Why is Elon Musk talking to Vladimir Putin, and what does it mean for SpaceX?

NASA chief says ties between SpaceX CEO and Putin should be investigated.

See full article...

 

[2023SpaceXOddessy]

I mean, this guy has top security clearance. If anything it should be revoked full stop!

The thing about a Top Secret clearance is you have access to any and all TS information, only the information you need to know, which means what has been briefed to Musk isn’t any and all information connected to those assets SpaceX is launching.

Musk probably has only been given enough information for SpaceX to plan other payloads, at the same classification, since an asset being launched by the intelligent community wouldn’t allow a commercial payload on board.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

I don’t disagree. However, SpaceX can’t easily be separated from Musk, given that SpaceX isn’t a publicly traded company.

Nonsense. It can be very easily separated, if there were political will to force that, given the national security dimension. Or alternatively, to somehow hive off the parts with the government contracts such that Musk can't know the details of what's going on there.

Which, again, may be one of the factors behind Musk's decision to boost Trump. Musk has certainly said as much; according to Musk, he will be not only forced to divest his ownership of companies but actually imprisoned if Harris wins. Imprisoned for what, he hasn't said, and I won't speculate. Can felons hold security clearances?

 

[Madestjohn]

The sad thing is: The suggestion that Space Karen is a Russia-loving traitor isn’t the slightest bit surprising. Russia-loving did wonders for his orange-skinned hero amongst his particular death cult.

That Elon is in regular private contact with Putin isn’t particularly new news
he let it slip back in 2020

Remember back when he was proposing a ‘peace deal’ that basically ceded all occupied territory to Russia and forced surrender conditions on Ukraine while he simultaneously launched a Twitter poll asking citizens of occupied areas of eastern Ukraine recently annexed if they want to live in Russia or Ukraine?

Remember him mentioning in passing talking to Putin about it in multiple calls and then scrambling to deny ever saying that ?

… remember when he was first declared world’s richest man and he would be careful to demurely nod to Putin as being far richer than he was? .. and then again retreat from that when he realized what he was saying was counter to Putin‘s public image, and Putin might be pissed?

Like plenty of these October surprises … none of this hasn’t been exactly subtle or discrete up to now … it just its been ignored

 

[Madestjohn]

The American government cannot force an American citizen to sell SpaceX, they can disqualify SpaceX from having contracts involving Space Force and NASA, and could in theory not allow SpaceX to launch any rockets by blocking it through environmental regulations.

You’re living in a fantasy world if you think the American government can force a private citizen to sell their company. I am completely against the TikTok ban, not because I love TikTok, I actually hate it. I just think they should be banned, not “we won’t ban you if you sell your ownership away”, because once your owned by the CCP your always owned by the CCP.

I love these absolute statements of legal certainties from self declared constitutional scholars

…. So how do you think they bust monopolies?

not to mention have you ever heard of Eminent Domain ?

 

[OrvGull]

That's a good question. Back when I took social studies and civics, the line was pretty clear.

Democracy: 1 person, 1 vote. Each person has equal power. States and Federal go hang and everything is determined by vote.

See, the term I learned for that was "direct democracy," as opposed to representative democracy. Both are democracies.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

America is a Republic not a Democracy.

Having just pretty conclusively shown that it was upthread, I'd invite you to explain what you mean here.

I will concede that only one of the current presidential candidates feels it should be a democracy, but at least for the moment, clearly it is.

 

[Madestjohn]

America is a Republic not a Democracy.

… a republic that’s a democracy
They are not mutually exclusive

(actually it was originally a confederation)

… and no.
A democracy does not have to be directly ruled by the Demos

 

[OrvGull]

Simply put, there's too many entrenched, self-interested parties on earth for something like that to happen here. It's like herding cats getting nations to agree to do anything with significant impact. Proposals get watered down to ineffectiveness and then there's always obstructionists like Russia throwing a wrench into things.

Given enough time (it's not going to be overnight), independent settlements beyond Earth's surface might have a chance of doing these things between there being no pre-established structures to fight against and not needing a consensus between nations to do things. Practically infinite resources helps a lot on that front too.

The problem is resources in space are far from limitless; a lot of stuff you have to make and bring with you. The only structure you're going to see in space is corporate dictatorships, because whoever controls life support controls everyone else.

 

[robrob]

The American government cannot force an American citizen to sell SpaceX, they can disqualify SpaceX from having contracts involving Space Force and NASA, and could in theory not allow SpaceX to launch any rockets by blocking it through environmental regulations.

You’re living in a fantasy world if you think the American government can force a private citizen to sell their company. I am completely against the TikTok ban, not because I love TikTok, I actually hate it. I just think they should be banned, not “we won’t ban you if you sell your ownership away”, because once your owned by the CCP your always owned by the CCP.

On what basis do you make this claim? Because the US has nationalised all sorts of industries in war time before, there is easily scope for congress to nationalise a company in the interests of national security.

Whether the current supreme court would dream up a reason they can't is an open question, but there's definitely precedent to it. Even when Truman tried to nationalise the steel industry, SCOTUS shot it down on the basis the congress hadn't given him that power.

 

[OrvGull]

I don’t disagree. However, SpaceX can’t easily be separated from Musk, given that SpaceX isn’t a publicly traded company.

Yeah, that's the problem. At this point Musk controls low orbit and the rest of us only rent access to it. He's a load-bearing part of our national security apparatus.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

More anonymous disinformation, and a perfectly timed "October Surprise" for the election.

Some people are so gullible.

"Don't trust anonymous commenters," says an anonymous commenter.

I think you'll find universal agreement on that second sentence anyhow.

 

[xoe]

Interesting since a Boeing made, Intelsat satellite spontaneously disintegrated in orbit this week. It happened to be Intelsats bird with the most customers and traffic.

https://spacenews.com/intelsat-33e-loses-power-in-geostationary-orbit/
edit to add link

Which is made especially interesting since a car just drove by my house.

 

[Bad Monkey!]

Nonsense. It can be very easily separated, if there were political will to force that, given the national security dimension. Or alternatively, to somehow hive off the parts with the government contracts such that Musk can't know the details of what's going on there.

I think the hiving off is what would happen, presuming the political will to do so. The DoD could revoke Musk's clearances, and then require SpaceX to silo all national security work into an independent reporting structure that doesn't answer directly to Musk as a prerequisite to competing for further national security contracts.

 

[jonah]

If man baby Elon actually has a security clearance issued by the US government, and he surely must because of how involved he is with the technical side of the business, and did not report his conversations with Putin, then that’s grounds to revoke his clearance. People with TS clearances have to report ALL substantive contact with foreign nationals. Everything about NRO/NSA/SDA satellites is classified at that level.

 

[jarvis]

For the sake of this god damn country and our national security, SpaceX should be taken from Musk. It just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. I never thought I would see the day where American citizens willing hand over the country to a few greedy corrupt fascists. What a bunch of morons. You think you have it hard now? You should have paid more attention in school. And actual got an education instead of complaining about your own life choices and blaming it on imaginary ghosts.

 

[xoe]

This makes sense. And, granted, I've been out of school and mainstream academia for many years... so this was the first time I had every heard the US being called a Liberal Democracy. That name didn't exist in any class or text book I ever read... and No, education wasn't poor. Gifted magnets throughout all school and College degrees after.

And with the definition as currently defined, yes, we (USA) are. I'll admit this term does fit.

Where we differ is that nitty-gritty. So, I feel what I called the US gov't is more nitty-gritty (If I may borrow that term) accurate and "should" be more descriptive of the actual underpinnings of the actual gov't being described. Personal preference I guess.

Also, I think so many people, politicians, media, news, etc have muddled the term "Democracy". As you describe the Athens Democracy, it it a true Democratic form of gov't. Although people seem to understand we don't have exactly that... or really even close... they still pull the "1 person 1 vote" out all the time when these discussions arise. At the most basic level, in discussion I've had, that's what people think when I say Democracy.

Hence my saying the US is not a Democracy. Prolly should have spelled it out a little better tho.

I've been out of school and mainstream academia for many years

Do you mean decades?


https://books.google.com/ngrams/gra...2&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true

 

[Bob Dobilina]

Which is made especially interesting since a car just drove by my house.

Well when you have multiple 3 letter agencies asking you if it’s alright to fly by and take pictures before you even know what’s going on then I guess you got me. BTW, it over 40 pieces and the last one that spun out of control had a perfect 3 cm hole in the fuel tank.

 

[xoe]

Sure... and if that's where we want to tag in the "democratic" portion, I'm good with that.

I just thought that was kind of implied with the representative part of representative republic.

As for the article... if he meant that literally, holy crap that is BAD.

If he was joking... as mentioned later in the article... poor taste and bad timing... and exactly the weird crud he says when he goes off cuff. All my pubby friends want his mouth bricked up 99% of the time and his tweets ran through a decent campaign manager... but that's another mess entirely.

If he was joking

It's not an okay joke to make when you're a candidate for president and it should be immediately disqualifying.

 

[Madestjohn]

The founding fathers formed a republic not a democracy. If I thought, this community wouldn’t instantly downvote my explanation, I probably would try and explain my statement.

For instance I of course know that a Democracy, doesn’t have to be ruled by a political party known as Democrats. So someone pointing that out suggests they think I am a complete moron.

A democracy has little to do with being a democrat, republican, or libertarian. What i find very interesting is just because I am not willing to instantly revoke Elon Musks security clearance for a “off the record” claim, which can easily be proved, since our intelligence community no doubt has the capacity to records every conversation with Putin. So by the fact Elon Musk still has a security clearance, and there is no suggestion that the Space Force or NASA has grounds to cancel their launch contracts with SpaceX, suggests that any conversation that Elon might or might not have happen with Putin did not break the law.

.. oh my god .. being smugly lectured to by an idiot is losing its ability to amuse

 

[xoe]

So a claim where nobody will go on the record should be investigated? Until someone is willing to go on record, there isn’t anything to to investigate, and a singular conversation is hardly anything to worry about.

Musk doesn’t need government for Tesla, he needs government for SpaceX, and in this one case his actions to say bring Tesla to Russia could collide with Americans interests (although anything that can help the Russian people and hurt the Russian ruling class seems to be positive) so that could be difficult to navigate. However, I don’t trust off the record claims, especially reported by the WSJ behind a paywall.

Simply talking to a world leader, wouldn’t violate the Logan Act, like him or hate him Musk is the owner of 3 very large and successful businesses.

Unfortunately, due to Boeing failure, NASA and the Space Force need SpaceX more than SpaceX needs them, SpaceX could definitely still make it without the Space Force contract. Of course it would take a literal act of Congress to get out of the contracts that have been already awarded. A single accusation that isn’t in the record isn’t enough justification for very much, even if Musk has openly supported, the opposition to a Harris administration.

a singular conversation

What makes you think that is what is alleged?

 

[OrvGull]

If man baby Elon actually has a security clearance issued by the US government, and he surely must because of how involved he is with the technical side of the business, and did not report his conversations with Putin, then that’s grounds to revoke his clearance. People with TS clearances have to report ALL substantive contact with foreign nationals. Everything about NRO/NSA/SDA satellites is classified at that level.

They didn't revoke it when he smoked weed on camera, they're not gonna revoke it now either. Elon is above the law.

 

[nimelennar]

If I thought, this community wouldn’t instantly downvote my explanation, I probably would try and explain my statement.

"I have a good explanation that isn't already covered by the last two pages of discussion about this very distinction.

"But my dog ate it."

 

[OrvGull]

Ok fans. Get your water bottles ready to hurl! LOL. This is not a hit piece. It's not worthy of that. It is a crass Supermarket Tabloid piece. Some one got paid to place this before the election? {ouch, that bottle hurt}. It feels like a small organization is jealous that no one of significance will pick up the phone when their assistants are called.

WSJ is not a small organization; and Rupert Murdoch is not an easy man to buy.

 

[xoe]

I don’t disagree. However, SpaceX can’t easily be separated from Musk, given that SpaceX isn’t a publicly traded company.

That's an incredibly naïve take, the US government has "dealt" with things like this easily enough in the past. You're assuming that everything will happen within the confines of the legal system as you understand it.

The American government cannot force an American citizen to sell SpaceX, they can disqualify SpaceX from having contracts involving Space Force and NASA, and could in theory not allow SpaceX to launch any rockets by blocking it through environmental regulations.

You’re living in a fantasy world if you think the American government can force a private citizen to sell their company. I am completely against the TikTok ban, not because I love TikTok, I actually hate it. I just think they should be banned, not “we won’t ban you if you sell your ownership away”, because once your owned by the CCP your always owned by the CCP.

Actually yes they can, they can do whatever the fuck they want.

 

[Excvbgi89765]

Every SpaceX employee is voluntarily working for a facist and a traitor.

 

[toolery]

I’ve learned a couple things from this article and the comments:

1. There are a lot of Musk fanbois who read Ars
2. I used to joke about Trump allowing Putin to annex the US. Now I’m wondering whether it’s a joke anymore

 

[Madestjohn]

Every SpaceX employee is voluntarily working for a facist and a traitor.

Well. I’m not sure about voluntarily .. those ponies are a bitch to maintain

 

[xoe]

Outside the government doing something illegal and it being reversed, I feel it best to speak relevantly in what can happen with the legal system, rather than outside of the legal system.

"as you understand it" was doing a lot of heavy lifting in my comment. You seem to understand it as code running on a computer, not legislation running on systems of humans. What is and is not legal for the government to do changes all the time.

 

[toolery]

America is a Republic not a Democracy.

This is one of those smarter than thou bullshit statements that makes my blood boil.

 

[Madestjohn]

Is the discussion talking about nationalization of SpaceX? In order for that to happen, America would have to declare war on Russia, and then claim due to Elon Musks conversations with Putin is a national security risk. Outside of that happening, and I don’t see that happening because a declaration of out right war with Russia, is a complete game changer. This country in a declared war with Russia would have bigger concerns than launching rockets into space.

Executive Order 13406 of June 23, 2006

Protecting the Property Rights of the American People



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 1. Policy.

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Sec. 2. Implementation.

(a)

The Attorney General shall: (i)   issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and (ii)   monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b)

Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law: (i)   comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and (ii)   provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii).

Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions.

Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of:

(a)		public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation;
(b)		projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity;
(c)		conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right;
(d)		preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment;
(e)		acquiring abandoned property;
(f)		quieting title to real property;
(g)		acquiring ownership or use by a public utility;
(h)		facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or
(i)		meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies.

Sec. 4. General Provisions.

(a)		This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(b)		Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i)   authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or (ii)   functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c)		This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988.
(d)		This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

George W. Bush
The White House,
June 23, 2006.


sorry .. I understand that you might find that confusing
this is a president executive order making some restrictions on federal governmen policies on taking private property
it makes it policy that the federal government should fairly compensate anyone who has their private property taken and that they should not take it to financial benefit other private citizens


…no where does it say they can’t take it.