4 ms·

I don't really understand what the difference is between the government owning Starship vs contracting it. Are they thinking they would operate the thing withou

by why_at 3y ago

I don't really understand what the difference is between the government owning Starship vs contracting it. Are they thinking they would operate the thing without any support from SpaceX? Would they have their own team of engineers or whatever dedicated to Starship support? Would these people need to be trained by SpaceX? Once the rocket is launched and full of the US gov's people/satellites/supplies/whatever, what difference does it make who owns it?

fnordpiglet 3y ago
I would assume it’s customization. A purpose modified rocket with classified configurations and continuous launch readiness would be something I imagine implies exclusive ownership vs contracting from a general purpose fleet.
spacebacon 3y ago
I imagine they may be thinking Elon is best kept out of the strategic decision making process such in the case of Star Link geofencing service on the battleground.
GMoromisato 3y ago
I think the issue is who decides on the parameters of the mission. For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. The US then contracted SpaceX to build Starshield, which is the same as Starlink but 100% controlled by the military. The US military will decide what Starshield can be used for. With Starship, I assume the military wants to be able to decide where, when, and with what payload they can launch. If they were only contracting launch services, SpaceX might decline certain missions.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  > For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. I'm pretty sure the US Government could have decided that for them as well. I haven't seen any evidence that they tried.
  - GMoromisato 3y ago
    Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying the US could compel SpaceX to let Ukraine use Starlink to attack Russia? I don't think they could do that--certainly not without a Federal law passed for that purpose, maybe like Eminent Domain. Or are you saying that the US could have stopped Starlink from being used to attack Russia (in the event SpaceX had agreed)? Again, I suspect that would have to be done via some new export control law. Either way, the US military doesn't want to deal with the inevitable delays of the legal system. Much faster to just own the asset so you can do whatever you want.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      maybe it is just a shallow statement of relative power. If the US government wanted, it could murder Musk, take the SpaceX staff hostage, and force them to do what they want. There is a big difference between what people CAN do, what they can do without consequences, and what they want to do. Any US adult can go on a killing spree with their car. What people CAN do is pretty useless information in a vacuum.
      - _ea1k 3y ago
        Sort of. At the very least the government can make the request officially. If that request is rebuffed, congress would have every right to attach political or purchasing consequences in order to make inaction undesirable. Regardless of ability to compel one can always cajole. I have seen zero evidence that the US government made such a request.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      What I'm saying is that it is a bit complicated. There were lots of articles saying government had requested that they support the effort, but the government involved was the Ukrainian government. They have zero authority to compel, whether they pass laws or not. Lots of US politicians made noises on television but that is not an official request. The actual laws involved were actually fairly murky. SpaceX is required by US law not to service the Russian held parts of Ukraine (eg, Crimea) and Starlink itself doesn't want to find Starlink being regulated as a munition which has broad potential impacts w/r/t ITAR. Were those just excuses? It is hard to say. But what is clear is that the US executive branch made no effort to remedy the situation. Instead they left SpaceX in a position where they could be clearly condemned for either decision. The decision that SpaceX took was the one least likely to land them in court or jail. It's hard to blame them.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
One boring reason is cost. If SpaceX contracts Starship for risky missions, They would need to charge premium to cover loss of scheduled business and replacement in the case of failure. In some situations, owning a dedicated vehicle could be cheaper than repeatedly paying this premium, even if SpaceX operates and maintains it.
biomcgary 3y ago
Transfer of liability from SpaceX to US government. SpaceX does not want long-term legal liability after a military conflict is resolved. From the military's perspective, war-fighting is their domain. Do we really want the US version of the strange drama around the Wagner Group? Blackwater was bad enough.
- justinclift 3y ago
  It's also a bad situation for SpaceX if the lack of clarity could get their people shot at in future conflict(s). Along the lines of the other side asking themselves "is that rocket delivering cargo over there a military target?". If SpaceX is 100% clearly non-military, then any SpaceX branded rockets delivering stuff aren't going to be (clear) military targets.

by why_at 3y ago

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I would assume it’s customization. A purpose modified rocket with classified configurations and continuous launch readiness would be something I imagine implies exclusive ownership vs contracting from a general purpose fleet.

spacebacon 3y ago

I imagine they may be thinking Elon is best kept out of the strategic decision making process such in the case of Star Link geofencing service on the battleground.

GMoromisato 3y ago

I think the issue is who decides on the parameters of the mission. For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. The US then contracted SpaceX to build Starshield, which is the same as Starlink but 100% controlled by the military. The US military will decide what Starshield can be used for. With Starship, I assume the military wants to be able to decide where, when, and with what payload they can launch. If they were only contracting launch services, SpaceX might decline certain missions.

_ea1k 3y ago
> For example, with Starlink, SpaceX got to decide whether or not it could be used for attack missions across the border into Crimea--they decided no. I'm pretty sure the US Government could have decided that for them as well. I haven't seen any evidence that they tried.
- GMoromisato 3y ago
  Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying the US could compel SpaceX to let Ukraine use Starlink to attack Russia? I don't think they could do that--certainly not without a Federal law passed for that purpose, maybe like Eminent Domain. Or are you saying that the US could have stopped Starlink from being used to attack Russia (in the event SpaceX had agreed)? Again, I suspect that would have to be done via some new export control law. Either way, the US military doesn't want to deal with the inevitable delays of the legal system. Much faster to just own the asset so you can do whatever you want.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    maybe it is just a shallow statement of relative power. If the US government wanted, it could murder Musk, take the SpaceX staff hostage, and force them to do what they want. There is a big difference between what people CAN do, what they can do without consequences, and what they want to do. Any US adult can go on a killing spree with their car. What people CAN do is pretty useless information in a vacuum.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      Sort of. At the very least the government can make the request officially. If that request is rebuffed, congress would have every right to attach political or purchasing consequences in order to make inaction undesirable. Regardless of ability to compel one can always cajole. I have seen zero evidence that the US government made such a request.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    What I'm saying is that it is a bit complicated. There were lots of articles saying government had requested that they support the effort, but the government involved was the Ukrainian government. They have zero authority to compel, whether they pass laws or not. Lots of US politicians made noises on television but that is not an official request. The actual laws involved were actually fairly murky. SpaceX is required by US law not to service the Russian held parts of Ukraine (eg, Crimea) and Starlink itself doesn't want to find Starlink being regulated as a munition which has broad potential impacts w/r/t ITAR. Were those just excuses? It is hard to say. But what is clear is that the US executive branch made no effort to remedy the situation. Instead they left SpaceX in a position where they could be clearly condemned for either decision. The decision that SpaceX took was the one least likely to land them in court or jail. It's hard to blame them.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

One boring reason is cost. If SpaceX contracts Starship for risky missions, They would need to charge premium to cover loss of scheduled business and replacement in the case of failure. In some situations, owning a dedicated vehicle could be cheaper than repeatedly paying this premium, even if SpaceX operates and maintains it.

biomcgary 3y ago

Transfer of liability from SpaceX to US government. SpaceX does not want long-term legal liability after a military conflict is resolved. From the military's perspective, war-fighting is their domain. Do we really want the US version of the strange drama around the Wagner Group? Blackwater was bad enough.

justinclift 3y ago
It's also a bad situation for SpaceX if the lack of clarity could get their people shot at in future conflict(s). Along the lines of the other side asking themselves "is that rocket delivering cargo over there a military target?". If SpaceX is 100% clearly non-military, then any SpaceX branded rockets delivering stuff aren't going to be (clear) military targets.