• laber@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    27 minutes 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
    11
    ·
    11 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.

  • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    No, they’re fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I agreed with this sentiment six months ago, but now I like public hangings and nationalizing companies

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

      Nobody thinks about that, just about hitting the people they don’t like. They don’t think of consequences, they don’t think that nationalization means humongous companies and wealth in fact changing hands in favor of people who already control the government.

      That’s every fascist regime in history BTW - make your natural opponents hang themselves. Like in Russia in 1999 groups people most hurt by Yeltsin’s regime were deceived into voting for Putin, because he managed to create that “Soviet intelligence agent” image, despite being continuation of said regime. Or again in 2004, when he managed to take credit for growing oil prices, which meant that said groups of people feared literal starvation less, and the factor they’ve grown by compared to 1998 was so huge, that Russia’s level of life really didn’t catch up, but that was enough. Hold people in misery, throw them bones, they’ll be grateful.

      Also why most Russians gloated over Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, other oligarchs being beaten by Putin.

      Cause the oligarchs seemed the face of that regime, except Putin was its soul materialized. They somehow thought that when he hurts all the oligarchs enough, things will be good.

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Nah fuck the shareholders, if they do something we depend on and pay for it with tax dollars then we should own them.

      • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Yeah, we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that’s fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It’s fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they’re delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn’t just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.

        That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I’m with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should’ve receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn’t nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid.

          Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.

          Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.

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

      The precedent that will set and the implications

      and what precedent is there for dealing with the executive of your country’s entire space launch infrastructure when they become dependent on horse drugs?

      No really, what’s the precedent here, I want to know. Because if we set a precedent by ignoring it until the problem is impossible to ignore, that’s gonna be a far more expensive fix.

      So yeah, yeah we should consider this very strongly.

    • RoyaltyInTraining@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 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
      3
      ·
      14 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.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 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.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    14 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.

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The only reason SpaceX exists is because Boeing and Lockheed managed to compete so badly the only solution was to merge their launch businesses.

      So we had one launch company, then spaceX made it two providers, now its back to one because B-mart is using antiquated launch systems (single use).

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

        this isn’t incorrect. ULA is a fucking pork barrel of hideous proportions. doesn’t mean we shouldn’t nationalize spacex.

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    One way to get businesses to move their factories back to the US due to tarrifs: Start nationalizing them.

    /s

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      remember the halcyon days when NASA could do something and the president might not like it, but they were all FUCKING ADULTS and the grift was well distributed amongst the congresscreatures, so it never devolved into adolescent twitter whining?

      goddamn those were better than whatever this shit is

  • Not a replicant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?

    • TronBronson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Dude… nationalize just means the US takes ownership of the company. They keep all the employees they keep all the customers. It runs like normal under new ownership. The taxpayers now own it. it’s a great idea.

      You see too long we have been using public funding and allowing rich people to privatize the gains. It’s time to privatize those games and take back what we invested in as US citizens. We will still offer you eurocucks Internet since apparently it is more important than having a moral fiber in your body

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

      Seriously this comment doesn’t make any sense. It’s like you do not understand what you are commenting on and yet here you are with four up votes and now have my down vote and go forth and use a dictionary before you comment next time

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      SpaceX’s largest customer is the US government; once that relationship has been repaired I’m ambivalent about private/public ownership.

      HMmmmM?

      because let’s be honest, without tons of US GOV’T SUPPORT, SpaceX wouldn’t have ever been able to provide all those POPs, terminals and services. Funny thing that.

    • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      12 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).

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    23 hours 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
      ·
      16 minutes 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
      19
      ·
      21 hours ago

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

  • psycho_driver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    Lets reach a compromise. Impeach Trump (successfully) and then take away SpaceX from Elon. That way things would be fair.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah I mean the tax payers have literally already paid for all of both SpaceX and Starlink. The public paid for it, the public should own it.

    • bulwark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 day ago

      They’re just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that’s something.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        The FCC revoked that award before the money was handed over because starlink wasn’t meeting the speeds they needed to meet for the deadline 3 years in the future and they didn’t think they would make it. The speeds that money was supposed to help them achieve launching the satellites required to meet it.

        No one else had that made up requirement put on them in advance.

        The goal that was 3 years in the future, which would have been around now or early 2026, required them to meet their speed (100d + 20u) and latency (<100ms) goals for 40% of the 650k rural users.

        They had 1.5 million US customers at the start of 2025, not sure how many are part of this rural 650k but id imagine the majority are, and only 260k of the rural ones have to meet the requirements.

        Ookla did a post about starlink in Maine where it shows many of the users are meeting those requirements

        https://www.ookla.com/articles/above-maine-starlink-twinkles

        Median DL: 116.77 (over the required 100)

        Media UL: 18.17 (just shy of the required 20)

        90th Percentile DL: 250.96

        90th Percentile UL 27.17

        If Maine is a representative example, then they are probably meeting their 40% target of 260k rural users despite not getting the money which would have accelerated things and made launches more focused on meeting the goals.

        Edit: extra details.

        Edit: I was just looking up more info on the program, and the deadline to report would have been in January 2025, so it would have been with the 1.5 million users they had at the start of the year, not around now, or 2026 as I’d said. That Ookla report was December 2024. We should get a report from the FCC (this summer?) that outlines how many others met their respective 40% target.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    20 hours ago

    No thanks, demolish Leon Hitler’s space program and bury it. NASA should be the US leader for space missions and not a South African neo-Nazi sack of shit.