this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023

49 points (77.5% liked)

Technology

58133 readers

5363 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Elon Musk’s Shadow Rule (www.newyorker.com)

submitted 1 year ago by misk@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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?

[–] iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Meh. Fuck all those corporate assholes.

[–] misk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 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.