3 ms·

> 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 f

> 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.
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        > As for Starlink being okay with it just because they get paid, I don't see how that means they lack morals. - first they oppose something allegedly based on morals - then they get paid more money - then they subsequently no longer oppose it allegedly based on morals frankly, I don't see how someone can NOT see how that means they lack their aforementioned morals
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      [dead]
georgeg23 3y ago
Gwynne Shotwell said SpaceX would have no problem putting weapons in space, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23733/spacex-exec-says-company-would-launch-a-weapon-into-space-in-defense-of-this-country https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23733/spacex-exec-says...
- adventured 3y ago
  When it comes to putting weapons in space, there's a gigantic gap between some vague maybe kinda sorta one day future tense, and an actual happening today present event.
  - dmix 3y ago
    Maybe one day when space launches are so cheap we will have Brilliant Pebbles and make ballistic missile threats and long range nuclear war much much harder! Fighting ICBMs and MIRVs in the terminal phase is an unwinnable war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles?wprov=sfti1
    - georgeg23 3y ago
      An adversary would just shoot them down before launching ICBMs. Anti-satellite weapons are relatively cheap as they don't need to sustain orbit. Alternatively they can be hit early and Kessler syndrome can take down the whole constellation. Launching Brilliant Pebbles will just prompt a new arm race or trigger Armageddon.

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.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > As for Starlink being okay with it just because they get paid, I don't see how that means they lack morals. - first they oppose something allegedly based on morals - then they get paid more money - then they subsequently no longer oppose it allegedly based on morals frankly, I don't see how someone can NOT see how that means they lack their aforementioned morals
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    [dead]

georgeg23 3y ago

Gwynne Shotwell said SpaceX would have no problem putting weapons in space, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23733/spacex-exec-says-company-would-launch-a-weapon-into-space-in-defense-of-this-country https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23733/spacex-exec-says...

adventured 3y ago
When it comes to putting weapons in space, there's a gigantic gap between some vague maybe kinda sorta one day future tense, and an actual happening today present event.
- dmix 3y ago
  Maybe one day when space launches are so cheap we will have Brilliant Pebbles and make ballistic missile threats and long range nuclear war much much harder! Fighting ICBMs and MIRVs in the terminal phase is an unwinnable war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles?wprov=sfti1
  - georgeg23 3y ago
    An adversary would just shoot them down before launching ICBMs. Anti-satellite weapons are relatively cheap as they don't need to sustain orbit. Alternatively they can be hit early and Kessler syndrome can take down the whole constellation. Launching Brilliant Pebbles will just prompt a new arm race or trigger Armageddon.