4 ms·

SpaceX is critical infrastructure to the US at this point and its continued availability and operation is of national security interest. That may sound like it

by jmyeet 1y ago

SpaceX is critical infrastructure to the US at this point and its continued availability and operation is of national security interest. That may sound like it gives Elon power. It's the opposite, actually. No US administration will take lightly threats to national security infrastructure like this. The nuclear option for any administration is to nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do. Less nuclear: the US has a lot of control over what SpaceX does. The FAA (and to a lesser extent the NOAA) has to approve every launch. They could simply gorund SpaceX. If you think SpaceX could simply move operations elsewhere, think again, The US prohibits ASML, a Dutch company, from selling EUV lithography machines to China. Apart from all of that, SpaceX is absolutely dependant on US government funding and contracts. Withdrawing those, or even the threat of such, allows the US to wield a lot of power over SpaceX. What's rather surprising about this feud is that Trump is currently the adult and has been uncharacteristically restrained in his response thus far. Of course, all that could change. It was Elon who heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile, which is an absolutely insane thing to do.

cyclecount 1y ago
If it’s critical infrastructure it should be nationalized
- dingnuts 1y ago
  We have a national space agency that has had plenty of time and money to do the stuff SpaceX is doing. Why wouldn't SpaceX turn into the funding and political football that NASA is, if it were nationalized? Like, this isn't a hypothetical. SpaceX only has a market because of the incompetence of the "public option."
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > We have a national space agency that has had plenty of time and money to do the stuff SpaceX is doing. That's quite inaccurate. NASA doesn't do much themselves, they hire external contractors but keep significant control over them. SpaceX got more funding and less control and they didn't start from scratch, NASA gave them all of their technical documentation, now-how and working prototypes. NASA could have done everything SpaceX does if they were given the same conditions and funding, however, they've never had funding for blowing up five spaceships in row, they were held to much stricter standards. The entire story looks like a blatant attempt to take control of space operations away from NASA and thus from the government.
    - randomNumber7 1y ago
      Challenger
    - throwaway69123 1y ago
      how do explain other governments funding efforts to copy spacex without success, its easy to hand wave away peoples efforts and achievements with hindsight
    - TeaBrain 1y ago
      >NASA could have done everything SpaceX does if they were given the same conditions and funding This may have been hypothetically possible, as are many things that never came to be, but it is impossible to know whether this really would have happened.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  onlyrealcuzzo above commented that Trump canceling SpaceX contracts would be "literally the path that led the USSR to ruin". However, we have a case of a private contractor trying to manipulate the president by means of "revelations" and decommissioning of a service important for national security. If the president cannot change those contracts the US would be literally on the path to oligarchic Russia... I'm not sure what's worse. Trump is generally moving in the direction of reducing government control of corporations to the point of risking government capture by oligarchic interests. What's happening now is a direct consequence of his policies and it's ironic that Trump's powers are being questioned when it comes to corporate regulation. Trump's personal faults are irrelevant at the moment, if the GOP doesn't stand firmly behind Trump we are going to find ourselves in an incredible mess.
- testing22321 1y ago
  This is a very anti-USA way of thinking because it doesn’t allow companies to extract profit. Healthcare, education, roads, prisons, electricity, transit, all of it is designed in the USA so a company can extract profit.
  - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
    This is hardly a charitable interpretation. The lack of competition provides for little incentive for improvement. Now, for prisons, I think for-profit prisons are quite problematic because the incentives are abjectly antithetical to justice.
- throwaway69123 1y ago
  enjoy the snap reaction brain drain as entrepreneurs move their efforts offshore, people are being disingenuous by saying its as simple as deciding to nationalise a company everyone said would fail and who china and Europe are desperately trying to emulate, all over retaliatory statements, be careful what sort of government behaviour you normalise because you happen to be on the winning side of that behaviour, seasons change
someothherguyy 1y ago
> an absolutely insane thing to do Is it? The statement itself doesn't seem to imply anything other than Musk seems to think he is in those files. Trump is in some of the JE "files" that were already released (flight logs). I think the cultural obsession with the unknown surrounding Jeffery Epstein informs what people infer from statements like that. There are many less-than-flattering ways that Trump could be associated with JE that do not include pedophilia.
- the_af 1y ago
  But Musk is not implying any of those less-than-flattering things. Nobody knows what Musk actually thinks, but what he implied is pretty clear. He calls it "a bomb", and we all know what that means. And this matters, because Musk was a major campaign contributor and advisor to someone he has now implied to be a pedophile. What does this say about Musk?
  - someothherguyy 1y ago
    > we all know what that means Personally, I don't jump to conclusions based on vague statements or evidence. > What does this say about Musk? Who knows? Musk has thin associations with Epstein and Maxwell as well, he is a proven liar, is at times visibly manic, and has been reported to drop relationships at a whim when challenged. There could be plenty of things driving his behavior, but I don't think this informs anything new about his character.
    - the_af 1y ago
      You got me wrong: I'm not talking about the veracity of the accusation, I'm asking about what it says about Musk (regardless of its truth). Especially in the eyes of Musk fans. This guy is now effectively claiming he helped get someone elected president whom he knew was a pedophile. Musk claims Trump got elected thanks to his support (again, Musk claims this). He also claims Trump is a pedophile. So what do Musk fans think about Musk (not Trump) in light of this?
      - 1y ago
mindslight 1y ago
> It was Elon who heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile, which is an absolutely insane thing to do. How is it insane to repeat what everyone already knows? The only novelty here is Musk himself saying it to his legions of followers, who would have been otherwise inclined to downplay the significance of it.
- the_af 1y ago
  It's insane because of the implications: Musk was a major contributor to Trump's campaign, and a major advisor, and at the last minute he implies Trump is a pedophile? This means Musk knowingly contributed to get a pedophile elected! He couldn't have learned this at the last minute, he obviously held this ace in his sleeve. This already should "impeach" Musk (informally) in the eyes of his supporters: this is a guy who would help get a pedophile elected president if it would suit his business vision.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    Wow, that is some amazing threading of the mental needle to focus blame on Musk. Doesn't this indictment apply to every single person who voted for Trump in 2024? Those pictures of Epstein, Trump, and Maxwell having themselves some grand old times have been popularly circulating for like a decade at this point. If the indictment doesn't apply, then why can't Musk play the same card of "I didn't know/believe/accept" while he was supporting, but only recently has he "now come to know" ?
    - the_af 1y ago
      Why wouldn't I heap blame on Musk (as well as on Trump, mind you)? The guy's deranged and repulsive. I don't think your objections are fair. Let's go over them: The average Trump voter doesn't know much about Epstein, and certainly doesn't believe Trump was involved in anything with that scandal. Any evidence that may turn up would be considered "fake news" to them. Whatever you may think of Trump voters, and whatever things they really are to blame for, knowingly voting for someone they believe to be a pedophile isn't one of their sins. Musk just implied Trump is a pedophile (or is suppressing certain documents because of his links to a pedophile). Musk also claims without him Trump wouldn't have been elected. These are Musk's claims, so he has thrown away any possible defenses of "but I didn't know/believe this" and "but I'm irrelevant in the grand scheme of things". You also claim Musk could defend himself with "but I didn't know at the time". This is very, very weak. When exactly do you suppose he learned this? In the few days that have elapsed since this very public falling out, maybe even a few days before? Oh, please. You know you don't believe this, these two were heaping praise on each other and calling themselves friends for most of their collaboration since Trump's second term, and only now Musk found out about Epstein? What, an aide rushed this info to him just in time for their current breakup? Absurd. Any way you slice it, Musk had this accusation up his sleeve the whole time, he just chose to deploy it now. So again I must ask, what does this say -- in his fans' eyes -- about Musk as a person? PS: You seem to believe I'm somehow defending Trump here. If that's your worry, let me be clear that I think Trump is a disgrace. I don't know whether he's a pedophile though, unlike Musk I don't claim to have seen any secret documents. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if both Trump and Musk are pedophiles, these aren't exactly examples of decent human beings. PPS: it has also just occurred to me you could be wondering why I'm focusing on the outrageous things Musk has said, but not on the contradictory, absurd or just plain dumb things Trump is saying about Musk? Well, because Trump has an expiration date. I suppose he can do lots of immediate damage to Musk, but he must do so now. Musk, as the world's richest person, has a much longer shelf life and more time to do damage to the US and the rest of the world, and bizarrely, has a large cult following. So I wonder what his followers think.
michaelmrose 1y ago
> nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do. This isn't at all clear. It's clear that they could easily compel them to prioritize and fulfill government contracts. Far less clear that they could just take it. It is clear that the current administration could "try" but such an effort might result in a lawsuit that lasts longer than the administration does and thereby become moot.
- asadotzler 1y ago
  The most correct reply here.
- root_axis 1y ago
  It may take a long time to be fully litigated, but the courts also take a while to act, and we've seen that this administration takes full advantage of this fact. The odds are also stacked against Elon here because the national security interests would likely make a compelling argument to stay any injunctions SpaceX might seek. SpaceX might prevail in the end, but the whole process would get very uncomfortable for Elon in the meantime.
  - michaelmrose 1y ago
    Actually the defense production act provides a perfectly viable path actually supported by law to ensure that the governments interests are served. An injunction would be entirely logical as it prevents irreparable harm based on a fanciful understanding of the law unlikely to prevail and hurts the government not at all. Certainly the government trying to steal like a common criminal puts anyone in an uncomfortable position but the only real risk is the fact we live under incipient fascism.
yubblegum 1y ago
My thoughts exactly. This is a clear case of eminent domain. Doesn't spacex have a board to control their ceo?
sneak 1y ago
You don’t get more milk by beating the cow.
heavyset_go 1y ago
> That may sound like it gives Elon power. It's the opposite, actually. No US administration will take lightly threats to national security infrastructure like this. The nuclear option for any administration is to nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do. A public-private partnership is the dream for any shareholder. Guaranteed revenue and profits funded by taxes, investment capital from the government on great terms, becoming "too big to fail", etc.
bufferoverflow 1y ago
SpaceX can move to another country if the US starts creating problems. Plenty of countries will happily take them.
TrapLord_Rhodo 1y ago
How do you force a company to provide services? Nationalization can't work for a company working at the bleeding edge of tech. Everyone would leave, their stock options now worthless or paid out. Name one single time in history nationization has worked? I can name 100 counter examples.

by jmyeet 1y ago

cyclecount 1y ago

If it’s critical infrastructure it should be nationalized

dingnuts 1y ago
We have a national space agency that has had plenty of time and money to do the stuff SpaceX is doing. Why wouldn't SpaceX turn into the funding and political football that NASA is, if it were nationalized? Like, this isn't a hypothetical. SpaceX only has a market because of the incompetence of the "public option."
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > We have a national space agency that has had plenty of time and money to do the stuff SpaceX is doing. That's quite inaccurate. NASA doesn't do much themselves, they hire external contractors but keep significant control over them. SpaceX got more funding and less control and they didn't start from scratch, NASA gave them all of their technical documentation, now-how and working prototypes. NASA could have done everything SpaceX does if they were given the same conditions and funding, however, they've never had funding for blowing up five spaceships in row, they were held to much stricter standards. The entire story looks like a blatant attempt to take control of space operations away from NASA and thus from the government.
  - randomNumber7 1y ago
    Challenger
  - throwaway69123 1y ago
    how do explain other governments funding efforts to copy spacex without success, its easy to hand wave away peoples efforts and achievements with hindsight
  - TeaBrain 1y ago
    >NASA could have done everything SpaceX does if they were given the same conditions and funding This may have been hypothetically possible, as are many things that never came to be, but it is impossible to know whether this really would have happened.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
onlyrealcuzzo above commented that Trump canceling SpaceX contracts would be "literally the path that led the USSR to ruin". However, we have a case of a private contractor trying to manipulate the president by means of "revelations" and decommissioning of a service important for national security. If the president cannot change those contracts the US would be literally on the path to oligarchic Russia... I'm not sure what's worse. Trump is generally moving in the direction of reducing government control of corporations to the point of risking government capture by oligarchic interests. What's happening now is a direct consequence of his policies and it's ironic that Trump's powers are being questioned when it comes to corporate regulation. Trump's personal faults are irrelevant at the moment, if the GOP doesn't stand firmly behind Trump we are going to find ourselves in an incredible mess.
testing22321 1y ago
This is a very anti-USA way of thinking because it doesn’t allow companies to extract profit. Healthcare, education, roads, prisons, electricity, transit, all of it is designed in the USA so a company can extract profit.
- dinkumthinkum 1y ago
  This is hardly a charitable interpretation. The lack of competition provides for little incentive for improvement. Now, for prisons, I think for-profit prisons are quite problematic because the incentives are abjectly antithetical to justice.
throwaway69123 1y ago
enjoy the snap reaction brain drain as entrepreneurs move their efforts offshore, people are being disingenuous by saying its as simple as deciding to nationalise a company everyone said would fail and who china and Europe are desperately trying to emulate, all over retaliatory statements, be careful what sort of government behaviour you normalise because you happen to be on the winning side of that behaviour, seasons change

someothherguyy 1y ago

> an absolutely insane thing to do Is it? The statement itself doesn't seem to imply anything other than Musk seems to think he is in those files. Trump is in some of the JE "files" that were already released (flight logs). I think the cultural obsession with the unknown surrounding Jeffery Epstein informs what people infer from statements like that. There are many less-than-flattering ways that Trump could be associated with JE that do not include pedophilia.

the_af 1y ago
But Musk is not implying any of those less-than-flattering things. Nobody knows what Musk actually thinks, but what he implied is pretty clear. He calls it "a bomb", and we all know what that means. And this matters, because Musk was a major campaign contributor and advisor to someone he has now implied to be a pedophile. What does this say about Musk?
- someothherguyy 1y ago
  > we all know what that means Personally, I don't jump to conclusions based on vague statements or evidence. > What does this say about Musk? Who knows? Musk has thin associations with Epstein and Maxwell as well, he is a proven liar, is at times visibly manic, and has been reported to drop relationships at a whim when challenged. There could be plenty of things driving his behavior, but I don't think this informs anything new about his character.
  - the_af 1y ago
    You got me wrong: I'm not talking about the veracity of the accusation, I'm asking about what it says about Musk (regardless of its truth). Especially in the eyes of Musk fans. This guy is now effectively claiming he helped get someone elected president whom he knew was a pedophile. Musk claims Trump got elected thanks to his support (again, Musk claims this). He also claims Trump is a pedophile. So what do Musk fans think about Musk (not Trump) in light of this?
    - 1y ago

mindslight 1y ago

> It was Elon who heavily implied that Trump was a pedophile, which is an absolutely insane thing to do. How is it insane to repeat what everyone already knows? The only novelty here is Musk himself saying it to his legions of followers, who would have been otherwise inclined to downplay the significance of it.

the_af 1y ago
It's insane because of the implications: Musk was a major contributor to Trump's campaign, and a major advisor, and at the last minute he implies Trump is a pedophile? This means Musk knowingly contributed to get a pedophile elected! He couldn't have learned this at the last minute, he obviously held this ace in his sleeve. This already should "impeach" Musk (informally) in the eyes of his supporters: this is a guy who would help get a pedophile elected president if it would suit his business vision.
- mindslight 1y ago
  Wow, that is some amazing threading of the mental needle to focus blame on Musk. Doesn't this indictment apply to every single person who voted for Trump in 2024? Those pictures of Epstein, Trump, and Maxwell having themselves some grand old times have been popularly circulating for like a decade at this point. If the indictment doesn't apply, then why can't Musk play the same card of "I didn't know/believe/accept" while he was supporting, but only recently has he "now come to know" ?
  - the_af 1y ago
    Why wouldn't I heap blame on Musk (as well as on Trump, mind you)? The guy's deranged and repulsive. I don't think your objections are fair. Let's go over them: The average Trump voter doesn't know much about Epstein, and certainly doesn't believe Trump was involved in anything with that scandal. Any evidence that may turn up would be considered "fake news" to them. Whatever you may think of Trump voters, and whatever things they really are to blame for, knowingly voting for someone they believe to be a pedophile isn't one of their sins. Musk just implied Trump is a pedophile (or is suppressing certain documents because of his links to a pedophile). Musk also claims without him Trump wouldn't have been elected. These are Musk's claims, so he has thrown away any possible defenses of "but I didn't know/believe this" and "but I'm irrelevant in the grand scheme of things". You also claim Musk could defend himself with "but I didn't know at the time". This is very, very weak. When exactly do you suppose he learned this? In the few days that have elapsed since this very public falling out, maybe even a few days before? Oh, please. You know you don't believe this, these two were heaping praise on each other and calling themselves friends for most of their collaboration since Trump's second term, and only now Musk found out about Epstein? What, an aide rushed this info to him just in time for their current breakup? Absurd. Any way you slice it, Musk had this accusation up his sleeve the whole time, he just chose to deploy it now. So again I must ask, what does this say -- in his fans' eyes -- about Musk as a person? PS: You seem to believe I'm somehow defending Trump here. If that's your worry, let me be clear that I think Trump is a disgrace. I don't know whether he's a pedophile though, unlike Musk I don't claim to have seen any secret documents. To be honest I wouldn't be surprised if both Trump and Musk are pedophiles, these aren't exactly examples of decent human beings. PPS: it has also just occurred to me you could be wondering why I'm focusing on the outrageous things Musk has said, but not on the contradictory, absurd or just plain dumb things Trump is saying about Musk? Well, because Trump has an expiration date. I suppose he can do lots of immediate damage to Musk, but he must do so now. Musk, as the world's richest person, has a much longer shelf life and more time to do damage to the US and the rest of the world, and bizarrely, has a large cult following. So I wonder what his followers think.

michaelmrose 1y ago

> nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do. This isn't at all clear. It's clear that they could easily compel them to prioritize and fulfill government contracts. Far less clear that they could just take it. It is clear that the current administration could "try" but such an effort might result in a lawsuit that lasts longer than the administration does and thereby become moot.

asadotzler 1y ago
The most correct reply here.
root_axis 1y ago
It may take a long time to be fully litigated, but the courts also take a while to act, and we've seen that this administration takes full advantage of this fact. The odds are also stacked against Elon here because the national security interests would likely make a compelling argument to stay any injunctions SpaceX might seek. SpaceX might prevail in the end, but the whole process would get very uncomfortable for Elon in the meantime.
- michaelmrose 1y ago
  Actually the defense production act provides a perfectly viable path actually supported by law to ensure that the governments interests are served. An injunction would be entirely logical as it prevents irreparable harm based on a fanciful understanding of the law unlikely to prevail and hurts the government not at all. Certainly the government trying to steal like a common criminal puts anyone in an uncomfortable position but the only real risk is the fact we live under incipient fascism.

yubblegum 1y ago

My thoughts exactly. This is a clear case of eminent domain. Doesn't spacex have a board to control their ceo?

sneak 1y ago

You don’t get more milk by beating the cow.

heavyset_go 1y ago

> That may sound like it gives Elon power. It's the opposite, actually. No US administration will take lightly threats to national security infrastructure like this. The nuclear option for any administration is to nationalize SpaceX, which they absolutely could do. A public-private partnership is the dream for any shareholder. Guaranteed revenue and profits funded by taxes, investment capital from the government on great terms, becoming "too big to fail", etc.

bufferoverflow 1y ago

SpaceX can move to another country if the US starts creating problems. Plenty of countries will happily take them.

TrapLord_Rhodo 1y ago

How do you force a company to provide services? Nationalization can't work for a company working at the bleeding edge of tech. Everyone would leave, their stock options now worthless or paid out. Name one single time in history nationization has worked? I can name 100 counter examples.