• @[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
            110 months ago

            Look, you seem like a pretty intelligent person from your post history. Arguing a point instead of a position isn’t pedantry, it’s precision. You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope. So it’s probably just best for us both to walk away. I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

            • partial_accumen
              link
              fedilink
              English
              310 months ago

              You seem really worked up about this and I understand why, because forced federalization is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

              You and I are in complete agreement. Nationalizing a company would have dramatic and catestrophic effects on the free market society in the United States. I do NOT advocate for that. The closest I would come would be good usage of the Defense Production Act.

              I don’t want to continue refuting you and I hope you have better things to do than to continue refuting me.

              I appreciate the time you’ve taken in having the discussion. I hope you have a great day!