After giving in to Putin/Xi’s demands to not provide starlink internet service over Taiwan, DOD officials are growing nervous about trusting Elon’s Space company with our national secrets

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    22 days ago

    No, not everything needs to be nationalized. That’s a lazy excuse to solving problems and often just leads to different issues. Look at the fights we have for NASA’s current miniscule budget slice for a perfect example. Our government is dog shit at allocating and running departments like this, primarily because of politics.

    Remember that neither NASA or the military actually build anything themselves, everything is outsourced to companies like SpaceX, Lockheed, Boeing, etc. So you’re advocating all of that to be brought into the government bureaucracy machine with no existing infrastructure to manage it, for it to be smothered to death by politicians trying to “prove” that government doesn’t work.

    Instead, they just need to demand that Elon not have any decision making position at the company to continue getting contracts, blacklist him. As it is, daily SpaceX operations run without Elon. Gwynne Shotwell actually runs the company, regardless of specific titles. Elon doesn’t actually do the engineering work either, so while he may be involved in major decisions, it’s more the overall vision, the company would operate just fine whether he’s there or not. HE is the problem, not SpaceX as a company, and not the entire C-Suite team, just him. Get rid of him and the place runs just like it does now, works towards the same goals, and daily operations and contracts continue as normal,

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      No, not everything needs to be nationalized.

      Good thing no one said everything, just a rocket company that NASA wouldn’t need to outsource to anymore since they would have the facilities to make all the rockets they wanted themselves.

      • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 days ago

        Problem is that if SpaceX becomes part of NASA, then it’ll be like the space shuttle. It’ll need parts made by every small company that contributed to some random representative in every state, so we’ll end up with 300+ contractors all building critical components.

          • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            22 days ago

            It could, but that’s not how these types of programs get run. They’re as much about making jobs in specific areas as they are about solving a problem.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              22 days ago

              That’s not a very convincing argument. The U.S. has never nationalized a company like SpaceX before. We have no idea how it would be run.

              I don’t find the libertarian “everything the government does is inefficient and corrupt” ideas very compelling.

              • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 days ago

                You’re putting words in my mouth and exaggerating my statements. Just look at how the NASA manned space programs have run since the start, AND how they are currently run. Congress puts a lot of stipulations on how they are manufactured. NASA has a big problem with congressional interference.

                Their science/unmanned programs are different, because congress is more hands off. Those are running just fine. The problem is that SpaceX is a huge cost and has a lot of manufacturing and jobs associated with it. That invites congressional interference.

                Not only that, but they also have a large commercial presence already with the Starlink. The government doesn’t typically run things like that, so they’ll probably sell of the Starlink portion of the company.

                It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not libertarian-ism, it’s just how NASA is run. Once the budgets get into the billions, congress can’t keep their hands off it.

                Yes, there are certainly problems with the Commercial Crew program right now, just look at how Starliner is run. We probably won’t get a capsule from Boeing, because they don’t have an incentive to finish, due to the fact that it’s not a cost+ program like the SLS is. SLS is also constrained by politics, they are required to use so many Shuttle parts, just to keep those sub-contractors happy.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      they wouldn’t need to take SpaceX. just replace Musk’s ownership/control with Some Advisory Board™️staffed by project managers that know the fuck they’re doing. SpaceX wouldn’t necessarily need to be closed- just a change in ownership.

      Granted, that’s pratically a pipe dream since congress has been intent on privatization instead of having NASA be in that role.

      after about a decade, the government then sells its stake off slowly; probably reaping a rather huge profit while it’s at it.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      lazy excuse

      Lol what? You think that would be easy? Like when Michael tries to “declare bankruptcy” in The Office?