• Not a replicant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

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

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 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
    12
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 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.

    • pneumatron@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Health insurance, ISP, Oil Cos, and utilities should also be nationalized. The US is a weird place where everything is a business. A shithole capitalist hellscape

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 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.

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 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
      5
      ·
      7 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
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

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

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

          You don’t nationalise a company (SpaceX) just because the existing government owned company (NASA) is significantly worse. What do you think would happen to SpaceX if they did nationalise it? Lol. It would go to hell, like NASA.

          The government should not be responsible for things like this. The government should provide services for necessities for human rights and general standards of living, but they shouldn’t take over successful companies just because they couldn’t do it themselves.

          • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            NASA was pretty damn efficient with the budget they used to have.

            The wasteful NASA storyline is tiresome and busted.

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

              And why do you think they have zero budget? The government lol. You think if the same government takes over SpaceX they’ll all of a sudden give them the huge budget that they need?

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            sure thing freedumb bro.

            imho, we’ve over-privatized and that’s what’s to blame ULA for. NASA used to design it’s own. Bringing spacex into federal control also prevents further idiocy re: starshield, the ISS, and a whole lot more. I get you don’t like it, but between Ketamine bro and these spasms of ‘I’ll cancel dragon! - nyaaah’ we have literally put all our eggs in one basket being held by a drug addled manchild.

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

              You haven’t put your eggs in any basket. SpaceX are a private company. The government owns NASA, they can pour money into that and hire people to do what SpaceX are doing. Hell, they could poach people from SpaceX!

              Why do you think they haven’t already done this? Because the government don’t care about it. If someone else will do it they can use them to provide their services via ludicrously expensive contracts, and give them massive subsidies, as is the Government way.

              The government taking over SpaceX is not something anyone with even half a brain should be wanting. It makes ZERO sense. It doesn’t matter who owns it privately, just not the government because they will fuck it up and/or neglect it - like they did with NASA and most of their other projects.

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

                You haven’t put your eggs in any basket.

                $38 billion in government funding. huh.

                what reality do you live in?

                • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 minutes ago

                  That’s not putting eggs in a basket, that’s just wasteful government as always. The same government that you guys want to take control of SpaceX lol.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour 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.

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 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
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 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
            ·
            4 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
              1
              ·
              1 hour 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
      11
      ·
      10 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
      13
      ·
      9 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
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

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

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 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.

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

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

    /s

    • zbk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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).

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 hours ago

    That would literally be the worse thing that could happen with regards to them, because they only exist and thrived because they are private enterprise. If the government were capable of doing what those companies do and doing it well, SpaceX and Starlink wouldn’t exist in the first place.

    Can you even imagine just how much money would be wasted and misused and unaccounted for, while nothing actually got done?

    Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is delusional

  • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    17 hours 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
        3
        ·
        6 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
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 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
        15 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
          ·
          4 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
        17 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
          4
          ·
          16 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
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 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
        12
        ·
        16 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.