Or for a satellite top be a legit target the communication needs to be two-way? In such case I suspect Türksat satellite should be considered within scope, since Bayraktar TB2S (which reportedly has been used by Ukraine in this war) uses it for SATCOM. What about other military uses of Starlink, outside of guidance systems? Those are plentiful, and it's hard to see why there would be a drastic difference between guiding a drone and providing communication backbone for military operation coordination in the eyes of the Russians. After all, they are bombing civilian infrastructure just fine, and didn't even care to formally declare this "special military operation" a war... My point being, I don't think "legitimate target" has to do anything with Russia not shooting down any satellites; it's either lack of capacity or fear of retaliation, both being rather orthogonal to the targets "legitimacy" IMO.

wazer5 4y ago

Common sense and circumstantial evidence suggests Elon was planning major DoD support including global missile defense as early as 2001. - SpaceX first contract was DARPA Falcon Project (part of Prompt Global Strike). Possibly even where the Falcon name came from. (mentioned in parent article) - SpaceX founding contracts with NASA were awarded by Elon's friend Michael D. Griffin https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career who architected global missile defense and designed space-space interceptors for SDI. His NASA COTS program was an unprecedented award and given to SpaceX before they had even flown a rocket. He also awarded CRS to SpaceX just before leaving office. This constituted 85% of all SpaceX funding (remaining 15% was Elon and a few investors). https://wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_1_and_first_orbital_launches https://wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_... Griffin was so important to Elon that it is rumored he named his first son after him (Griffin Musk). - Griffin went on in 2019 to start the Space Development Agency where he advocated for global satellite constellations of sensors and space weapons. First contracts were given to SpaceX after Starlink seemed viable. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities Lately it's unclear if Elon is still supportive of said programs as fervently as he did in the early days. He's still hiring for Starshield..

unnouinceput 4y ago

This is a non-issue. In times of war government can simply nationalize the company. They did it in 1st war world with rails companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization) and that was a harsh lesson for those companies when 2nd war world came around - they got their act together so no such act was necessary anymore. Pretty sure if SpaceX does not fully complies with government demands in times of war, it will suddenly be a subsidiary of NASA.

wmf 4y ago
I would predict that our government no longer has the stomach to nationalize anything.
- baq 4y ago
  In a direct war the public would demand nationalization of starlink the moment Musk disagreed about anything at all. Government would happily comply.
SyzygistSix 4y ago
If NASA could run it, why don't they have a Starlink?

douzemars 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
clouddrover 4y ago
> One of the theories on why MOC had to be ganked What?
- areyousure 4y ago
  Probably https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+O'Church https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+O'Church https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gank#Verb_2 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gank#Verb_2
panick21_ 4y ago
Its mind blowing how people can just claim things with such convinction when they are 100% wrong. Literally just in the last month the DoD announced a new space procurement program increase the opportunity for private sector and particularly for startups. Not to mention many other activities related to space where the DoD has explicitly looked for more private contract for things like space communication and other space services. For everything in space at least, the opposite of your statement is true.

unethical_ban 4y ago

I don't like musk for a number of reasons, but did he sign any legal contract with any entity regarding starlink services to Ukraine?

eecc 4y ago

My take is: Starlink just reminded Pentagon they’re a mostly civilian operator, and they’re not ready to defend from direct cyber warfare, it without investment and someone to pay for that. Which is reasonable, IMHO

azinman2 4y ago
And Ford was a civilian operator until they needed to build heavy machinery for WWII. Wartime is different.

Kukumber 4y ago

What do they mean It's similar to FBI "buying people data" they can already access for free SpaceX is a US Defense program Similar to how Google got funded https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

photonbeam 4y ago

There’s no way DOD can have Musk as the CEO of Starlink, he’s not predictable enough

panick21_ 4y ago
He is the longest running CEO in the space industry and in the car industry. The companies have been successful and very much execute their plans. Other then overachieving most predictions, they are predictable. So what is this passed on, twitter comments?
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  Yes its based on his ADHD instability that causes him to make irrational decisions based on twitter comments and constantly flip flop