I guess they could do that, after paying fair market value for the company.
Edit to add: plus, the big beautiful bill is deeply cutting nasa funding. I'm not seeing the current administration being that interested in space related activities.
toomuchtodo · 15h ago
What’s the enterprise value after terminating US government contracts and with Starship currently unproven for cargo and man rated flight?
rogerrogerr · 14h ago
This isn’t the gotcha you want it to be - SpaceX isn’t valuable because it has the contracts, it’s valuable because it’s the only US player that _can_ service the contracts.
That demand isn’t going away just because the Feds dislike Musk for a while. All the same stuff has to go in all the same orbits, and ultimately SX is the only company that can do it at a reasonable cost.
toomuchtodo · 14h ago
It’s not a gotcha. The Defense Production Act requires paying market value. Market value is subjective. The US government isn’t going to use share sale to determine market value if they attempt to nationalize. They don’t even adhere to the law and separation of powers today. Why would they provide a favorable valuation?
They can set the value at something they feel will barely stand up under judicial review.
wmf · 13h ago
HLS is pretty small compared to Starlink/Starshield, Commercial Cargo/Crew, satellite launches, etc.
croes · 9h ago
Couldn’t they just claim it’s for national security?
amanaplanacanal · 1h ago
5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
croes · 40m ago
They didn’t value Habeas Corpus why should they value this?
dotcoma · 15h ago
Not going to happen, but the comrades have a point …
Fade_Dance · 15h ago
First of all, SpaceX's market share in tonnage does not immediately make it an anti-competitive monopolist according to anti-trust law like the article claims. In fact I find it extremely unlikely that an antitrust case would find that SpaceX is a monopolist as the final ruling. Furthermore, even if this was the case, the remedy wouldn't be nationalization, it would almost certainly be breaking it apart (ex: Starlink spun off).
Moving on from there, the entire article hinges around Steve Bannon's idea (an ardent far right extremist) hijacking the "Defense Production Act to nationalize SpaceX. Of course it's blindingly obvious that this is a grossly far-reaching reinterpretation of what the defense production Act was meant for. Even if crewed spaceflight squabbles put the entire nation in danger in the interim period before Boeing Starliner is back in action, NASA does still have exchange agreements with Roscosmos in place.
Taking ideas from far right extremists to repurpose laws for political aims (and considering the source, this is clearly originating from the anti oligarchy angle rather than true concern with a National Security Emergency) is not a reasonable solution, nor is it acceptable in any way. Bannon's idea literally sits alongside twisting other laws to get Trump elected for a third term.
I don't like Musk either. Perhaps an anti-trust case in a court of law would be appropriate, but stop sane-washing this. People like Bannon don't care at all about NASA concerns either. The literal reason they're out on social media stirring the pot is to *normalize" things like this.
duxup · 15h ago
Because Musk said something(s) bad about the president? That should be allowed.
Because those orgs are valuable / important? Lots of companies qualify as that... the entire telecommunications industry would qualify for many of the same reasons.
This whole article talks about the spat more than anything making me think that's the real reason ...
The strange thing is this call happens now, during a Trump administration that has called to privatize as much as possible.
sitkack · 15h ago
Starship could be turned into a Trump Hotel in LEO. We could have a Trump Statue on the moon. I see no downsides.
mindslight · 14h ago
I like where this article is coming from - if they're really fighting, push them to fight hard. The sooner we can get the wannabe oligarchs themselves on the bonfire of fascism, the sooner the movement will destroy itself, and the more of our actual country might remain intact.
It would suck having the main private space company be essentially destroyed, but that destruction is essentially similar to what happened when the Tesla became the Swasticar - social media delusion spirals have consequences. Also given the absolutely braindamaged political movements masses of people are falling for, it's not even clear we're ready to expand our civilization into space.
sleepyguy · 14h ago
This entire Musk/Trump episode was to plant the seeds to get rid of Trump and get Vance in. Great forces at work here, nothing is ever what it seems. Thiel, A16z, et al all have Musk's back.
Just saying...
sebastos · 14h ago
You’re saying you think Thiel is pulling levers to get Vance in so that he can drive more directly?.. or what exactly is the conspiracy you’re alluding to here.
sleepyguy · 14h ago
Not just Thiel, but others too. Vance is their boy, it was always the plan. This isn't over; it just started.
yawpitch · 12h ago
After having been in the room with Thiel, I’ve come to the conclusion he’s as adept at 4D chess as Elmer Fudd was at hunting wabbits.
Stop assuming the rich and powerful are also smart and competent. Those are not related properties.
mindslight · 14h ago
I'm not really looking forward to corporate totalitarianism via either path. But at least with the techbrats at the helm the US would still remain a relative world leader, as opposed to the societal suicide that Trump (or his brain worms) are seemingly going for.
Edit to add: plus, the big beautiful bill is deeply cutting nasa funding. I'm not seeing the current administration being that interested in space related activities.
That demand isn’t going away just because the Feds dislike Musk for a while. All the same stuff has to go in all the same orbits, and ultimately SX is the only company that can do it at a reasonable cost.
They can set the value at something they feel will barely stand up under judicial review.
Moving on from there, the entire article hinges around Steve Bannon's idea (an ardent far right extremist) hijacking the "Defense Production Act to nationalize SpaceX. Of course it's blindingly obvious that this is a grossly far-reaching reinterpretation of what the defense production Act was meant for. Even if crewed spaceflight squabbles put the entire nation in danger in the interim period before Boeing Starliner is back in action, NASA does still have exchange agreements with Roscosmos in place.
Taking ideas from far right extremists to repurpose laws for political aims (and considering the source, this is clearly originating from the anti oligarchy angle rather than true concern with a National Security Emergency) is not a reasonable solution, nor is it acceptable in any way. Bannon's idea literally sits alongside twisting other laws to get Trump elected for a third term.
I don't like Musk either. Perhaps an anti-trust case in a court of law would be appropriate, but stop sane-washing this. People like Bannon don't care at all about NASA concerns either. The literal reason they're out on social media stirring the pot is to *normalize" things like this.
Because those orgs are valuable / important? Lots of companies qualify as that... the entire telecommunications industry would qualify for many of the same reasons.
This whole article talks about the spat more than anything making me think that's the real reason ...
The strange thing is this call happens now, during a Trump administration that has called to privatize as much as possible.
It would suck having the main private space company be essentially destroyed, but that destruction is essentially similar to what happened when the Tesla became the Swasticar - social media delusion spirals have consequences. Also given the absolutely braindamaged political movements masses of people are falling for, it's not even clear we're ready to expand our civilization into space.
Just saying...
Stop assuming the rich and powerful are also smart and competent. Those are not related properties.