• partial_accumen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    110 months ago

    If SpaceX is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.

    Remove the SpaceX name from that statement and the statement is just as crazy.

    Examples:

    • If Verizon is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Raytheon is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Northrup Grumman is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If General Dynamics Electric Boat is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Honeywell International is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Boeing is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.
    • If Norfolk Southern Railway is that critical to national defense & foreign policy, it should be nationalized.

    It just isn’t our country’s way to steal a company from its owners or shareholders. Its a bit frightening you think it should be.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1010 months ago

      Most or all of your examples have meaningfully valid competitors in the space. SpaceX does not, at least not yet.

      • partial_accumen
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -310 months ago

        So your rationale for seizing a private company is that it is better than its competitors?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          610 months ago

          No, it’s that as an effective monopoly, it has unreasonable power over the government.

          • partial_accumen
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -110 months ago

            You’re 17 years too late to use that argument in good faith. Not only is SpaceX not a monopoly (because there are many other companies you can buy launch services from in the USA) but because that wasn’t the case in 2006 when Boeing and Lockheed (with USA government consent!) created a TRUE launch monopoly by merging to create ULA (United Launch Alliance).

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              310 months ago

              I’m not strictly arguing for federalization, but you’re arguing through whataboutism. And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

              • partial_accumen
                link
                fedilink
                English
                110 months ago

                I’m not strictly arguing for federalization,

                You’re replying to the thread where the OP wanted to nationalized SpaceX. I haven’t heard you say different. What are you proposing instead?

                but you’re arguing through whataboutism.

                No, I’m citing precedent. Its extremely applicable because its the exact same industry, and even existed before SpaceX. .

                And SpaceX is an effective monopoly. Otherwise we’d use other launch services at least some significant amount.

                I don’t think you follow spaceflight very much if you hold this statement. I’m assuming the “we” you’re using here means US government launch.

                Here’s US government launches that ULA did in 2022 and 2023 so far: 7 launches

                Delta IV Heavy | NROL-68 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA June 22, 2023, 9:18 a.m.

                Delta IV Heavy | NROL-91 United Launch Alliance | USA Vandenberg SFB, CA, USA Sept. 24, 2022, 10:25 p.m.

                Atlas V 421 | SBIRS GEO-6 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Aug. 4, 2022, 10:29 a.m.

                Atlas V 541 | USSF-12 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA July 1, 2022, 11:15 p.m.

                Atlas V N22 | CST-100 Starliner Orbital Flight Test 2 (OFT-2) United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA May 19, 2022, 6:54 p.m.

                Atlas V 541 | GOES-T United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA March 1, 2022, 9:38 p.m.

                Atlas V 511 | USSF-8 United Launch Alliance | USA Cape Canaveral, FL, USA Jan. 21, 2022, 7 p.m.

                source

                How is SpaceX am “effective” monopoly?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 months ago

                  I was arguing a point, not a position.

                  And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently. StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

                  Precedent does not intrinsically imply merit.

                  • partial_accumen
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    110 months ago

                    And SpaceX is literally the only means by which the US is able to send astronauts to the ISS currently.

                    Incorrect. The US can and does send astronauts on Soyuz. One of the astronauts currently on the ISS arrived on Soyuz. Additionally, the US chose this path irrespective of companies and vendors when they chose to stop flying the Space Shuttle. You can’t blame SpaceX for being successful and Boeing for being unsuccessful as justification to seize a private company.

                    StarLink is a strategically critical service for military and probably other purposes.

                    That is true state for hundreds of services providing by private companies to the US government. Why aren’t you arguing to seize or nationalize those?

                    I was arguing a point, not a position.

                    So this whole thing is an exercise in pedantry?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      310 months ago

      So… In your opinion, it should be allowed to operate like any normal company without restrictions? What would happen if, say, a powerful Chinese investor attempted to buy it outright?

      • partial_accumen
        link
        fedilink
        English
        310 months ago

        So… In your opinion, it should be allowed to operate like any normal company without restrictions?

        I can’t tell what you’re trying to say with your first sentence. Most companies DO have specific restrictions based upon their industry, environmental impact, and various forms of regulatory compliance. SpaceX isn’t an exception.

        What would happen if, say, a powerful Chinese investor attempted to buy it outright?

        It likely wouldn’t be allowed just like other national strategic companies. What is your point with that?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          And what if a nation bought the guy in charge? You know, like has potentially already happened with the PIF

    • @miskOP
      link
      English
      210 months ago

      There’s a caveat. Most countries will heavily regulate access to limited resources, for example radio frequency bands. SpaceX is occupying defined orbit which means it’s perfectly reasonable to ensure society benefits from this privilege.