483
DOD "Anxious" Over Trusting Musk with Spy Satellites
(futurism.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
483 points (99.2% liked)
News
23281 readers
3888 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In what would be an unprecedented move, the US needs to nationalize SpaceX in the name of national security.
They don’t need to go that far. Just force Musk to divest. (And prosecute him for any crimes he’s committed, but that might be asking too much of the government.)
They should go that far though.
This entire position that things are in are a direct result of a certain party trying to privatize space travel, and "run it like a business", which is how the Challenger disaster happened.
So wouldn't be the worst idea to pull waayyyyyy back.
It's not unprecedented, though.
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,
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.
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.
Why can't it source those things the same way SpaceX does now?
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.
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.
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.
Or maybe they just cancel Starlink.
In fact, maybe that should happen regardless.
https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-threat-to-ozone-layer-recovery
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.
Lol what? You think that would be easy? Like when Michael tries to "declare bankruptcy" in The Office?