• laber@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The nationalization of SpaceX will mean a slowdown in development, like in the case of NASA.

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.

    Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I’ve been saying this for years. the footprint that spaceX represents in national launch authority is out of whack to say the least.

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      SpaceX and Starlink basically have no competition, and if they did, said competitor would also need to be heavily subsidized.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        These last few years they’ve had very little successes, but the point is it should stay competitive and not be automatically handed to these doofuses. Even the USSR maintained a competitive rocketry sector.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Compared to previously SpaceX has been seeing more and more failed launches, Starlink is banned in a number of countries and there are already other low orbit internet satellite providers popping up.

            • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              You say “failed”, engineers say “ok what have we learned and what can we improve/fix from this?”. These launches are tests. Every single launch is testing every single part of the hardware and software. Tests failing isn’t a bad thing, as it helps you fix problems and make things better.

    • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      17 hours ago

      SpaceX has loads of capable engineers. If NASA gets a massive budget increase, they need to draw from that pool of talent.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      16 hours ago

      NASA hasn’t take the slightest risk since Challenger. They wouldn’t have accomplished 1/20th of the launch capability SpaceX has developed in the last 5 years.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Generally NASA doesn’t “develop” rockets per se, they commission rockets to specification.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          It’s the specification process that’s the thing, nobody there would have gone out on a limb the way SpaceX has with their recovery systems. Look where they are on a shuttle replacement: the Apollo capsule with more room.

    • zbk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I think during world war 2. But things were worse then 15% unemployment and people still had massive economic leverage. I don’t think the US government is nationalizing anything anytime soon now. Neither party will participate in it because they are in the pockets of the oligarchs.

    • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      The automotive manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler were partially nationalized in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis as were several banks… these were less a full government takeover and more of a government guided restructuring, but the government owned large stakes in these companies. Before that, the only full nationalization of anything substantial was the bankruptcy of the Penn Central Railroad and subsequent establishment of Consolidated Rail (branded as ConRail) the US’s only national freight rail company.

      Conrail was later privatized into what is now the private companies CSX and Norfolk Southern. The collapse of Penn Central was the largest bankruptcy in history until Enron in the 1990’s. Amtrak, our national passenger rail corporation, is also a nationalized entity created around the same time as ConRail, for similar reasons, and is still nationalized (although the Trump admin wants to privatize it).

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I think that’s a complicated question. It’s both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the precedent, or at least reinforces, the concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.

  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah, let’s give the trump administration the power to seize companies it doesn’t like, that is a great idea that def won’t be abused all the time

      • BugKilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Health; education; energy production; food production & distribution; water; housing; mass transit and telecommunications should all be classified as essential services and nationalised. Everything else can be whatever.

      • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        The problem would be that nationalising them in this day and age would mean prices would get even worse for everyone, as the government having a monopoly on these things would mean they can charge whatever they want, and with the amount of debt and deficit they have, they’d charge a lot.

    • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      We no longer live in a world where our biggest fear would be the government controlling high level corporations and their operators.

      We now live in a world controlled by Sociopathic Oligarchs who can afford to create government level technology. Right now it’s mostly tourism rockets and satellites, but now we see Skum weaponizing that technology, and/or using it as a bargaining chip. He has cut off Starlink in a war zone to benefit the county who defers to him, but is openly hostile to the US, and now he’s threatening to cut off our access to the space station. He is using tech that WE PAY FOR with government contracts and grants, to pursue his own diplomacy, for his own benefit, and against our interests.

      Eventually, someone will start building and stockpiling actual weapons, perhaps even atomics. Then we will be asking why someone didn’t step in and stop them before they became a bonafide threat.

      We paid for Skum’s technology, and he gets to control it as a courtesy. Just the threat of using it against us should be enough reason to declare him a national security threat, confiscate his American-taxpayer financed businesses, and imprison him.

      • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        We now live in a world controlled by Sociopathic Oligarchs who can afford to create government level technology.

        People have lived in that world for most/all of human history. Assuming you come from the west, you’re coming from a place where for the last couple of hundred years it’s been more cost effective to just buy the government instead. Is that better? Maybe, it’s a little more stable. I dunno if it’s good though.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          It’s hilarious seeing all these “anti oligarch” people come out of the woodwork now that it’s a catchphrase of their political party, despite that party being run by oligarchs.

          Like you said, this is how the world has been essentially forever. People are only against it now that their teams oligarchs are upset that they aren’t in as much control as usual.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Eventually, someone will start building and stockpiling actual weapons, perhaps even atomics. Then we will be asking why someone didn’t step in and stop them before they became a bonafide threat.

        Bruh this has already happened over and over again. Nobody stops them because the most violence empire on the planet is leading the way. AFAIK the USA is the only state to have actually nuked people.

        See also the zio regime. Imperial allies supreme.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

        • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          First of all, America is not “the most violent empire on the planet.” America has the capability of being the most violent nation, but at the moment, our potential for violence is being eclipsed by other nations who are actively employing the same levels of violence that we are capable of. Nothing we are currently doing comes close to the violence that Russia and Israel are employing.

          And yes, America is the only nation to have deployed nuclear weapons against human targets, but that was 80 years ago, and ended the worst war in human history. After demonstrating its power, just the presence of nuclear weapons in a nation’s arsenal has been enough to keep the most powerful, well-armed, violent nations (including America) from going too far.

    • seejur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      We are already fucked. The choices given are siding with Trump, and end up like Russia, or side with Elon, and end up like Cyberpunk 2077

      • Disaster@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        23 hours ago

        …or organize, start/join unions, get involved with your local community and build up some real resistance that isn’t based off obscene wealth, lawfare or media brainwashing. Once you have experienced something real, it’s quite hard to understand how or why anyone would fall for the alternative.

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Has anyone considered funding NASA?

    They made rockets that didn’t explode with duct tape and a TI-83 calculator.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      What “they made” 50 years ago is of little value now. Expertise matters, and it’s lost with time passing.

      Still - yes. Nationalization is a bad solution because it gives the state power to nationalize. Seems a truism.

      Just let NASA work in its normal role. Instead of replacing that with SpaceX contracts.

    • Uruanna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Shouldn’t be incompatible with nationalizing SpaceX and Starlink. Just give it all to NASA, actually.

    • Rose56@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      They didn’t, because someone got paid to write this article!

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Looks like we found someone who believed it was financially necessary for the manufacture of the shuttle to be spread across the country.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      If that was actually their expenditure I don’t think they’d have their budget cut.

  • Grizzlyboy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I don’t think the majority of Americans understand what that means. They’ll just scream “commies!” And raise their maga flag.

    But the idea of a starlink-like business owned by UN would be nice, and not an American corporation owned by a nepobaby Elmo.

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      In the USA space-x gets away with a lot. A few years ago they announced they were no longer going to bother with getting all the FAA approvals needed for their rockets because it took too long. Space-x still got government contracts.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        If your want proof that the wealthy live by a different set of laws, look no further than the time Elon Musk, ceo of SpaceX, went on a podcast and smoked weed.

        SpaceX has DOD contracts for launches, and somehow him blatantly violating federal law had no impact on the contracts his company fulfilled for the government.

        Do I think weed should be classified like it is? No.

        Do I think that everyone should be held to the same standard? Yes. And if anyone else had been involved in government projects while going on podcasts and smoking weed, they’d at the very least be fired.

      • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        A few years ago they announced they were no longer going to bother with getting all the FAA approvals needed for their rockets because it took too long. Space-x still got government contracts.

        How long back was that? I genuinely didn’t hear about that, but I believe that would happen. I tried googling “space x faa” but I’m getting results of FAA investigating rocket issues and approvals of rocket models.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        They say this is for enterprise and government, and they talk about “terminals”. This seems more like a Hughes network, and let me tell you, if it’s that bad, you want nothing to do with it.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 minutes ago

        In an ideal world, starlink should be internationalized by the U.N.

        We don’t need half a dozen companies in every developed nation putting their own garbage in orbit just to provide rural internet for a minority of a minority of the planet. Those systems are in orbit, they can provide internet to the overwhelming majority of humans.

        But instead we’re gonna fuck up our ability to use a load of space telescopes needed to help see potentially dangerous asteroids, and all these satellites burning up in orbit are gonna fuck up the atmosphere, opening up the hole in the ozone layer even more.

    • Tillman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Can you imagine who would run those companies if they were government owned?

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Yeah. A gov; be it the UN or a country.

        Having worked and then contracted to regional and Muni govs, and worked for dotcoms, I can tell you one of them follows way, WAY more of the regs than the other.

        It’s like transpo & highways vs private roads and rail: one of them is way better-maintained when there is a comparison.

        • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Not the person you commented on, but think about the reason why people are wanting SpaceX to be nationalised when NASA exists and is already Government owned.

          SpaceX is light years, pardon the pun, ahead of NASA. If SpaceX was taken over by the government, SpaceX would likely end up like NASA as it would be taken over by the same people and have mountains more red tape in order to do anything. It would destroy SpaceX and put space exploration back decades.