[HN Gopher] Pentagon Looking to Make Sure SpaceX Doesn't Abandon...
___________________________________________________________________
Pentagon Looking to Make Sure SpaceX Doesn't Abandon Them in War
Author : campuscodi
Score : 105 points
Date : 2023-03-12 18:10 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.defenseone.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.defenseone.com)
| eecc wrote:
| My take is: Starlink just reminded Pentagon they're a mostly
| civilian operator, and they're not ready to defend from direct
| cyber warfare, it without investment and someone to pay for that.
| Which is reasonable, IMHO
| azinman2 wrote:
| And Ford was a civilian operator until they needed to build
| heavy machinery for WWII.
|
| Wartime is different.
| neom wrote:
| This seems somewhat moot given in a time of war, the president
| can just use the Defense Production Act?
|
| "The Act currently contains three major sections. The first
| authorizes the president to require businesses to accept and
| prioritize contracts for materials deemed necessary for national
| defense, regardless of a loss incurred on business.
|
| The second section authorizes the president to establish
| mechanisms (such as regulations, orders or agencies) to allocate
| materials, services and facilities to promote national defense.
|
| The third section authorizes the president to control the
| civilian economy so that scarce and critical materials necessary
| to the national defense effort are available for defense needs."
| itsyaboi wrote:
| Is the US at war?
| PeterisP wrote:
| It doesn't matter, the criteria to apply the Defense
| Production Act of 1950 don't refer to a state of war in any
| way; it applies to activities which the president "deems
| necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense".
| gpm wrote:
| There's a long distance between "the pentagon is involved in a
| military operation (or even war)" and "the defense production
| act is invoked". The pentagons role is not solely to prepare
| for total war scenarios.
| colechristensen wrote:
| Defense production act was invoked for several covid things.
| Total war is not necessary.
| unnouinceput wrote:
| This is a non-issue. In times of war government can simply
| nationalize the company. They did it in 1st war world with rails
| companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_nationalization)
| and that was a harsh lesson for those companies when 2nd war
| world came around - they got their act together so no such act
| was necessary anymore.
|
| Pretty sure if SpaceX does not fully complies with government
| demands in times of war, it will suddenly be a subsidiary of
| NASA.
| wmf wrote:
| I would predict that our government no longer has the stomach
| to nationalize anything.
| baq wrote:
| In a direct war the public would demand nationalization of
| starlink the moment Musk disagreed about anything at all.
| Government would happily comply.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low reporting
| standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing Ukraine has
| been prevented from using Starlink for is as a guidance system
| for drones.
|
| On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund Ukraine's
| use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about its
| importance, they should've just done that. It seems more than a
| little absurd to argue that SpaceX - unlike literally every other
| defense contractor - should both be footing most of the bill for
| the service and should have no say over how the service is then
| used.
|
| Then, adding on to that, there's a huge difference in terms of
| regulations between a US company essentially supplying long range
| guidance systems (and ongoing services which enable those
| systems) of its own volition to a foreign nation involved in a
| war and a US company contracted by the DoD to supply the same.
| This should especially considered in the context that the US has
| been extremely careful in limiting the range of the weapons it
| has supplied to Ukraine (with exactly the same reasoning SpaceX
| has used of not wanting to enable an escalation in the conflict),
| while Starlink is able to handle guidance well beyond that.
|
| This idiotic senator might as well be asking how they can trust
| ULA to keep launching satellites for the DoD when they won't
| unconditionally launch Rwanda's 300k satellite megaconstellation
| for free.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Indeed. And if Starlink is used in guidance for offensive drone
| operations, Russia is going to view those satellites as
| legitimate military targets. I'm not convinced the people
| criticizing SpaceX's decision to not do that (for free) have
| thought this all the way through.
| NickNameNick wrote:
| I'm pretty sure spacex can launch starlink satalites much
| faster and cheaper than Russia can shoot them down.
|
| I'm sure spacex won't want to go down that route, but it's
| not a good tactic for Russia.
| itsyaboi wrote:
| Why would you need to shoot down all or even most of the
| satellites? Pop a couple, let the resulting debris fields
| do the rest.
| NickNameNick wrote:
| Kessler syndrome isn't magic. Space is big. Starlink
| satalites are small. And they're low enough thst
| atmospheric drag will deorbit must of the small debris
| very quickly.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I really wonder about space junk if we start down this road,
| would the debris stay in orbit spinning round the earth or
| would it be pulled into the atmosphere?
| wongarsu wrote:
| It would come down, most of it very quickly, the rest
| eventually. The satellites are low enough to deorbit from
| drag alone within five years or so if their thrusters fail.
| Blowing them up increases surface area, which increases
| drag, bringing most of it down much faster.
|
| The way orbit mechanics works, if you impart energy on an
| object at just one point in its orbit, the orbit will
| change overall but still go through that point. Some debris
| will be put in an elliptical orbit where it will start
| crossing higher altitudes, but will also still cross the
| original altitude, causing it to be affected by drag and
| eventually deorbit.
|
| The worry is what it would damage until it comes down. At
| some debris density you start setting off a chain reaction
| (and arguably we are already there, it's just very slow
| right now)
| kirushik wrote:
| Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate military
| target for Russia right now? (I'm pretty sure GPS is used for
| guidance of drones and missiles pretty heavily there.)
|
| Or for a satellite top be a legit target the communication
| needs to be two-way? In such case I suspect Turksat satellite
| should be considered within scope, since Bayraktar TB2S
| (which reportedly has been used by Ukraine in this war) uses
| it for SATCOM.
|
| What about other military uses of Starlink, outside of
| guidance systems? Those are plentiful, and it's hard to see
| why there would be a drastic difference between guiding a
| drone and providing communication backbone for military
| operation coordination in the eyes of the Russians. After
| all, they are bombing civilian infrastructure just fine, and
| didn't even care to formally declare this "special military
| operation" a war...
|
| My point being, I don't think "legitimate target" has to do
| anything with Russia not shooting down any satellites; it's
| either lack of capacity or fear of retaliation, both being
| rather orthogonal to the targets "legitimacy" IMO.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| According to the anti satellite wiki page, hitting a gps
| satellite would be difficult and pointless unless you're
| taking out everything in geo orbit.
| jdougan wrote:
| GPS says aren't in geosync, they use 12 hour orbits.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate
| military target for Russia right now?
|
| Of course it does. In the real world, anything is
| permissible (because there is no global federal government)
| as long as you have the strength to enforce. In the case of
| GPS satellite constellation, that is infrastructure owned
| and operated by the US military, so any attack on those
| satellites brings Russia directly into conflict with the US
| and NATO.
|
| >My point being, I don't think "legitimate target" has to
| do anything with Russia not shooting down any satellites;
| it's either lack of capacity or fear of retaliation, both
| being rather orthogonal to the targets "legitimacy" IMO.
|
| Right ... To rephrase: is the US military willing to
| indemnify Starlink to the same degree if it is attacked by
| Russia?
| andy_ppp wrote:
| You can bet they would retaliate, simply because the game
| theory aspect of all this implies there needs to be a
| severe cost associated with damaging US infrastructure.
| Maybe a huge explosion at some vital oil infrastructure
| or actually destroying the bridge to Crimea.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Does this imply that GPS satellites are a legitimate
| military target for Russia right now?
|
| GPS is a US military asset and consequently a military
| target for hostile actors.
|
| The only thing keeping Russia from just blowing them out of
| the sky is because to do so would be an unconditional
| declaration and act of war against the USA.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| And because they are using it in their planes and within
| their units. Sure you can argue with Glonass, but if it
| is working so well, why SU-34s are using Garmin with GPS
| instead?
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Irrelevant - Garmin can receive GPS, Glonass, Galileo and
| BeiDou.
| ptsneves wrote:
| Agree with you.
|
| I am damn sure that GPS satellites are a military target!
| They are even owned by a military organisation. It just so
| happens that organisation is the most powerful military
| power in the world. Given that, the next best thing is to
| jam GPS signals on the ground and I would be very surprised
| the Russians are not doing it at some scales.
|
| I highly doubt Americans gave the Ukrainians the keys for
| the special modulation that bypasses usual jamming
| abilities.
| [deleted]
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Yeah I agree that SpaceX's concern is unlikely over
| potential attacks on their satellites. Not only is SpaceX
| able to put them up faster than Russia could shoot them
| down, attacking a Starlink satellite would be an act of war
| against the US regardless.
|
| I think SpaceX's concern is more related to domestic
| liability. The US's policy has been that they will not
| provide offensive aid for attacking into Russia. They've
| been very careful about the range of the systems they send
| for that reason.
|
| Unrestricted Starlink is not subject to those range limits.
| So, if the attacks which went deep into Russian territory
| involved Starlink mounted to drones, it would essentially
| be in violation of the US's own stated policy about
| military aid to Ukraine. Thus far this hasn't caused any
| trouble, but if something were to happen (eg an
| escalation), SpaceX might get thrown under the bus by the
| US government since they aren't contracted by the DoD to
| provide such service.
| wazer5 wrote:
| Low earth orbit is easy to hit with anti-satellite
| missiles, can even use ASM-135 which is a interceptor
| fired from a fighter jet.
|
| GPS altitudes and up are a different story.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| There's over 3,500 Starlink satellites.
|
| That likely _dramatically_ exceeds the number of anti-
| satellite missiles in the entire world, let alone Russia
| 's.
| TheLoafOfBread wrote:
| One hit will create thousands of fragments. How many
| consecutive hits would be necessary to create severe
| enough Kessler event to destroy most of the satellites?
| Dozens?
| XorNot wrote:
| As everyone knows, the best possible way to deal with an
| aggressor is just straight appeasement. The risks are so
| large that appeasement is the only answer. If only we had
| historically tried appeasing belligerent foreign powers,
| think what wars would have been avoided... /sarcasm
| wazer5 wrote:
| Replace "an agressor" with "the USA" and that pretty much
| sums up history.
| XorNot wrote:
| LOL.[1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
| XorNot wrote:
| SpaceX wasn't worried about _any_ of these issues until,
| mysteriously, "SpaceX" suddenly was coincidental to Elon
| Musk having his Twitter breakdown when he decided he
| personally was going to negotiate peace for Ukraine[1]
| and was promptly rebuffed by the Ukrainian foreign
| minister.
|
| Then, _totally coincidentally_ [2] suddenly "SpaceX" had
| very big corporate concerns about how Starlink was used
| and also wanted more money from the DoD at a higher
| commercial rate[3] and...
|
| You know, just a whole pile of _totally normal_
| coincidences...
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
|
| [2]
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1579094238998171648
|
| [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-
| musk-spacex...
| wazer5 wrote:
| Biden administration decided to halt plans to weaponize
| space started under Trump. Mothballing decision was made
| in early 2022 and led to some of those reactions by Elon.
| appplemac wrote:
| Just to clarify that the Starlink service isn't being
| provided for free -- many of volunteers (and not just them)
| are paying for subscriptions with their credit cards. [1]
|
| I'm sure there are additional costs for Starlink operations
| in Ukraine vs other countries, such as extra measures against
| jamming etc so the operation is less profitable in Ukraine
| than elsewhere.
|
| And from what I understand there are some terminals that work
| without a subscription (although I haven't seen any info
| about them specifically).
|
| But it's not free for many users in Ukraine.
|
| [1]: https://wccftech.com/ukrainians-are-paying-for-starlink-
| them...
| schneems wrote:
| There's a saying: "Amateurs talk about tactics, but
| professionals study logistics."
|
| The problem as I see it isn't the satellites specifically, they
| want to have a firm of understanding of what can and cannot
| happen.
|
| When you're moving millions/billions of dollars of hardware,
| where mistakes cost lives, you bet I want to be sure I know
| what a CEO can and cannot decide on a whim. Especially this
| particular CEO with his many recent very public and very bad
| whims (across multiple companies, not just SpaceX).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm often left nonplussed at how many people seem satisfied
| with a "Enh, that's not what's happening this moment and it
| probably won't ever happen..." for all kinds of issues.
|
| That's completely non-reassuring. But even worse: it's very
| concerning when someone is reassured by it.
|
| Like logistics, individual events are not really interesting
| or meaningful. I want to understand the possibility space.
| yumraj wrote:
| > Especially this particular CEO ...
|
| Not just whims, this particular CEO has _massive_ business
| interests in China which will result in a major conflict of
| interest in a potential US-China direct or indirect conflict.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| I never realized that
|
| I wonder if Elon could sell SpaceX secrets / IP to China?
| wmf wrote:
| That sounds like an ITAR violation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Elon Musk, notably a stickler for following regulations.
| labster wrote:
| Sell to China, tweet about overbearing government
| regulators after the fact.
| zamnos wrote:
| Sell? China could also say "Nice gigafactory you've got
| there. It sure would be a _shame_ if something were to
| happen to it. "
| Espressosaurus wrote:
| You do NOT fuck with ITAR. You are personally liable for
| any violations and it can result in jail time for you,
| personally. And the company is liable too.
|
| I would hope anybody in that chain of command knows that,
| and tells him to go fuck himself if he drops even the
| hint of exporting it.
| lockhouse wrote:
| So do the Biden's...
|
| > CEFC China Energy, which has close ties to the Chinese
| Communist Party and People's Liberation Army, paid entities
| controlled by the then-cash-strapped Hunter Biden or his
| uncle James Biden $4.8 million over the course of 14 months
| beginning in 2017, according to The Washington Post.
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/hunter-biden-paid-millions-
| chinese-17...
| imglorp wrote:
| Not only conflicts with the Chinese, but also their friends
| the Russians:
|
| Suggesting appeasement:
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
|
| Entertaining sanctioned presenter:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-spotted-pro-putin-
| russi...
|
| Tesla buys aluminum from Rusal:
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/14/tesla-has-bought-aluminum-
| fr...
|
| "Tesla, as the only 100% foreign-owned automaker in China,
| holds a privileged place, but it holds it tenuously. The
| risk that China could retaliate against Tesla in response
| to U.S. or European sanctions or policies China finds
| distasteful has always been present":
| https://seekingalpha.com/article/4501080-a-new-tesla-risk-
| ru...
| Krasnol wrote:
| Wait a moment. SpaceX willingly paid for a batch of those
| devices when it served its own purposes. It was good
| advertising for them to provide those. They weren't even
| defense contractors at that time. Also: DoD just like some
| other EU countries bought additional devices and services.
| Everything was great until....the mad owner of the company
| started embarrassing himself with his side business and
| comments and suddenly financing became a problem.
|
| Musk has become a problem and seems to have lost his mind, so I
| can very much understand if someone who wants to do business
| with him, would take all precautions possible.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Everything you've said is entirely divorced from reality.
| Krasnol wrote:
| You're right, SpaceX never paid for them. They just said
| they did:
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-
| quietl...
|
| Everything else is true, though.
| letmevoteplease wrote:
| Even your article acknowledges that SpaceX "donated a
| significant sum to Ukraine's cause." They are just not
| footing 100% of the bill. It is not clear why they would
| be expected to do so. According to Musk, "25,300
| terminals were sent to Ukraine, but, at present, only
| 10,630 are paying for service."[1]
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1582098412501364736"
| Krasnol wrote:
| So the guy who claimed that the US Government didn't pay
| even though it did pay is supposed to be a trustworthy
| source?
| tguvot wrote:
| >This issue has been such a mess, demonstrating how low
| reporting standards have dropped. For starters, the only thing
| Ukraine has been prevented from using Starlink for is as a
| guidance system for drones.
|
| not exactly. there were a lot of reports that starlink
| functionality constrained to Ukrainian territory beyond
| "conflict line". When during September/October counterattacks
| Ukrainian forces advanced, starlinks didn't function and it
| created operational problems.
|
| >On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund
| Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about
| its importance, they should've just done that.
|
| IIRC, it was mostly funded but usaid,etc.
| more_corn wrote:
| To be fair, SpaceX offered starlink for free. Then later the
| man-child twitted some bullshit about ceding large parts of
| Ukraine to their invader as some weird attempt to mollify the
| aggressor.
|
| When Ukraine rightly told him to fuck off he decided to pull
| the plug. It was only later that he made up the thing about
| cost.
|
| The way it played out could cause some cautious people to look
| for some assurances. Asking how you can trust someone who has
| proven himself to be mercurial, thin -skinned and prone to snap
| decisions, prone to conspiracy thinking, and with a proven
| track record of retaliation against anyone who questions his
| decisions up to and including baseless accusations of heinous
| crimes...
|
| Pretty good question actually.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| > some bullshit about ceding large parts of Ukraine to their
| invader
|
| Interesting this idea still is a huge taboo in Eastern
| Europe, while rest of the world kinda moved on.
|
| btw this is same bullshit that China proposed
| Tozen wrote:
| > On top of that, SpaceX asked for the government to fund
| Ukraine's use of Starlink, and if they were so worried about
| its importance, they should've just done that.
|
| Exactly. SpaceX was doing a favor, at first, but the service
| still costs money. For the service to continue, it clearly
| needs funding. Just about any company will have a limit to how
| much they can or will provide for free. The answer to the
| problem, is mainly money. Provide contracts and money for the
| SpaceX service, and that will likely resolve the issue.
| Giorgi wrote:
| It was Musk himself who announced that they will be providing
| Starlink, nobody forced him to, he was praised for it.
|
| Now, after failing to blackmail DoD for funding, he is trying
| to limit it and is shit on and rightfully so.
|
| Not to mention his recent dumbfuck proRussian comments on
| twitter. All in all - don't bite what you can't chew.
| wazer5 wrote:
| Biden administration locked Elon out of the big contracts
| that Trump was giving out (global missile defense). He has
| since aligned himself very publicly with Republicans.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Yeah, the lesson for SpaceX certainly has been that no good
| deed goes unpunished.
|
| Instead of assuming that everyone will act in good faith,
| they'll just have to assume everyone's like you and turn down
| future public requests for emergency aid until they have
| everything down on paper. Of course then you'll be
| complaining about the rich/big companies not helping anyone.
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _Instead of assuming that everyone will act in good
| faith_
|
| Musk never acts in good faith. Just one example is his
| desperate and failed six month attempt to back out of the
| Twitter deal that he himself proposed and agreed to:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/10/why-musk-gave-
| up...
|
| The correct assumption when dealing with Musk is that he
| will act in bad faith. That is his track record.
| prepend wrote:
| I don't think "pay for my stuff or stop using it" is really
| blackmail, no?
| xiphias2 wrote:
| ,,Dickinson said that the Pentagon needs to make sure that all
| sides understand their legal obligations and have a full
| understanding of the military's expectations before those moments
| occur.''
|
| I'm not an American, but as far as I know US is not in war with
| Russia. Executives are smart enough to know that whenever US gets
| into war SpaceX will have to take part in it (and get compensated
| in contracts).
| [deleted]
| sorokod wrote:
| > as far as I know US is not in war with Russia
|
| Even Ukraine is not at war with Russia. Even Russia is not at
| war with Ukraine.
|
| Turns out that many lives and a lot of hardware can be expended
| without a war.
|
| Welcome to the 21st century where the there are gaps between
| contract law (that governs the relationship between the
| Pentagon and SpaceX) and international law (that spell out the
| rules in case of war but not necessarily in a case of
| "conflict" in which US has a geopolitical interest).
| falcolas wrote:
| > Pentagon Looking to Make Sure SpaceX Doesn't Abandon Them in
| War _Again_
|
| SpaceX having morals and not wanting to support one side or
| another in war is fine by me. But they should have stopped well
| before selling a ton of gear to the Ukraine (some of which was on
| the US Government's dime) and then shutting it all down after the
| checks had been cashed.
| joachimma wrote:
| Is that what they did? Last reports suggests StarLink works
| just fine inside Ukraine with some congestion issues. My
| impression is that Ukraine bolted StarLink dishes to offensive
| drones, possibly the remote controlled boats that struck
| Sevastopol. Personally I am a hawk on the Ukraine War and hope
| they utterly destroys the Russian Military, that includes the
| one inside Russia.
|
| But I find it deeply hypocritical that the US Military, who
| won't let Ukraine use the weapons given inside Russia, has a
| problem with a private company who does not want their civilian
| tech used in offensive weapons.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| They've only prevented Ukraine from using Starlink as a
| guidance system. They're fine with it being used for the
| originally envisioned purpose of communications, even within
| the armed forces.
| wazer5 wrote:
| Common sense and circumstantial evidence suggests Elon was
| planning major DoD support including global missile defense as
| early as 2001.
|
| - SpaceX first contract was DARPA Falcon Project (part of Prompt
| Global Strike). Possibly even where the Falcon name came from.
| (mentioned in parent article)
|
| - SpaceX founding contracts with NASA were awarded by Elon's
| friend Michael D. Griffin
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career who
| architected global missile defense and designed space-space
| interceptors for SDI. His NASA COTS program was an unprecedented
| award and given to SpaceX before they had even flown a rocket. He
| also awarded CRS to SpaceX just before leaving office. This
| constituted 85% of all SpaceX funding (remaining 15% was Elon and
| a few investors).
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#2005%E2%80%932009:_Falcon_...
| Griffin was so important to Elon that it is rumored he named his
| first son after him (Griffin Musk).
|
| - Griffin went on in 2019 to start the Space Development Agency
| where he advocated for global satellite constellations of sensors
| and space weapons. First contracts were given to SpaceX after
| Starlink seemed viable.
| https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
|
| Lately it's unclear if Elon is still supportive of said programs
| as fervently as he did in the early days. He's still hiring for
| Starshield..
| mnd999 wrote:
| In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites. If
| enough men with guns then up at Starlink HQ what is Elon going to
| do?
| otikik wrote:
| Tweet
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > In a war the DoD could just take control of the satellites.
|
| In a war, DoD could _buy_ the satellites, but the 5th Amendment
| takings clause does not have an exception for war.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| How long have we been doing civil asset forfeiture?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| That's only for the poor and minorities. They will not dare
| touch a corporation, let alone owned by some high-profile
| billionaire with a significant public presence.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Yes, but power can get what it wants without rights too.
| Power matters, rights do not.
| zapdrive wrote:
| Disable them with a cryptographic lock, at the least.
| agilob wrote:
| In European countries there are laws that a government take
| over your car, home, or horse if the military needs it
| urgently. I learnt about this at schools years ago and I
| don't know if USA has such laws, but pretty sure such laws
| were extended to laptops and solar panels. I think this is
| either NATO or EU regulation. It would be unwise to oppose a
| military at such times having such powerful tools.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| There's a film called Warhorse, about a kid whose pet horse
| gets seized to serve as a draft animal in WW1.
| toast0 wrote:
| We've got the Third Amendment that says
|
| > No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any
| house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of
| war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
|
| So I don't think the US military can _legally_ take over
| your house without your consent, except in time of war and
| then only if a law is passed.
|
| But, experience from WWII shows that the government is
| gonna do what it wants, and the wheels of justice move
| slowly, and may not hold to what is right; the exclusion
| order that began the Japanese-American Internment was found
| to be constitutional, although detainment of loyal citizens
| was indeed found unconstitutional. If armed people demand
| use of your stuff, better to let them use it, and fight for
| compensation later.
| thephyber wrote:
| In the US, all government power is derived from the US
| Constitution. The 3rd and 5th Amendments provide some
| protections of civilians from the military. But in
| practice, all civil rights only exist to the extent that
| they can be enforced. When martial law is enacted, there
| are no civil rights protections.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| surefire way to end up in prison at wartime, and without a
| company after
| mnd999 wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/538/
| douzemars wrote:
| The DoD and IC have long been losing faith in the private sector
| and especially the business and personal ethics of startup
| founders.
|
| One of the theories on why MOC had to be ganked is that his work
| was (though he probably didn't know it at the time) drawing
| attention to this problem.
|
| Once the Feds truly lose faith in Silicon Valley it is game over
| for a massive industry. Tech bros have no idea for the most part
| why their jobs and companies _really_ exist. Even most founders
| think it is market processes that decide their success or
| failure.
| clouddrover wrote:
| > _One of the theories on why MOC had to be ganked_
|
| What?
| [deleted]
| modeless wrote:
| My understanding from news reports a few months ago is that
| SpaceX literally asked the DoD to fund Ukraine's ongoing use of
| Starlink for war and they refused to cover it. I don't know what
| the reasons were, but I'll bet SpaceX would let Ukraine do
| whatever it wants if the DoD was paying for it.
| squarefoot wrote:
| > but I'll bet SpaceX would let Ukraine do whatever it wants if
| the DoD was paying for it.
|
| I don't think the cost is that significant for Musk, but surely
| if the DoD was paying for it, then that would shift enough
| responsibility away from SpaceX.
| brutusurp wrote:
| Agree. SpaceX said their services are not free for SpaceX, and
| requested help in funding the effort.
|
| Is Bezos trying to get a foothold in the effort, to help fund
| launch of his 3K satellites?
|
| https://spacenews.com/amazon-planning-3236-satellite-constel...
| brutusurp wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoting. There's nothing wrong or
| factually incorrect with the above statement. Is public
| discourse really that hard for you to handle? Do you also
| punch your TV when your favorite sports team loses?
| zpeti wrote:
| Because how could a democrat white house possibly justify
| paying money to a Musk affiliated company? That's how bad
| politics is now.
|
| If Musk were actually the asshole people made him out to be, he
| would have just pulled starlink until payment. He didn't. No
| one seems to appreciate or even realise this on the musk hater
| side.
| kcplate wrote:
| [flagged]
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| You support Elon?
|
| It's becoming obvious that he is on the Kremlin side
| nowadays. You can't even pretend he's both siding it
| anymore. He never criticizes Russia interests, and parrots
| the Kremlin discourse quite consistently.
|
| You need to recognize that supporting Musk in 2023 is
| supporting the Kremlin. Is that really what you want to
| support?
| dougwalker42 wrote:
| [flagged]
| kcplate wrote:
| >You need to recognize that supporting Musk in 2023 is
| supporting the Kremlin. Is that really what you want to
| support?
|
| I support pragmatism, so if Elon does good things I can
| support him on those things and if he does bad things I
| can be critical there as well. I am also not morally
| bound by political partisanship.
|
| Also, FWIW, your comment is literally ridiculous
| considering that this whole thread is about SpaceX
| providing communication capabilities to Ukraine _for
| free_ for the last year. That is obviously support that
| was contrary to Russia and _without a doubt_ has been an
| instrumental component in helping Ukraine endure the
| Russian invasion.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Not as bad as the politics of a Banana Republican White
| House.
|
| Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. Go back to
| grammar school.
| thephyber wrote:
| You have no idea if Musk is telling the truth. All of the
| stories in the news are based on Musk's tweets and one
| unnamed DoD official.
|
| There's no transparency, therefore no independent
| confirmation that the US / EU countries supporting Ukraine
| aren't actually paying Space-X for Ukraine's use of Starlink.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| I somewhat disagree in that the current administration has
| also been very open to paying SpaceX for all its other
| contracts, even buying more crew launches etc.
|
| Paying for Starlink got turned into a public spat and thus
| ended up drowned out by idiots.
| alsodumb wrote:
| I mean one could say the current admin is paying for all
| those SpaceX contracts only because there's literally no
| alternative left - yup, after Vulcan 5 ending due to
| restrictions on engines import from Russia there's
| literally no other heavy launch provider in continental
| United States. Same with crew launches in some way.
| wyldfire wrote:
| Maybe the Pentagon is promising enough MAU that they think it
| should be free ;)
| rasz wrote:
| Why would they ask for more money when half of the terminals in
| Ukraine are bought and paid for by Poland? One EU country is
| paying for half of it all.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| The terminals are the smallest part of the cost and an ever
| decreasing portion. The service and support is by far the
| biggest cost.
| illiarian wrote:
| You mean:
|
| - the richest man on earth decided to be publicly magnanimous
| by providing a free service to Ukraine
|
| - more than half of the service is being paid through various
| funds anyway
|
| - same richest man on earth spends 44 billion to stroke his ego
|
| - complains that he no longer has the money to sustain
| operations because the cost (accroding to him) exceeds 100
| million dollars (0.2% of what he spent on his ego)
|
| - the moment he hears that Pentagon _will_ pay, but needs to
| organize the payment and figure out where it will come from...
| withdraws his complaints and strokes his ego again by saying he
| will keep providing service for free
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I don't like musk for a number of reasons, but did he sign any
| legal contract with any entity regarding starlink services to
| Ukraine?
| Kukumber wrote:
| What do they mean
|
| It's similar to FBI "buying people data" they can already access
| for free
|
| SpaceX is a US Defense program
|
| Similar to how Google got funded
|
| https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-12 23:02 UTC)