4 ms·

It's been well reported SpaceX donated a ton of services to Ukraine early in the war for free. It's discussed in the article posted here? Of course Ukrainians w

by dmix 3y ago

It's been well reported SpaceX donated a ton of services to Ukraine early in the war for free. It's discussed in the article posted here? Of course Ukrainians will not all be getting it free. SpaceX was mostly just saving face publicly about not directly working with the military and only doing it for civilian purposes. Which makes a lot of sense from a business perspective as they are a global business operating in plenty of countries. Once the DOD rolls up and offers a bunch of money those dynamics can change.

partiallypro 3y ago
The US paid $15M for terminals and services, and paid 3x the cost of what SpaceX sells them for to general consumers. Musk and SpaceX claimed otherwise but the USAID replied with receipts. https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-spacex-ukraine-starlink-government-funding https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-spacex-ukraine-starli... https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/8/23016670/starlink-spacex-us-government-terminals-funding-usaid https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/8/23016670/starlink-spacex-u... Any "free" service was always to demo the usefulness of the product to the DoD for them eventually to pay through the nose. Musk got flak for his comments because a) it was a half-truth b) he made it very publicly, c) he started promoting Russian government accounts on For You pages, and d) he started echoing Russian sentiments and/or falsehoods about the war. If he had not done any of that he would have still gotten the money and not looked like a fool. No one expected Starlink to lose money on the deal, and they haven't.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ed25519FUUU 3y ago
  Funny to me that spacex is the only company not allowed to grift the US government war machine.
  - partiallypro 3y ago
    What are you talking about? You do realize you're replying to a thread on the Pentagon giving SpaceX funding, right? Not to mention SpaceX already had pre-existing contracts with the DoD and even has a defense contractor arm dubbed StarShield. Musk only got pushback because he went on a childish tirade (an increasing habit of his) on Twitter and then started pushing opposition narratives.
  - foobarqux 3y ago
    It's amazing that people go from "Musk is not grifting the US government" to "Musk is grifting the government (actually the people of the US) and that is good and right".
    - George83728 3y ago
      You're overloading your definitions of "grift", to simultaneously mean dishonest scamming and standard profiteering. SpaceX is a regular for-profit defense contractor. They aren't scamming the government. For anybody aligned with America's foreign policy interests, both of these are a good thing. (And for those who aren't, it's an unmitigated disaster.)
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
        Grifting basically just means "people I don't like are making money" at this point. I've seen someone selling industrial tooling being called a grifter.
      - foobarqux 3y ago
        People should decide if the price is too high to pay, it shouldn't be done it secret, essentially robbing them. I don't think the public would accept the prices being charged in this case. Arguing about what words to use to describe this is beside the point.
        adventured 3y ago
        Starlink is close to magic as far as the situation in Ukraine is concerned. There is no such thing as a price too high. There's losing the war with Russia vs paying whatever it takes to keep your information networks functional. Go ahead and list all the other companies or countries that have done what SpaceX has with Starlink (the answer is: something like it has never existed before in human history).
        George83728 3y ago
        > "essentially robbery" There you go, with your 'creative' use of language again. You seem strangely upset about Ukraine having internet access, because you're throwing up all sorts of FUD about it throughout this discussion (16 comments from you so far; 21% of posts in this discussion), all with a negative tone and hyperbolic abuse of language. Why are you so keen on getting people to be upset about Starlink's use in Ukraine?
that_guy_iain 3y ago
> SpaceX was mostly just saving face publicly about not directly working with the military and only doing it for civilian purposes. Which makes a lot of sense from a business perspective as they are a global business operating in plenty of countries. Once the DOD rolls up and offers a bunch of money those dynamics can change. Wasn't the actual issue was that they can't allow their tech to be used with weapons. Ukraine was using it to use drones with explosives attached. Allowing that would have made Starlink something controlled under the weapons export laws. Therefore, they can't allow it. Or was that another of the many things with Starlink and Ukraine?
- lumost 3y ago
  DOD paying for services might indicate that that ship has sailed and spacex is fine with it. The tech would have been considered “dual-use” eventually. Dual-use tech has complex export laws. Having the DoD as an invested partner will help fund future projects/provide financial stability to spacex generally.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    It can alternatively mean that the DoD is now satisfied with SpaceX's opposition to strapping Starlink to drones and is willing to pay them as a result.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      why would the DoD be satisfied with the opposition? and why would Starlink be okay with it just because they got paid? It sounds like you're saying they never had any actual morals or principles except getting more money
      - dotnet00 3y ago
        The DoD would be satisfied with the opposition because they're concerned about giving Ukraine long range weapons, which a Starlink equipped drone is. Since Starlink's stated policy is now to oppose that use, the DoD may be more open to being officially associated with supporting the provision of Starlink services to Ukraine. As for Starlink being okay with it just because they get paid, I don't see how that means they lack morals. They're obviously invested in Ukraine winning, but as a defense contractor they're also interested in being in alignment with the positions of the US government. Put differently, I don't really see it as SpaceX's decision to make regarding using Starlink as a long range weapons guidance system, that's the government's job to approve.
foobarqux 3y ago
What you say is well reported are Musk claims that they donated a ton of services of free but the reporting I've seen that try to verify these claims always say that there was concurrent government buying (presumably at inflated prices) which makes it unclear how much if any net donation was actually made. If I sell the government a widget at 10x retail price and then throw in two extra for "free" I can go to the press and say that I'm a humanitarian donor. If you are Elon Musk people will actually believe it. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-sta...
gamblor956 3y ago
SpaceX didn't donate anything to Ukraine, all of the supposed "donations" were actually paid for by other governments, like Poland or the U.S. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietly-paying-millions-send-starlink-terminals-ukraine-contrary-spacexs-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl...)
- signatoremo 3y ago
  This is a lie. The SpaceX asked the Pentagon to take over Starlink funding for Ukraine in Sep 2022. Why did they request that if they were already paid? USAD in their initial announcement of Starlink donation said SpaceX donated “roughly 10 millions” worth of 3,667 terminals, and they themselves bought additional 1,333 terminals (They later deleted those details): [0] - https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1511781864356212737 https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1511781864356212737 In addition, SpaceX donated at least 50 Powerwall according to the Ukraine’s government: [1] - https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukraine-received-20-000-starlink-terminals-since-start-of-war/ https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukraine-received-20-000-starlink-t...
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    Multiple sources, including the Pentagon, confirmed that SpaceX was not donating Starlink services in spring 2022 and that the Pentagon, Poland, and others had been paying for all of the equipment and services supposedly donated by SpaceX up to that point. SpaceX asked Pentagon "to take over" funding via Twitter because Musk either didn't know that the Pentagon was already doing that, or because he knew and wanted to lie about it to make himself look better. As Musk was espousing numerous Russian talking points at the time, it's also possible he was asked to do so by his Russian contacts. In addition, SpaceX donated at least 50 Powerwall according to the Ukraine’s government: Wow. For an order of 20,000 Starlink terminals, SpaceX is willing to throw in a few Powerwalls? It's like Apple throwing in a free lithium battery when you buy 20 iphones. We should all grovel before Musk's generosity in getting rid of obsolete previous-generation Powerwall units that Tesla was unable to sell to paying customers.
    - 3y ago

by dmix 3y ago

partiallypro 3y ago

The US paid $15M for terminals and services, and paid 3x the cost of what SpaceX sells them for to general consumers. Musk and SpaceX claimed otherwise but the USAID replied with receipts. https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-spacex-ukraine-starlink-government-funding https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-spacex-ukraine-starli... https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/8/23016670/starlink-spacex-us-government-terminals-funding-usaid https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/8/23016670/starlink-spacex-u... Any "free" service was always to demo the usefulness of the product to the DoD for them eventually to pay through the nose. Musk got flak for his comments because a) it was a half-truth b) he made it very publicly, c) he started promoting Russian government accounts on For You pages, and d) he started echoing Russian sentiments and/or falsehoods about the war. If he had not done any of that he would have still gotten the money and not looked like a fool. No one expected Starlink to lose money on the deal, and they haven't.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ed25519FUUU 3y ago
Funny to me that spacex is the only company not allowed to grift the US government war machine.
- partiallypro 3y ago
  What are you talking about? You do realize you're replying to a thread on the Pentagon giving SpaceX funding, right? Not to mention SpaceX already had pre-existing contracts with the DoD and even has a defense contractor arm dubbed StarShield. Musk only got pushback because he went on a childish tirade (an increasing habit of his) on Twitter and then started pushing opposition narratives.
- foobarqux 3y ago
  It's amazing that people go from "Musk is not grifting the US government" to "Musk is grifting the government (actually the people of the US) and that is good and right".
  - George83728 3y ago
    You're overloading your definitions of "grift", to simultaneously mean dishonest scamming and standard profiteering. SpaceX is a regular for-profit defense contractor. They aren't scamming the government. For anybody aligned with America's foreign policy interests, both of these are a good thing. (And for those who aren't, it's an unmitigated disaster.)
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Grifting basically just means "people I don't like are making money" at this point. I've seen someone selling industrial tooling being called a grifter.
    - foobarqux 3y ago
      People should decide if the price is too high to pay, it shouldn't be done it secret, essentially robbing them. I don't think the public would accept the prices being charged in this case. Arguing about what words to use to describe this is beside the point.
      - adventured 3y ago
        Starlink is close to magic as far as the situation in Ukraine is concerned. There is no such thing as a price too high. There's losing the war with Russia vs paying whatever it takes to keep your information networks functional. Go ahead and list all the other companies or countries that have done what SpaceX has with Starlink (the answer is: something like it has never existed before in human history).
      - George83728 3y ago
        > "essentially robbery" There you go, with your 'creative' use of language again. You seem strangely upset about Ukraine having internet access, because you're throwing up all sorts of FUD about it throughout this discussion (16 comments from you so far; 21% of posts in this discussion), all with a negative tone and hyperbolic abuse of language. Why are you so keen on getting people to be upset about Starlink's use in Ukraine?

that_guy_iain 3y ago

> SpaceX was mostly just saving face publicly about not directly working with the military and only doing it for civilian purposes. Which makes a lot of sense from a business perspective as they are a global business operating in plenty of countries. Once the DOD rolls up and offers a bunch of money those dynamics can change. Wasn't the actual issue was that they can't allow their tech to be used with weapons. Ukraine was using it to use drones with explosives attached. Allowing that would have made Starlink something controlled under the weapons export laws. Therefore, they can't allow it. Or was that another of the many things with Starlink and Ukraine?

lumost 3y ago
DOD paying for services might indicate that that ship has sailed and spacex is fine with it. The tech would have been considered “dual-use” eventually. Dual-use tech has complex export laws. Having the DoD as an invested partner will help fund future projects/provide financial stability to spacex generally.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  It can alternatively mean that the DoD is now satisfied with SpaceX's opposition to strapping Starlink to drones and is willing to pay them as a result.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    why would the DoD be satisfied with the opposition? and why would Starlink be okay with it just because they got paid? It sounds like you're saying they never had any actual morals or principles except getting more money
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      The DoD would be satisfied with the opposition because they're concerned about giving Ukraine long range weapons, which a Starlink equipped drone is. Since Starlink's stated policy is now to oppose that use, the DoD may be more open to being officially associated with supporting the provision of Starlink services to Ukraine. As for Starlink being okay with it just because they get paid, I don't see how that means they lack morals. They're obviously invested in Ukraine winning, but as a defense contractor they're also interested in being in alignment with the positions of the US government. Put differently, I don't really see it as SpaceX's decision to make regarding using Starlink as a long range weapons guidance system, that's the government's job to approve.

foobarqux 3y ago

What you say is well reported are Musk claims that they donated a ton of services of free but the reporting I've seen that try to verify these claims always say that there was concurrent government buying (presumably at inflated prices) which makes it unclear how much if any net donation was actually made. If I sell the government a widget at 10x retail price and then throw in two extra for "free" I can go to the press and say that I'm a humanitarian donor. If you are Elon Musk people will actually believe it. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-sta...

gamblor956 3y ago

SpaceX didn't donate anything to Ukraine, all of the supposed "donations" were actually paid for by other governments, like Poland or the U.S. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietly-paying-millions-send-starlink-terminals-ukraine-contrary-spacexs-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl...)

signatoremo 3y ago
This is a lie. The SpaceX asked the Pentagon to take over Starlink funding for Ukraine in Sep 2022. Why did they request that if they were already paid? USAD in their initial announcement of Starlink donation said SpaceX donated “roughly 10 millions” worth of 3,667 terminals, and they themselves bought additional 1,333 terminals (They later deleted those details): [0] - https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1511781864356212737 https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1511781864356212737 In addition, SpaceX donated at least 50 Powerwall according to the Ukraine’s government: [1] - https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukraine-received-20-000-starlink-terminals-since-start-of-war/ https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukraine-received-20-000-starlink-t...
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Multiple sources, including the Pentagon, confirmed that SpaceX was not donating Starlink services in spring 2022 and that the Pentagon, Poland, and others had been paying for all of the equipment and services supposedly donated by SpaceX up to that point. SpaceX asked Pentagon "to take over" funding via Twitter because Musk either didn't know that the Pentagon was already doing that, or because he knew and wanted to lie about it to make himself look better. As Musk was espousing numerous Russian talking points at the time, it's also possible he was asked to do so by his Russian contacts. In addition, SpaceX donated at least 50 Powerwall according to the Ukraine’s government: Wow. For an order of 20,000 Starlink terminals, SpaceX is willing to throw in a few Powerwalls? It's like Apple throwing in a free lithium battery when you buy 20 iphones. We should all grovel before Musk's generosity in getting rid of obsolete previous-generation Powerwall units that Tesla was unable to sell to paying customers.
  - 3y ago