3 ms·
It is partially talent (of Musk certainly and the team he has assembled), and partially altruism (they could just charge 50% less instead of 90% less). Also the
by blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It is partially talent (of Musk certainly and the team he has assembled), and partially altruism (they could just charge 50% less instead of 90% less). Also the government made virtually no attempt at competition - it had to be dragged to this outcome.
As for conflict of interest - I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. No one would look to Verizon of all companies for any kind of modernization. At least this way we get a competent company working on this problem.
- llamaimperative 2y ago> the government made virtually no attempt at competition > I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. Do you have evidence for these claims? Legitimately curious. Government contracting is often very broken but you state this with a pretty extreme degree of confidence even in light of this.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoThe attempt at competition was about options for launch capability. The US government was happy to sustain the prior situation of a few overpriced stagnant prime contractors for a long time - same with defense. It was hard to impossible for anyone else to enter that space and get attention (let alone money) from those making decisions. Regarding bidding. It is incredibly common for these decisions to be made in a way that rewards friends, family members, donors. The law requires a competitive process but it is often corrupted and only gives the appearance of a working process. The appeals are very expensive and time consuming so a lot of the time, it’s just not worth it. There’s not much you can do unless you’re a large company with lots of money.
- llamaimperative 2y agoOh sorry I'm not talking about SpaceX launches. I'm asking about the FAA/Verizon situation. I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoNor is there sufficient evidence to claim the new administration is doing anything corrupt. They could just be taking the appropriate emergency measures. Or not. But it seems like different standards for evidence are being applied to different sides.
- llamaimperative 2y agoOkay so you actually cannot “guarantee” the prior contract’s award process was bad. And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoNo, there is no clear conflict of interest. You have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. Stay consistent. Don’t back off your threshold for evidence now.
- llamaimperative 2y agoYes, there very obviously IS a conflict of interest. “Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad. “Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here. Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoWho is “person”? As I said, you have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. There may very well be zero conflict of interest.