• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

        • EvilBit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year 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).

            • EvilBit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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?

                • EvilBit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year 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?

    • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year 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?

        • 9point6@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

    • misk@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.