If they maintain their development speed I don’t have much hope. They got started before SpaceX and still haven’t reached orbit.
fooblaster 18 hours ago [-]
They reached orbit with new glenn in January. This just isn't true.
vjvjvjvjghv 1 hours ago [-]
Totally forgot about that. When is their next launch?
rockemsockem 18 hours ago [-]
I generally agree with this sentiment, but they did reach orbit with their sole launch of New Glenn! An admirable thing, even if it took like a quarter of a century.....
kulahan 19 hours ago [-]
Does anyone have a mirror?
jdkee 14 hours ago [-]
Does NASA have heavy lift capability today? Why not?
foobarbecue 14 hours ago [-]
Yes, SLS.
14 hours ago [-]
1970-01-01 24 hours ago [-]
And if Elon pulls SpaceX out of NASA?
tocs3 24 hours ago [-]
I think Elon has more to lose than the folks holding the purse strings for NASA. Defense contracts might make some pause for a little while but congress has a long history of supporting more traditional defense contractors and they could spend some money on lobbying (or dinner at Mar a Lago).
credit_guy 16 hours ago [-]
Yeah... no. If the Golden Dome hopes to have a chance to get built (on budget), SpaceX needs to get involved.
tocs3 15 hours ago [-]
SpaceX did OK with the Dragon capsule some years ago. I will happily give them credit budget wise and performance (and timing for something like that is hard). The Golden Dome project is a different animal all together. This is a cynical take, but Golden Dome is another giant DoD project. It will not keep to any sort of budget and the timeline is fantasy. Something might get produced but congress will have no trouble awarding launch contracts to who ever spends the most on lobbying.
whatever1 19 hours ago [-]
What if the gov takes over SpaceX overnight?
to11mtm 18 hours ago [-]
You'd have bigger questions coming up based on the general 'how did it get to this' as well as any other companies as well as the populace being very concerned about such behavior.
forgetfreeman 18 hours ago [-]
I think you might be surprised to find out how much of the populace would literally applaud such behavior.
lantry 17 hours ago [-]
agreed. the right will believe whatever trump tells them, and the left would be happy to see Elon knocked down a peg.
BryanLegend 17 hours ago [-]
We ain't stupid
kasperni 11 hours ago [-]
Until they saw the stock market...
forgetfreeman 4 hours ago [-]
Given the market's enthusiasm for speculating on TSLA during the recent controversy and protests on two continents I see no evidence to suggest speculators would take a day off just because Musk got his shit ruined.
brookst 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
DaSHacka 16 hours ago [-]
Probably not even.
The government could just pull a classic "we're doing this because terrorism" with the media emphasizing how great it is, and the masses would clap all the same.
Analemma_ 15 hours ago [-]
I think you're making 2005 comments in a 2025 world. As of, well, yesterday, pretty much everybody, on every side of politics, hates Elon's guts and would cheer the government on if it knocked him down. No media manipulation required, that's so last century.
DaSHacka 11 hours ago [-]
> that's so last century.
2020 and 2023 are "last century"?
cma 15 hours ago [-]
They wouldn't need terrorism or the defense production act. Musk can have citizenship stripped since he illegally worked under a student visa according to his brother, if he didn't disclose it in the naturalization process. And any assets earned while here can be taken. The latter may be harder but could be done with civil asset forfeiture stuff Trump brought back last term, with a lower standard of proof, though I think that was more about sharing state forfeitures.
morkalork 16 hours ago [-]
Yadda yadda spacex nationalized as a matter of national security temporarily until it will be returned to private sector at later date after any and all threats are neutralized blah blah offers for new ownership be taken starting in 2028
indy 17 hours ago [-]
Then any progress would also stop overnight.
piva00 10 hours ago [-]
The USA would get SpaceX but also have to deal with businesses getting spooked that the government can now nationalise private assets on a whim.
When that happened in Iran 1953 the CIA fostered a coup; Cuba is under embargo since the 60s triggered by Fidel nationalising sugar mills; Chile's coup in the 70s with CIA support was triggered by nationalisation of the copper mines; invasion of Panama in the 80s was from tensions with Noriega wanting to take over the canal's assets.
Venezuela's sanctions were because Chávez nationalised oil under PDVSA. The rift with Bolivia's Evo Morales was from gas nationalisation.
So if the USA just takes over someone's private company it will be absurdly hypocritical, and shatter even more the USA's international reputation, the added risk to businesses in the USA after this precedent opens will probably also be of concern.
nickthegreek 16 hours ago [-]
they should probably toss in starlink as well.
dev1ycan 17 hours ago [-]
I'll be honest, SpaceX is his as long as he respects the country he is at, and what he was allowed to do, he "joked" about decommisioning the dragon but I don't think a single person in government will allow him to sabotage the ISS like that. Actual room for criminal investigation and possibly expropiation. If he was in Canada or South Africa he wouldn't have access to the technical knowledge or talent that he has in the US, due to law, and said law exists to protect critical industries in America, it goes both ways, you are also not allowed as an individual to sabotage the nation.
lostlogin 15 hours ago [-]
> you are also not allowed as an individual to sabotage the nation.
I’m not sure of this.
KerrAvon 14 hours ago [-]
I wouldn’t have thought a south african script kiddie would be allowed to do it, but as long as it had the Oompa-Loompa president’s OK, apparently everyone is good with it.
georgemcbay 17 hours ago [-]
Pretty sure his relatively quick walk back on that "joke" was due to the realization that if it was left open as a credible threat it is very likely the government would have just seized control of SpaceX immediately.
There's not really any need to charge him with anything to do that when he is making active threats to weaken national security, though its possible they might have separately gone after him.
And if the government did take that action they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides.
JumpCrisscross 17 hours ago [-]
> if they did, they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides
What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy.
hn_throwaway_99 17 hours ago [-]
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee - the US is not the same place it was a decade ago.
And this isn't just a random expropriation. While I may have to cry myself to sleep at the thought of our once great nation having devolved into a bitchy slap fest by a couple of narcissistic man babies, the fact is that SpaceX probably wouldn't exist today without the US government, so with Musk having a temper tantrum and saying "I'm taking my toys and going home", the US government would have at least somewhat valid national security reasons to take over SpaceX.
Couple that with the fact that Musk is hated, extremely, by many folks out both sides of the political aisle, means that the rule of law concerns about a SpaceX expropriation would largely be ignored.
sircastor 14 hours ago [-]
Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO.
Your rationalization of it is not unreasonable, but the market would panic in a bad way if the government showed it was willing to take extremes.
georgemcbay 14 hours ago [-]
> Yes, but every large company in the US would view the nationalization of SpaceX as “shots fired” and investors would likely panic worrying that their stock portfolios would be at arbitrary whims of a tiff between the administration and the CEO.
I don't agree with this.
Like if it were merely a "tiff" between the administration and a CEO, then yes that would be destabilizing, but there is important context here that you are entirely glossing over.
Elon threatened to take his ball and go home in a literally life threatening (to astronauts) way after making SpaceX an essential aspect of the space program. If he didn't walk back that threat I think it would have been very easy for large companies to see the outcome as entirely Elon's fault and maybe just double-check in on their own CEOs to make sure they make sane decisions.
I'm personally convinced Elon realizing the likelihood of this outcome (probably because someone else reminded him of it) is exactly why he started walking the threat back.
And as a side effect of this mess, Elon also unintentionally gave everyone a pretty good reason to reconsider if its a great idea to allow any privatized entity to become "too big to fail" (or, more exactly, too big to easily replace if their CEO goes crazy) within any important government function.
georgemcbay 17 hours ago [-]
> What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy.
Right here where I live, in the United States.
I never suggested expropriation in general would be widely supported, but when you have the richest man in the world (who has spent the last year making enemies of virtually everyone other than a small cadre of twitter shitposters) manically making decisions while reportedly on a downward spiral drug bender and he suggests taking action that would lead to endangering the lives of astronauts and an overall weakening of America's national security, yeah the government would have had massive popular support for seizing SpaceX.
If you don't think so I think you might be living in a libertarian bubble.
JumpCrisscross 17 hours ago [-]
> criminal investigation and possibly expropiation
Criminal investigation into lying on clearance forms about drug use effectively sidelines him SpaceX’s chain of command without stealing his or anyone else’s shareholdings.
That said, it would be an authoritarian shot across the bow for Silicon Valley from this White House.
watwut 21 hours ago [-]
He wants them money. The contracts for SpaceX is his primary gain from his political engagement. He needs those contracts and got them.
If he looses them, it will be as a revenge from Trump rather then voluntary something.
mft_ 20 hours ago [-]
To offer a little factual background:
* The fact that SpaceX is currently the only US company with an available and reliable capacity to fly astronauts to/from the ISS is the main reason for many of the contracts, and they had this before and irrespective of Musk's political engagement.
* For other launch activities unrelated to the ISS, SpaceX offers the most cost-effective service, so again it's not unreasonable that they would win business irrespective.
* Most of SpaceX's active contracts with NASA predate Trump's second term.
tayo42 15 hours ago [-]
How was the US getting to the iss before SpaceX. Seems to concerning to have all of the capabilities tied up with one irrational guy and his toy company
mft_ 3 hours ago [-]
It’s that:
a) NASA didn’t/doesn’t have the capacity
b) The Russians did have the capacity but it was expensive and also painful to American egos to utilise this repeatedly, not to mention a risk due to geopolitical uncertainty.
c) NASA therefore funded Boeing and SpaceX to develop ‘home grown’ capability. (Note: SpaceX received less than Boeing for this development.)
d) Boeing’s space division lost up a big lead (over SpaceX) through poor development and execution, echoes of which continue to this day with the issues seen with Starliner leading to the two astronauts being effectively ‘stranded’ for a period of
e) SpaceX did a good job of developing Dragon and getting Falcon 9 rated for human flight. Since then, their reliability, low cost, and high launch cadence, coupled with Boeing’s missteps, has led to multiple contracts and successful launches.
—-
It’s also worth mentioning that SoaceX was started when Musk wasn’t so crazy (remember, once upon a time, he was the woke darling of the progressive center-left) and also that a lot of its success and stability may be thanks to its COO, Gwynne Shotwell. Calling it Musk’s “toy company” ignores the huge advances it has made, thanks to the fantastic people that work there, and also (gulp) Musk himself.
dboreham 14 hours ago [-]
Russian rockets.
KerrAvon 14 hours ago [-]
IIRC paying the Russians.
dkjaudyeqooe 19 hours ago [-]
Musk tried to have a close associate installed as the head of NASA. Even if those facts are true there are many, many benefits Musk stood to get.
So although the GP comment is a bit silly it's still in the ballpark.
RIMR 19 hours ago [-]
SpaceX would go under, that's basically all of their income...
bpodgursky 18 hours ago [-]
NASA is about $1B of SpaceX's ~$15B revenue.
SpaceX does a LOT of commercial launch. And Starlink is growing fast.
JumpCrisscross 17 hours ago [-]
I’m assuming if Trump is cancelling SpaceX’s NASA contracts he’s also yanking launch and possibly even radio authorisation.
In a strange way, the middle path is targeting Elon personally. Not his companies.
smegger001 16 hours ago [-]
his companies board memebers need to grow a backbone and at the very least demand he go to rehab if not "promote him to Emeritus CEO" and remove his actual control give him just another seat on the board then threaten to revoke his voting rights if he does shut up.
bpodgursky 16 hours ago [-]
Tesla can do this but he has voting control at SpaceX
bpodgursky 16 hours ago [-]
I mean if Trump really wants to lose more court cases he's welcome to try, but I doubt it would get that far.
The DoD knows if SpaceX can't launch, they straight up will never get their assets into orbit. The ULA backlog is like a decade.
KerrAvon 14 hours ago [-]
He’s winning the important ones. The Supreme Court keeps giving him the green light to wipe his ass with the constitution.
16 hours ago [-]
Rendered at 17:56:14 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
The government could just pull a classic "we're doing this because terrorism" with the media emphasizing how great it is, and the masses would clap all the same.
2020 and 2023 are "last century"?
When that happened in Iran 1953 the CIA fostered a coup; Cuba is under embargo since the 60s triggered by Fidel nationalising sugar mills; Chile's coup in the 70s with CIA support was triggered by nationalisation of the copper mines; invasion of Panama in the 80s was from tensions with Noriega wanting to take over the canal's assets.
Venezuela's sanctions were because Chávez nationalised oil under PDVSA. The rift with Bolivia's Evo Morales was from gas nationalisation.
So if the USA just takes over someone's private company it will be absurdly hypocritical, and shatter even more the USA's international reputation, the added risk to businesses in the USA after this precedent opens will probably also be of concern.
I’m not sure of this.
There's not really any need to charge him with anything to do that when he is making active threats to weaken national security, though its possible they might have separately gone after him.
And if the government did take that action they would have had incredibly high popular support for doing so among virtually everyone on both sides.
What? Where? If you mean expropriation, no, that has never been popular here, it’s part of why we have a massive economy.
And this isn't just a random expropriation. While I may have to cry myself to sleep at the thought of our once great nation having devolved into a bitchy slap fest by a couple of narcissistic man babies, the fact is that SpaceX probably wouldn't exist today without the US government, so with Musk having a temper tantrum and saying "I'm taking my toys and going home", the US government would have at least somewhat valid national security reasons to take over SpaceX.
Couple that with the fact that Musk is hated, extremely, by many folks out both sides of the political aisle, means that the rule of law concerns about a SpaceX expropriation would largely be ignored.
Your rationalization of it is not unreasonable, but the market would panic in a bad way if the government showed it was willing to take extremes.
I don't agree with this.
Like if it were merely a "tiff" between the administration and a CEO, then yes that would be destabilizing, but there is important context here that you are entirely glossing over.
Elon threatened to take his ball and go home in a literally life threatening (to astronauts) way after making SpaceX an essential aspect of the space program. If he didn't walk back that threat I think it would have been very easy for large companies to see the outcome as entirely Elon's fault and maybe just double-check in on their own CEOs to make sure they make sane decisions.
I'm personally convinced Elon realizing the likelihood of this outcome (probably because someone else reminded him of it) is exactly why he started walking the threat back.
And as a side effect of this mess, Elon also unintentionally gave everyone a pretty good reason to reconsider if its a great idea to allow any privatized entity to become "too big to fail" (or, more exactly, too big to easily replace if their CEO goes crazy) within any important government function.
Right here where I live, in the United States.
I never suggested expropriation in general would be widely supported, but when you have the richest man in the world (who has spent the last year making enemies of virtually everyone other than a small cadre of twitter shitposters) manically making decisions while reportedly on a downward spiral drug bender and he suggests taking action that would lead to endangering the lives of astronauts and an overall weakening of America's national security, yeah the government would have had massive popular support for seizing SpaceX.
If you don't think so I think you might be living in a libertarian bubble.
Criminal investigation into lying on clearance forms about drug use effectively sidelines him SpaceX’s chain of command without stealing his or anyone else’s shareholdings.
That said, it would be an authoritarian shot across the bow for Silicon Valley from this White House.
If he looses them, it will be as a revenge from Trump rather then voluntary something.
* The fact that SpaceX is currently the only US company with an available and reliable capacity to fly astronauts to/from the ISS is the main reason for many of the contracts, and they had this before and irrespective of Musk's political engagement.
* For other launch activities unrelated to the ISS, SpaceX offers the most cost-effective service, so again it's not unreasonable that they would win business irrespective.
* Most of SpaceX's active contracts with NASA predate Trump's second term.
a) NASA didn’t/doesn’t have the capacity
b) The Russians did have the capacity but it was expensive and also painful to American egos to utilise this repeatedly, not to mention a risk due to geopolitical uncertainty.
c) NASA therefore funded Boeing and SpaceX to develop ‘home grown’ capability. (Note: SpaceX received less than Boeing for this development.)
d) Boeing’s space division lost up a big lead (over SpaceX) through poor development and execution, echoes of which continue to this day with the issues seen with Starliner leading to the two astronauts being effectively ‘stranded’ for a period of
e) SpaceX did a good job of developing Dragon and getting Falcon 9 rated for human flight. Since then, their reliability, low cost, and high launch cadence, coupled with Boeing’s missteps, has led to multiple contracts and successful launches.
—-
It’s also worth mentioning that SoaceX was started when Musk wasn’t so crazy (remember, once upon a time, he was the woke darling of the progressive center-left) and also that a lot of its success and stability may be thanks to its COO, Gwynne Shotwell. Calling it Musk’s “toy company” ignores the huge advances it has made, thanks to the fantastic people that work there, and also (gulp) Musk himself.
So although the GP comment is a bit silly it's still in the ballpark.
SpaceX does a LOT of commercial launch. And Starlink is growing fast.
In a strange way, the middle path is targeting Elon personally. Not his companies.
The DoD knows if SpaceX can't launch, they straight up will never get their assets into orbit. The ULA backlog is like a decade.