Hacker News Reader

Comment by georgeg23 | Hacker News Reader

There were protests at SpaceX when it was revealed the Turksat 5B satellite would command and control these TB2 drones, extending their range from operator line-of-sight to near global.

Elon decided to go ahead with the launch. At some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company.

View on HN

I would venture a guess that nearly every SiValley darling supports the military-industrial complex in some fashion. The military-industrial complex started SiValley, after all.

If you don't think there's a military application for AI, self-driving whatevers, logistics innovations, or even social media you are uninformed or willfully ignorant.

I think they probably don't, if only because government contracting is an absolutely massive pain and having been on both sides (early at a YC co and have worked in local and federal gov) I know that the gov side considers it an issue that they don't have a close enough relationship to tech startups. This was the whole rationale for launching DIU.mil, Afwerx, sofwerx, NavalX, etc. and championing OTAs which helped shorten the procurement process so they could get smaller companies interested

edit: spelling error

If you think supporting the government means working directly working with the government then, again, you don't know the game.

Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred?

There are many layers to that onion and it is obfuscated for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that I don't think many rock star engineers would be happy if they thought their life's work was being used to fuel the murder machine.

I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you're discussing then. Is the point in your original comment that the DOD uses off the shelf commercial technologies of all sorts for their work and that people who work at startups unknowingly contribute to this? I mean sure, but I can also tell you that the government struggles with buying products commercial off the shelf, this is again a reason you see the push for OTAs and collaborating more closely with the private sector instead of primes.

Also, not sure if calling it "the murder machine" is necessary or useful for a discussion. Many people, myself included, believe that a strong military is necessary for the United States to ensure its own survival and apply its protective cordon around NATO, Korea, Japan, etc. and despite its flaws has probably led to much less overall destruction and death than if the U.S. had a very weak military and could not deter more global conflicts.

> "the murder machine"

Sorry this is my way of saying I think this is what many unsuspecting valley engineers, who in some cases lean quite leftish, would term it if they knew they were contributing to it. Case in point, I worked at a defense comm company and when a fellow engineer overheard a use case in drones they literally wept. That engineer left shortly thereafter for the valley. I use colorful language sometimes for my own amusement.

My point is that not every piece used by the military industrial complex(specifically agencies with 3-9 letters) comes from standard procurement channels. Sure, when you're building F-35s or whatever. But this assumes every big government project is a big government project. Some are one-offs. I'm intentionally obtuse here for a myriad of reasons and I've said about all I can.

> Look at the B-2 bomber. Parts were procured via front companies to conceal the project. Do you think that's the only time where that has occurred?

Are you saying they got off the shelf parts? Otherwise, they would be working with the government, even if the purpose of the components wasn't known.

Possibly. Structural, mechanical and propulsion parts were probably custom. Some electronics parts were probably "COTS" mil-spec parts which were procured for imaginary projects or diverted from existing ones.

I would go way further and venture that Space X and those satellites have background relationships with defence industry all along.

Most of Elon's businesses have state related support in some way (even Twitter), it's part of how he operates.

Do people not consider SpaceX a defense company? At the very least I thought people always considered it dual-use

You can't work there (except possibly in some minor roles) if you're not a US Person as defined by ITAR for a reason.

ITAR applies because rockets are indistinguishable from ICBMs

Exactly. Rocket companies are always defense companies.

Until you get down to the details of what makes a good orbital launch vehicle vs what makes a good ICBM.

While there is some overlap, it's quite easy to distinguish between civilian launch vehicles and military ICBMs. All major civilian rockets use liquid fueled core stages. But all ICBMs are solid fuel.

SpaceX tries not to highlight their military work but it is a majority of their business, even with "commercial" Starlink.

A more direct offensive buildup is happening with their government Starlink satellites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities

As a "get to Mars" company it makes very little sense, they've invested virtually nothing into colony technology, just rockets. Mars is to SpaceX what manganese nodules were to Hughes' Glomar Explorer, a flimsy cover story that only seems plausible because everybody knows the guy in charge is wacky. I believe the real purpose of their attempt to create a rapidly reusable heavy lift rocket (Starship) is to rapidly replenish a massive constellation of expendable interceptors in LEO, for ballistic missile defense.

The government definitely thinks of SpaceX as a defense company. They have to comply with ITAR because if you have the technology to get to space you basically have the technology for an ICBM.

Correction: Turksat 5A https://wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrksat_5A

>At some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company.

They do themselves. ITAR compliance is a prerequisite to employment at SpaceX.

Because rockets

Is a trucking company a defense company if they ship something for the military? Or the same with air transport?

No, but if they truck a bunch of equipment into warzones and have huge government contracts they might be considered one

Is this a defense company now, then? https://twitter.com/walter_report/status/1523497545351278593...

Any company doing shipping for the military has large government contracts. The government contracts have turnover limits, and every company this large works with the government a lot.

If you become an integral part of the logistics pipeline for the military, then yes. Even if the company seems relatively civilian, you can bet it will be forced to focus on the military in the event of a military operation.

If they can precisely deliver ~22 tons of material from Florida to anywhere in the globe in ~20-50 minutes, arriving at perhaps Mach 5, one should tend to regard SpaceX as at least weapons-capable.

> arriving at perhaps Mach 5

Quite a lot faster than that actually; Mach 20+ on reentry. The way the media talks about "hypersonics" without getting into specifics is very misleading. Hypersonic cruise missiles are a tough nut to crack, but hypersonic reentry vehicles are table stakes for ballistic missiles and spacecraft.

> some point we need to start calling SpaceX a defense company

What is the real-world outcome you're going for?

Of course SpaceX is a defense company. Starlink is essentially the next GPS in terms of defense importance.

It’s not just StarLink. SpaceX already has a pentagon contract to develop or revive the Prompt Global Strike program. It’s called something else now. Basically,to use SpaceX launch capabilities to a hit a target anywhere on the planet using conventional payloads on short notice. Something that’s currently done using the B-2 bombers and several hours of transit time to target.

Well, space x is a commodity service. If not them, someone will be happy to accept Turkish Lira.

That point was almost 20 years ago

They are being treated like that already.

"Russian space chief Dmitry Rogozin apparently threatens Elon Musk"

https://www.space.com/russian-space-chief-rogozin-threatens-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com