4 ms·

SpaceX is a private company, but a significant part of the funding for the development of its Starship spacecraft, especially for lunar missions, comes from U.S

SpaceX is a private company, but a significant part of the funding for the development of its Starship spacecraft, especially for lunar missions, comes from U.S. taxpayer money via NASA contracts. The Starship rocket is the most powerful launch vehicle ever constructed. If controlled by a maniacal megalomaniac it could be turned into a powerful weapon. Hopefully that won't ever happen. But it raises the question: should a private citizen ever be in control of such powerful technology whose development was funded by taxpayers?

orochimaaru 1y ago
Which maniacal megalomaniac are you talking about?
- ivape 1y ago
  Uh, the richest one (ever), forgot his name. Almost bought a whole department in the government, nice calm guy.
  - orochimaaru 1y ago
    In case you’ve noticed said rich person is out of favor with the chief megalomaniac.
- simonh 1y ago
  Since it’s US tax payers money footing the bill, maybe whoever is in charge of spending US tax payers money at the moment? Or maybe whoever is building the vehicle? I’m not sure which is worse.
monkaiju 1y ago
No it should not, this is one of the primary moral hazards we get from neoliberalism.
- shortrounddev2 1y ago
  Neoliberalism is anything I don't like!
  - monkaiju 1y ago
    What makes you say that? I don't like a lot of things that aren't neoliberalism, is there some trend where people are doing this? I could make it clearer: Neoliberalism, specifically it's distinguishing trait of having governments foster markets via public money without getting public ownership, leads to concerning situations like the op was discussing. Edit: Interestingly Trump's thing about getting the government getting a 10% stake in Intel is not neoliberalism! I don't like Trump, but that's still not neoliberalism
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
fabian2k 1y ago
I'm not comfortable with the power Elon Musk has, given his behaviour and views. But I don't think weaponizing SpaceX rockets is a big concern. The ability to manufacture rockets like this would of course be very valuable to anyone developing ballistic missiles for military purposes. But there are also big differences as those use mostly solid fuel. Selling this information to other countries could be a potential national security risk. Musk's rockets are inside the US, he would probably be able to launch one rocket on a target before the US military would stop any further launches. So I don't think any direct threat here by Musk would be that worrisome.
- simonh 1y ago
  He’d also need to persuade everybody involved in the launch guidance, and presumably also the payload development, transfer and integration to commit treason, and for none of them to break silence.
- breadwinner 1y ago
  No one thought Musk would abuse his ownership of Starlink either, but in 2022 Musk personally ordered the shutdown of Starlink satellite coverage over key parts of Ukraine. Supposedly he was motivated by concerns that a successful Ukrainian advance might provoke a Russian nuclear response. He is not a head of state, but gets to make such decisions? (FWIW he later denied intentionally turning off Ukraine's Starlink terminals).
  - fabian2k 1y ago
    I have no idea what Musk might do, so I'm not excluding anything. But to do anything with a SpaceX rocket he would need co-conspirators, and in the end he would only get a single shot. So the result would be similar to a larger terrorist attack. I would assume that the risk here is similar to that of many other companies or persons that use large amounts of explosives or other tools that could be weaponized. Musk has a delivery system that is superior to just driving a truck with explosives somewhere, but in many cases that doesn't matter much. There are some scenarios I could imagine, but they're really more like movie scripts than reality. Musk doesn't have the power to prevent retaliation, and he also couldn't threaten or demand ransom as he couldn't defend his rockets against the US military.
caymanjim 1y ago
Do you think Musk is going to build a secret volcano lair and stockpile nuclear warheads? The entire US military arsenal is constructed by corporations, doing far more dangerous things than Musk has any access to.
sephamorr 1y ago
"significant" is doing a lot of work here. spaceX appears to have spent ~$10B on development and infrastructure for Starship so far. NASA has been invoiced for ~50% of their $2.9B contract, so the taxpayer has paid ~15%.
- maest 1y ago
  I don't know about the broader point the GP is making, but 15% funding is significant by most measures.

orochimaaru 1y ago

Which maniacal megalomaniac are you talking about?

ivape 1y ago
Uh, the richest one (ever), forgot his name. Almost bought a whole department in the government, nice calm guy.
- orochimaaru 1y ago
  In case you’ve noticed said rich person is out of favor with the chief megalomaniac.
simonh 1y ago
Since it’s US tax payers money footing the bill, maybe whoever is in charge of spending US tax payers money at the moment? Or maybe whoever is building the vehicle? I’m not sure which is worse.

monkaiju 1y ago

No it should not, this is one of the primary moral hazards we get from neoliberalism.

shortrounddev2 1y ago
Neoliberalism is anything I don't like!
- monkaiju 1y ago
  What makes you say that? I don't like a lot of things that aren't neoliberalism, is there some trend where people are doing this? I could make it clearer: Neoliberalism, specifically it's distinguishing trait of having governments foster markets via public money without getting public ownership, leads to concerning situations like the op was discussing. Edit: Interestingly Trump's thing about getting the government getting a 10% stake in Intel is not neoliberalism! I don't like Trump, but that's still not neoliberalism
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

fabian2k 1y ago

I'm not comfortable with the power Elon Musk has, given his behaviour and views. But I don't think weaponizing SpaceX rockets is a big concern. The ability to manufacture rockets like this would of course be very valuable to anyone developing ballistic missiles for military purposes. But there are also big differences as those use mostly solid fuel. Selling this information to other countries could be a potential national security risk. Musk's rockets are inside the US, he would probably be able to launch one rocket on a target before the US military would stop any further launches. So I don't think any direct threat here by Musk would be that worrisome.

simonh 1y ago
He’d also need to persuade everybody involved in the launch guidance, and presumably also the payload development, transfer and integration to commit treason, and for none of them to break silence.
breadwinner 1y ago
No one thought Musk would abuse his ownership of Starlink either, but in 2022 Musk personally ordered the shutdown of Starlink satellite coverage over key parts of Ukraine. Supposedly he was motivated by concerns that a successful Ukrainian advance might provoke a Russian nuclear response. He is not a head of state, but gets to make such decisions? (FWIW he later denied intentionally turning off Ukraine's Starlink terminals).
- fabian2k 1y ago
  I have no idea what Musk might do, so I'm not excluding anything. But to do anything with a SpaceX rocket he would need co-conspirators, and in the end he would only get a single shot. So the result would be similar to a larger terrorist attack. I would assume that the risk here is similar to that of many other companies or persons that use large amounts of explosives or other tools that could be weaponized. Musk has a delivery system that is superior to just driving a truck with explosives somewhere, but in many cases that doesn't matter much. There are some scenarios I could imagine, but they're really more like movie scripts than reality. Musk doesn't have the power to prevent retaliation, and he also couldn't threaten or demand ransom as he couldn't defend his rockets against the US military.

caymanjim 1y ago

Do you think Musk is going to build a secret volcano lair and stockpile nuclear warheads? The entire US military arsenal is constructed by corporations, doing far more dangerous things than Musk has any access to.

sephamorr 1y ago

"significant" is doing a lot of work here. spaceX appears to have spent ~$10B on development and infrastructure for Starship so far. NASA has been invoiced for ~50% of their $2.9B contract, so the taxpayer has paid ~15%.

maest 1y ago
I don't know about the broader point the GP is making, but 15% funding is significant by most measures.