Aw man, if only there was some sort of space administration that you could invest some of your trillions of dollars into so that your satellites could be launched by a group that you can monitor and trust.
Nope, everything in the US must be privatized. EVERYTHING. Capitalism DEMANDS it
To be fair here... The old guard still aren't working on reuse even after SpaceX not only championed it but actually succeeded and proved reliability.
The old launch providers are still just throwing their shit away and still cost billions of dollars for launches.
The Commercial Resupply Service and Commercial Crew Programs have also achieved better standards than NASA had when they started them, and at much cheaper cost than the previous solutions.
Privatisation isn't inherently bad, and importantly, the money is still being handled through NASA for oversight.
I bet if you offered them grant money to develop it... it wouldn't have been left on the table.
No, but they wouldn't do anything beyond the exact specific minimums of the grant either.
And you think a private business will do anything more than the minimum of a contract?
SpaceX has with their vehicles and options. They're all more capable than the contact they were built under.
Yes
Huh? Why do you think this? The implication seems to be that they want to pocket the rest or something?
Let's not forget, we are talking about NASA here, not a private corporation. Why would an arm of the federal government have any interest in not doing "anything beyond the exact specific minimums of the grant"?
I cannot speak to building rockets, but I do know about other types of government financing, and I can tell you that the scientists and engineers who would have received such a grant, would have no reason not to use as much of it as possible. In fact, that's exactly how they would justify a need for more in the future.
NASA aren't the ones building things. They're just the ones deciding what the requirements are after Congress gives them a fraction of what they need to accomplish the impossible.
It's the likes of Boeing that are building and milking it. And they have never done more than the minimum required, and until competition from SpaceX at a fraction of the cost were experts at milking the Cost Plus contracting they essentially required to do anything space related.
NASA will never be in charge of building things on their own. Space too much of a cash cow for the Congress Critters to milk via the complexity and obfuscation of the government contract process. Thinking they would be able to bring anything in house is hilarious.
Also does it even SEEM like NASA cuts corners? No. They know people’s lives are at stake. They test and retest and are very dedicated to proper procedure so things don’t get fucked up the wrong way … like when you cut corners.
the money is still being handled through NASA for oversight.
Oversight of the money is far from the problem here. This is not an issue of cheating the government or mismanagement of money, this is a national security issue.
this is a national security issue.
In some ways, SpaceX delivered too well.
NASA has been trying to find multiple launch providers but where are they? This is probably not the risk reduction they were going for but it is exactly risk that can be reduced by having multiple providers. However SpaceX succeeded well enough to dominate the field, worldwide
Where are Bozos and those other guys? Where even is ULA? Where’s that payback on NASA funding?
Revoke his security clearance. They did it to Oppenheimer for a lot less.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
lazy excuse
Lol what? You think that would be easy? Like when Michael tries to "declare bankruptcy" in The Office?
It's not unprecedented, though.
If you're going to rely on private firms for your aerospace espionage endeavors, maybe factor in their leader's sanity before you sign the contract with them.
Nah. Loads of things just shouldn't be privatised.
What do you value higher - that one company's profits or the public? Why are you so selfish? Why can't you just be happy that that one company gets to hold the entire population hostage over the necessary good or service that they can then monopolise? It's so much easier to squeeze the poor for all they own when their very survival depends on the things you can hand out or hold back at a whim. Something something the free market will probably prevent abuse or something, so it's perfectly okay.
I 100% agree with you but is there someone else in thr US who can reliably launch satellites? I know several othe companies are developing these systems but I don't think any are anywhere close to Space X's reliability or capability.
Space X is doing some awesome stuff and I hate that the awesome has to be tempered by the owner is a piece of shit.
They're only able to do it because they've received trillions of dollars from the federal government.
They should nationalize SpaceX before they ever let someone like Musk get the security clearance needed to be in that position.
Yet another reason billionaires shouldn’t exist. Dude is making international policy based on requests from foreign leaders, along with having conversations with them while launching the US government’s satellites of national security importance.
They should be, it's a spectacularly bad idea.
Just outsource DOD too, they basically work for their main sponsors anyway.
/s
In his defense, the GOP also answers to Putin, so it makes sense he would too.
why the hell would you be?
What even is the DOD/DOJ doing here?
Surely you meant "wouldn't"
Wtf is this article? If there’s a doubt about someone’s national security clearance, revoke it immediately until further review. Being anxious means nothing. Do or don’t.
"As much as I hate elon..."
"I hate elon as much as the next guy, but...."
"Look, I'm no elon fan, but..."
I'm sure you all know, but to be clear, when you see the above in elon posts... these are the beginnings of sentences from people who don't hate elon. They are sentences from people who like elon, but think you will hate them, or not consider their opinions, if they say out loud that they do, in fact, like elon.
On a separate but related note, this is elon speaking at a hate-filled rally featuring a series of bigoted speakers, including himself. The rally very intentionally cosplayed an American Nazi rally that famously occurred at Madison Square garden in the 1930s. To emphasize how on the nose this all was, elon wore a specially made hat - a hat that very deliberately used an especially prominent font from the Nazi era. They are literally SCREAMING it in your face and tattooing it on their foreheads
elon has done nothing good or admirable with his life and elon will will not do anything good or admirable with his life. You can't compartmentalize your opinion on this, he sucks, on the whole.
Jesus Christ.
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. 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.