You have NASA FFS. Just fund it.
NASA is too beholden to politics… You can’t do 7 year builds and missions when the Senate flips every 4 years and has to kill everything the other side did on principle that it has a D or R attached to it. Everything is political.
I disagree.
-
You already have a government space agency. Maybe give them more funding so they don’t have to rely on space-x to get their stuff into orbit?
-
There’s a national telecom network already in place. It at least has the potential to be faster and more reliable, if it isn’t already… At least compared to low earth orbit satellite coverage.
There’s no good reason to continue providing Elon or his companies with any government handouts. Pull that funding and give it to… I dunno, students who have more debt than homeowners with a mortgage… NASA… Literally anything that helps people?
-
Arrest Musk on violation of controlled substances acts, file immigration violation charges, invalidate his ownership shares due to securities fraud, as he falsified education and naturalization forms.
Or just emminent domain the shit. The Law is just made up right now.
Such an effort would be likely to fail AND take longer than the current administration is likely to exist.
If not Musk should be forced from his roles in these companies. You cannot be a defense contractor and do ketamine.
how can you trust a board that trusts such incompetence, for DOD projects no less?
failure up and down.
DOD is also responsible for what they accept.
Exactly. SpaceX was sunder scrutiny when he smoked doobie on a podcast. Now he is on drugs and nothing happens.
Best time would’ve been when he pulled that stunt in Ukraine, second best time is now
Now when a Putin simp is leading the country?
I wouldn’t nationalize anything long as the orange could possibly profit off it
I am not saying that I don’t agree with you. But this country is still not even close to considering nationalizing its own telecommunication infrastructure. Much less a privately held space company and a service of communication satellites. A large chunk of America believes that a for-profit business model for every good and service possible in life is the best course of action.
A lot of people are calling this a bailout for Elon, but in reality it would be a seizure. Elon doesn’t want to let go of Starlink and the US likely wouldn’t pay him what it’s worth to take it over.
What people seem to be missing is the precedent this would set. It’s all well and good when we empower the office of the president to seize a private company we don’t like, but after we give them that power what’s to stop them from seizing other businesses?
XYZ company refuses to get rid of their DEI policy because the shareholders voted to keep it? Well now the orange man can seize it.
Let’s not forget that previously it took 2/3rd majority to confirm presidential appointments, but the Senate under Obama decided to change that rule to 50% to get past Republican objections. The result of this is all these shit appointments Trump has passed with 51% of the Senate, none of them would have gotten by if the Democrats hadn’t made a precedent for changing the rules.
No, they’re fine remaining as private companies. If the government wants to better control over the companies then they can pass regulation and if they want total control then they can build their own alternatives. Nationalization of companies should never be used as a political weapon.
Nah fuck the shareholders, if they do something we depend on and pay for it with tax dollars then we should own them.
Yeah, we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that’s fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It’s fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they’re delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn’t just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.
That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I’m with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should’ve receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn’t nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.
we’re not going to nationalize the entire economy because that’s really stupid.
Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.
Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.
Yes, that’s why no one in this entire thread suggested anything even remotely close to this. it’s stupid, and a stupid strawman.
The guy that I replied said that we should nationalize any company that receives tax dollars if we depend on it… Buts that case for virtually the entire economy. Everything is touch by our tax dollars and everything in our economy is intertwined. It is a ridiculous suggestion.
Nationalizing spaceX temporarily in order to restore confidence in it’s largest, most important customer, after that customer’s trust has been repeatedly violated by the executive and the board that keeps him in power, is NOT NATIONALIZING THE ENTIRE ECONOMY nor would it be untoward if Boeing or Lockheed’s CEO was dumb enough to engage in this bullshit.
The government doesn’t nationalize on the behalf of companies, it only temporarily nationalizes when to protect the American economy at large. For example, in 2008 the government took hold of a bunch of auto companies to prevent a collapse of this sector. This is not happening here for SpaceX so it doesn’t make sense to do it.
The thing is you would actually have a really good case to temporarily nationalize Boeing because it is basically our entire commercial plane manufacturing sector, and it’s quickly heading towards collapse. This is a case where it makes sense. Starlink and SpaceX don’t fall under this umbrella.
you genuinely don’t care that critical national infrastructure - literally our ability to put stuff into orbit - is compromised by this penny ante shitbird. I get it, fanboys don’t use logic.
I don’t like Elon, fuck him. My point is that what you’re asking for is setting a precedent we never had. We’ve always had complimentary system between the private and public sectors, most countries are like this as well. Nationalizing companies without a genuine justification is going to cause shock waves throughout the economy. Why would investors spend capital in the country if the government can snatch up their business the moment they’re deemed important? If that’s the only thing needed to nationalize companies, what’s stopping idiots in government like Trump from just weaponizing it by nationalizing any company that competes with his own businesses, political opponents, or his crony friends? Not to mention, where is confidence that our incompetent government is going to manage these companies better than they can manage themselves? These are all really big questions.
There’s a reason why nationalization is left as a temporary last resort measure to rescue economic sectors from collapse. You could make an argument that this would apply for a publicly traded company like Boeing that’s quickly heading towards collapse. Considering how they’re only commercial plane manufacturer, that means they’re our entire industry. The company’s stability is a matter of national security. But SpaceX? None of this applies.
SpaceX is a private business that’s stable, reliable, and competitive. They’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to. It’s easy to say that we should just nationalize companies without thinking about the consequences. I’m in favor of things like universal healthcare, public transit systems, and more power to our research agencies. But these things have to come to fruition through stronger regulations and government alternatives, not nationalization. If there are cases where a company has to be nationalized and there are no alternatives, then they should be bought out.
I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.
I don’t think what I’m saying is controversial.
no, it’s simply business as usual, nothing ever changes, nothing ever improves, and fuck you america, that’s the way it has to be because reasons.
I strongly suspect NASA can manage spaceX better than the ketamine kid. Why don’t you give a fuck about those astronauts who have to put their faith in his hardware? why don’t you give a fuck about the kids who are growing up in an age where that drug addled prick is put up as an icon of success?
Do you really think soldiers sailors and airmen (and spacemonkeys) should have to rely on that HORSE DRUG ADDICTED PRICK for their mission critical infrastructure?
If you do, fuck right off, you’re either a musk fanboy or stockholder.
Either way, get bent.
Nobody thinks about that, just about hitting the people they don’t like. They don’t think of consequences, they don’t think that nationalization means humongous companies and wealth in fact changing hands in favor of people who already control the government.
That’s every fascist regime in history BTW - make your natural opponents hang themselves. Like in Russia in 1999 groups people most hurt by Yeltsin’s regime were deceived into voting for Putin, because he managed to create that “Soviet intelligence agent” image, despite being continuation of said regime. Or again in 2004, when he managed to take credit for growing oil prices, which meant that said groups of people feared literal starvation less, and the factor they’ve grown by compared to 1998 was so huge, that Russia’s level of life really didn’t catch up, but that was enough. Hold people in misery, throw them bones, they’ll be grateful.
Also why most Russians gloated over Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, other oligarchs being beaten by Putin.
Cause the oligarchs seemed the face of that regime, except Putin was its soul materialized. They somehow thought that when he hurts all the oligarchs enough, things will be good.
This is a very valid point. Nationalization essentially means transferring control of these companies to either Trump or congress as well giving them power to use nationalization as a tool. Not only are they horrendously incompetent but they’re also sure to weaponize it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump went on a spree nationalizing “liberal Democrat” companies or nationalizing companies that compete with his businesses.
Would you support forcing Musk out of his roles in these companies due to his drug useage?
Yes
I agreed with this sentiment six months ago, but now I like public hangings and nationalizing companies
Nationalizing companies is not going to fix the accountability issue we have in the country. The same problems are going to happen, just under new management.
Very true. It seems like the most greedy destructive people inevitably rise to the top.
I think that’s a complicated question. It’s both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the precedent, or at least reinforces, the concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.
remember the halcyon days when NASA could do something and the president might not like it, but they were all FUCKING ADULTS and the grift was well distributed amongst the congresscreatures, so it never devolved into adolescent twitter whining?
goddamn those were better than whatever this shit is
One way to get businesses to move their factories back to the US due to tarrifs: Start nationalizing them.
/s
I mean if they’re utilities, we shouldn’t let a board decide what should rightfully be in the hands of the voting public. Really they should welcome a stable (OK maybe not so stable in the US atm, but generally…) owner as the government.
Take the /s off the ruskies might believe you and run with it
The precedent that will set and the implications… No… We should not do this.
Health insurance, ISP, Oil Cos, and utilities should also be nationalized. The US is a weird place where everything is a business. A shithole capitalist hellscape
Tankies live in alternate reality where they think that nationalization is extremely common and is a magical solution to all of societies problems… even though this view is entirely delusional.
For example, only 3 countries have nationalized the entire ISP industry, and those are Cuba, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. All three of which are horrid tyrannical dictatorships with horrible internet. We should NOT be like them. Even when it comes to health insurance, except for 3 countries I just mentioned, every single country allows private health insurance, even if their system is public. Clearly nationalization is not what you think it is.
Tankie your ass. You don’t have to have a shitty dictatorship to have nationalized services. Clearly you don’t know as much as you think you do.
Most countries have public options for services and private alternatives as either competitors, backups, or complimentary pieces. It’s very rare for countries to completely nationalize sectors, and it’s especially rare for them to national that many sectors.
Yep that’s my point. Not everything needs be a business.
Allowing government to compete with business creates better outcomes in both. There is certainly something to be said about a more involved government. It’s really silly to allow big business or the government to have a monopoly on critical services.
My point is that this can be and is often done without nationalizing entire sectors of the economy
I hate tankies, but not as much as I hate Nazis. Desperate times call for desperate measures. We’re losing 100 years of social advancement. But here you are telling us to protect the fucking corporations that are sucking them up.
This is a false dichotomy. We don’t have to accept either Nazis Marxists. Fuck them both, there other options out that are much better.
LOL “We should NOT be like them.”
And then starts talking about health insurance. What health insurance?
You can only dream of being like Cuba.
But your shithole country keeps licking the boots and are good little servants of the oligarch ruling class.
And that’s great, you deserve all you get, all you do is comlain and cry about it online anyway.Cuba is a shithole by every definition of the word. The only people in the world who think Cuba is decent are brainless Marxists online. Even Cubans don’t agree with your delusions.
Tankies
boy howdy you’ve got the entire strawman army mustered in this thread.
It seems like you don’t know what that term means
Sure thing sport. I must be a tankie lol. You toolbag
A strawman is when somebody mischaracterize an argument, calling someone a tankie is not that.
sure thing bud. I’m not going to waste my afternoon going through your shitstream to point out how you’re wrong, I simply have better things to do with my life. in fact, gonna block you now, QOL plus
The precedent that will set and the implications
and what precedent is there for dealing with the executive of your country’s entire space launch infrastructure when they become dependent on horse drugs?
No really, what’s the precedent here, I want to know. Because if we set a precedent by ignoring it until the problem is impossible to ignore, that’s gonna be a far more expensive fix.
So yeah, yeah we should consider this very strongly.
If the government actually nationalized SpaceX, the precedent would be insane. You’d be telling every private company working in defense, infrastructure, or tech that if they become too essential, the government might just take it. Doesn’t matter how much risk or capital they fronted.
SpaceX isn’t just launching rockets for fun—it’s practically a branch of the U.S. space program at this point. GPS, Starlink for military comms, launching classified payloads, putting astronauts in orbit. If we nationalize that over a political pissing match between Trump and Musk, we’re basically saying innovation is conditional on obedience.
And let’s be honest—once you do this to SpaceX, you open the door to doing it to AWS, Tesla’s energy grid systems, Google’s AI infrastructure. Any private company that gets too important suddenly becomes “too critical to stay private.” That’s a fast track to killing private innovation in sectors where we need it most.
If Trump’s threatening funding, and Musk is threatening to walk, and the public’s response is “just take the company,” then we’ve officially politicized the tech-industrial base. That’s not governance, that’s dysfunction.
Nationalizing SpaceX would be a Cold War move in a modern economy. It might feel good in the moment, but long-term, it’s a terrible idea.
how can you be so casually apathetic about saddling our soldiers sailors airmen and spaceforce with the products of a horse drug addled asshole?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/us/elon-musk-drugs-children-trump.html
What kind of prick tells these people VOLUNTEERING TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY “hey man, the ketamine kid is the only way!” - how are you comfortable or confident in the products produced when he’s tripping balls in the oval office?
meh. this is a pointless argument, I’m never going to convince these elon fanboys their hero is a prick
I’m sorry were you talking to me? Because nothing in your response had anything to do with what I actually said.
I never claimed to like Elon. I don’t. I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.
My argument is about the moral, ethical, and historically dangerous precedent of nationalizing a private company.
That drug-addled sycophant stood before the most powerful political body on Earth wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt while the Vice President of the United States told President Zelensky to put on a suit.
Unbelievable.
Where the hell do you get off making wild, baseless assumptions about things you barely understand? What exactly prevents you from engaging in civil discourse like an adult, instead of spouting off like you did in that comment?
Fine if we’re slinging assumptions now, here’s mine: You strike me as a fedora-wearing, vape-huffing, woman-hating neckbeard. Am I wrong? Don’t care. That’s the image your words paint.
I never claimed to like Elon. I don’t. I never expressed support for this administration’s policies. I don’t.
you just defend his right to run spaceX on specialK.
mmkay bud.
I don’t give two flying fucks who runs space x. Once again. I’m not defending Elon in anyway.
I am expressing my concern about the United States government nationalizing a private company. You’re still making bassless assumptions. Pull your head out of your own ass and actually think about what I’m saying before spouting off at the mouth.
then defend his drug use. defend doge. come on, make rational arguments for the bullshit, oh, you can’t, that’s why you’re down to insults.
look fuckwit, you couldn’t find your point with a flashlight and a map, and you’re telling me to remove my rectum from MY CRANIUM? You want a man addled on horse tranq to run the only company producing orbital launch for the US.
I think it’s your head that’s rectum-fied. In fact, this entire discourse is dragging me down to your level. Gonna block you, should have done it before. Enjoy your ketamine kid, hope when he’s responsible for killing astronauts you pause and reflect.
pfft
The nationalization of SpaceX will mean a slowdown in development, like in the case of NASA.
Because American politicians would rather spend the money on engaging international wars. NASA will only get the funding it desperately needs if one of US’ rivals one up them, like how the launch of Sputnik spurred the race to the moon.
And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?
Dude… nationalize just means the US takes ownership of the company. They keep all the employees they keep all the customers. It runs like normal under new ownership. The taxpayers now own it. it’s a great idea.
You see too long we have been using public funding and allowing rich people to privatize the gains. It’s time to privatize those games and take back what we invested in as US citizens. We will still offer you eurocucks Internet since apparently it is more important than having a moral fiber in your body
I didn’t say it was a bad thing, I wanted to know about some of the broader implications, e.g. govt ownership doesn’t remove legal obligations. I doubt the govt could continue to offer service under the previous T&C, some sections would need revision. And Starlink’s T&C are slightly different in some countries, as are the operating conditions. Some countries who are nominally friendly with Starlink/SpaceX to allow ground stations, POPs, etc, might not be so keen on the US govt controlling things.
These are just some of the things that popped into my head when I read the article.
Usually the US government would take over an important business, replace the leadership, stabilize the business and return it to the public sector.
Elon was tampering with connections in Ukraine during live combat. I’m surprised anyone would trust or want to support one of his businesses. He should’ve been thrown in a black site after that incident.
SpaceX’s largest customer is the US government; once that relationship has been repaired I’m ambivalent about private/public ownership.
HMmmmM?
because let’s be honest, without tons of US GOV’T SUPPORT, SpaceX wouldn’t have ever been able to provide all those POPs, terminals and services. Funny thing that.
Seriously this comment doesn’t make any sense. It’s like you do not understand what you are commenting on and yet here you are with four up votes and now have my down vote and go forth and use a dictionary before you comment next time
Yeah I mean the tax payers have literally already paid for all of both SpaceX and Starlink. The public paid for it, the public should own it.
They’re just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that’s something.
Works is a strong word. It’s a better choice than dialup or Hughesnet, but that’s damning with extremely faint praise. If you need to rely on it you might be in trouble. There are still gaps in the coverage where you will be dropped for a while.
The FCC revoked that award before the money was handed over because starlink wasn’t meeting the speeds they needed to meet for the deadline 3 years in the future and they didn’t think they would make it. The speeds that money was supposed to help them achieve launching the satellites required to meet it.
No one else had that made up requirement put on them in advance.
The goal that was 3 years in the future, which would have been around now or early 2026, required them to meet their speed (100d + 20u) and latency (<100ms) goals for 40% of the 650k rural users.
They had 1.5 million US customers at the start of 2025, not sure how many are part of this rural 650k but id imagine the majority are, and only 260k of the rural ones have to meet the requirements.
Ookla did a post about starlink in Maine where it shows many of the users are meeting those requirements
https://www.ookla.com/articles/above-maine-starlink-twinkles
Median DL: 116.77 (over the required 100)
Media UL: 18.17 (just shy of the required 20)
90th Percentile DL: 250.96
90th Percentile UL 27.17
If Maine is a representative example, then they are probably meeting their 40% target of 260k rural users despite not getting the money which would have accelerated things and made launches more focused on meeting the goals.
Edit: extra details.
Edit: I was just looking up more info on the program, and the deadline to report would have been in January 2025, so it would have been with the 1.5 million users they had at the start of the year, not around now, or 2026 as I’d said. That Ookla report was December 2024. We should get a report from the FCC (this summer?) that outlines how many others met their respective 40% target.
