Do american private companys represent America to you?

[xenomorph555]

The other day I had the "pleasure" of having an argument with a guy on the internet, it focused round whether US companys (spacex, orbital) represent the US.

The conversation went like this: *Guy might be over exaggerated*

Guy:ER MEH GERD TE N-1 SUKS! USA USA!

Me:I wouldn't say sucks, more like unfinished. The engines were really good though.

Guy:WAT NW RUSSIAN ENGINNES SUK!

Other guy:Well you can't say that when the US uses them to this day.

Guy: WAT NW US NEVR HAV N NEVR WIL US TEM!

Me:Antares.

Guy:NW DATS ORBITAL DAY DONT REPWASENT (he did spell it like this one time xp) MURICA!

Any way so what do you think, just remember if you select no you can't say "MURICAS BEST" when spacex reuses rockets and dragons.

EDIT: FORGOT THE POLL, my bad

[Kryten]

Two points;

A) Atlas V also uses Russian engines, and that's about as close as any vehicle can be to being 'US-operated'.

If US companies don't represent the US, then the US doesn't have any space capability. At all.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

If they have a country's flag on them, they represent that country.

Edited July 28, 2014 by TechnicalK3rbal

[Sky_walker]

So where is that poll?

Cause I vote "No".

If US companies don't represent the US, then the US doesn't have any space capability. At all.

Space LAUNCH capability. And yes: they don't.

Suck it up 'Murcians.

If they have a country's flag on them, they represent that country. Just like ships.

If it's like ships - then they don't.

To quote Wikipedia:

the word "flag" is often used symbolically as a synonym for "country of registration".

Edited July 28, 2014 by Sky_walker

[xenomorph555]

So where is that poll?

Cause I vote "No".

Yeah sorry about that, screwed up there... :/

[Red Iron Crown]

Heh, I had a similar discussion about US vs USSR/Russian space programs in IRC today. Apparently the N1 is proof that Russians can't design and build rockets and the Moon landing is the ultimate achievement in space, the space race was over after that.

I think US companies do count as part of the US; they could be nationalized if needed and are subject to American technology transfer restrictions. Claiming the US doesn't have launch capabilities because they come from private industry sort of ignores how the economic system works there.

[Kryten]

If they have a country's flag on them, they represent that country. Just like ships.

Not really the best analogy; if that was the case, most of the world's ships would represent Panama.

[vger]

No, and unfortunately I can't go into further detail on that without delving into politics.

[cpast]

The capabilities of American companies which are working as contractors for the US government absolutely represent US capabilities. That is simply how the US government acquires most things - contractors build it for them. If you don't think contractor-built things represent US capabilities, you wind up saying that the US doesn't have the capability to produce things such as warships, which means you have a fairly useless definition of "capabilities of the United States".

[xcorps]

The capabilities of American companies which are working as contractors for the US government absolutely represent US capabilities. That is simply how the US government acquires most things - contractors build it for them. If you don't think contractor-built things represent US capabilities, you wind up saying that the US doesn't have the capability to produce things such as warships, which means you have a fairly useless definition of "capabilities of the United States".

That makes some interesting thought.

The evil bastards at Monsanto are certainly a representative of a portion of America. But then so are the folks at Panera Bread. Two very opposite viewpoints there on the value of profit vs the value of life.

I'd say, like anything, looking at a small sample as representative of a larger group is probably not the best way to go.

[Seret]

So xenomorph555 essentially you're trying to crowdsource a rebuttal to an idiot?

[impyre]

I don't think this question can be answered fairly. It's not all that different than asking "does joe dirt represent america?" or "does obama represent america?" Even if a company could be said to "represent" america, it would undoubtedly only represent a portion of us. Of course that brings into focus the question of how you define america. By it's constitution? By the average citizens? The worst? The best? By it's culture(s)? To me, America means two things... freedom to pursue opportunities that arise and the diligence to make something out of them. Of course that's the idealized version, but in that sense these companies seem to represent those ideas very well... especially spaceX, whose founder Elon Musk was born in South Africa and founded or co-founded several large companies, including spaceX and Tesla motors. I don't believe their choice to use russian engines makes them any less american than my choice to buy imported chinese goods does me. It simply comes down to what is most practical in terms of efficiency, cost, reliability, and whatever other factors are important to him.

[Sky_walker]

It's not all that different than asking "does joe dirt represent america?" or "does obama represent america?"

More like: Does Richard Branson (with his Virgin Galactic) represent US? Or does Elon Musk represent US?

To me, America means two things... freedom to pursue opportunities that arise and the diligence to make something out of them.

o_O

And Europe does not?

To me United States of America (mistakenly referred to as an "America") represents a country in the North America.

Don't mix ideology with countries. That's the way that leads right into nationalism.

The capabilities of American companies which are working as contractors for the US government absolutely represent US capabilities.

So when they take contract form Estonia - they represent Estonian government? If they take contract from Kazakhstan they represent Kazakh government?

I think that if they represent anything - it's their owners and the power of private enterprisers.

So in case of Space X - they represent Elon Musk.

In case of Virgin Galactic - they represent Richard Branson.

I think US companies do count as part of the US; they could be nationalized if needed and are subject to American technology transfer restrictions.

Yes, companies that operate in a country are bound by it's laws. Nothing new here.

As for "they could be nationalized" - first of all: they are not and it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. We are talking here about current state of things, not about what might or might not happen.

But for a moment let's think it might happen and if so then: If Latvian government will ever buy stocks of the SpaceX - company will automatically count as a part of Lativia? I don't think it works this way.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, companies that operate in a country are bound by it's laws. Nothing new here.

As for "they could be nationalized" - first of all: they are not and it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. We are talking here about current state of things, not about what might or might not happen.

But for a moment let's think it might happen and if so then: If Latvian government will ever buy stocks of the SpaceX - company will automatically count as a part of Lativia? I don't think it works this way.

Latvia wouldn't have the type of control over SpaceX that the US does. While the US might never nationalize SpaceX (or ULA, or any private supplier), those tech transfer laws can restrict which countries their services can be sold to. It is very much a matter of national policy, so it is meaningful to say that those capabilities are included in the nation's capabilities. As a thought experiment, what do you think would happen if China wanted to license SpaceX rocket technology for manufacture or buy rockets from them outright? Would SpaceX be permitted to sell or license it to them? Who would stop them?

[xenomorph555]

So xenomorph555 essentially you're trying to crowdsource a rebuttal to an idiot?

Actually I really wanted to know what people opinions were, Iv'e seen people with the two different views and wanted to know what people though here.

[rkman]

The capabilities of American companies which are working as contractors for the US government absolutely represent US capabilities.

So when they take contract form Estonia - they represent Estonian government? If they take contract from Kazakhstan they represent Kazakh government?

I think there is a considerable difference between "representing a country's technical capabilities" and "representing a country's government".

[Sky_walker]

I think there is a considerable difference between "representing a country's technical capabilities" and "representing a country's government".

"country's technical capabilities" is such a vague term that I don't even know how to approach it.

Let's take for example Atlas V: Rocket owned by a private company build and designed by experts from all around the world, running on Russian engines, with majority of hull manufactured in US out of components made in US and China and resources extracted, again: all around the world, launched for the US-owned facilities.

Now compare that to Angara rocket: Under a full control of Russian government, designed by Russian engineers, running on Russian engines, with all of the components manufactured in Russia and resources extracted mostly in Russia, launched from Russian facilities (major objective of Angara rocket program is to make Russia fully independent in rocket construction).

As far as I'm concerned - Angara is a perfect example of a rocket representing country's technical capabilities. Atlas V - represents a power of private investments if anything at all.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Sky_walker

[cpast]

So when they take contract form Estonia - they represent Estonian government? If they take contract from Kazakhstan they represent Kazakh government?

Nope. Estonian companies taking contracts from Estonia represent Estonian technical capabilities. American companies taking contracts from Estonia do not - it means that the capability is not located in Estonia, and so Estonia does not independently have the capability. Similarly, if the US buys aircraft from EADS which are designed and manufactured in Europe, it does not represent technical capabilities of the United States -- it represents European technical capabilities that the US can buy on the open market.

I think that if they represent anything - it's their owners and the power of private enterprisers.

So in case of Space X - they represent Elon Musk.

In case of Virgin Galactic - they represent Richard Branson.

They represent capabilities of private industry (neither company you listed has a single "owner"; more than the one person has shares), but they also represent technical capabilities of a nation (unless you seriously believe that it's sensible to say that the US does not have the capability to build, say, nuclear submarines; if you believe that, your definition of "capability" is rather useless when talking about countries with market economies, where most things the government does are built by contractors for the government).

Yes, companies that operate in a country are bound by it's laws. Nothing new here.

As for "they could be nationalized" - first of all: they are not and it's extremely unlikely to ever happen. We are talking here about current state of things, not about what might or might not happen.

But for a moment let's think it might happen and if so then: If Latvian government will ever buy stocks of the SpaceX - company will automatically count as a part of Lativia? I don't think it works this way.

Nope. SpaceX is located in the US, and that's where the engineering talent and facilities are. If Latvia invests in SpaceX and then SpaceX develops sufficient amounts of stuff in Latvia that the Latvian division can operate independently of the American division, then the Latvian division does represent Latvian capabilities.

"country's technical capabilities" is such a vague term that I don't even know how to approach it.

Let's take for example Atlas V: Rocket owned by a private company build and designed by experts from all around the world, running on Russian engines, with majority of hull manufactured in US out of components made in US and China and resources extracted, again: all around the world, launched for the US-owned facilities.

Now compare that to Angara rocket: Under a full control of Russian government, designed by Russian engineers, running on Russian engines, with all of the components manufactured in Russia and resources extracted mostly in Russia, launched from Russian facilities (major objective of Angara rocket program is to make Russia fully independent in rocket construction).

As far as I'm concerned - Angara is a perfect example of a rocket representing country's technical capabilities. Atlas V - represents a power of private investments if anything at all.

The issue with that definition is you basically come to the conclusion that a country where industry is not nationalized has no technical capabilities. Such a thing makes sense if you want to talk about how nationalized industry is superior. It's utterly useless if you want to be able to discuss anything else.

About Atlas V using Russian engines: Yes, it does. It does not represent a US capability to build launch vehicles, not because it doesn't represent the US but because key parts are not done in the US. SpaceX does, as their rockets are manufactured here.

[Sky_walker]

Hm... so you propose geographical location?

Where company is determines which country it represents?

IMHO that's a huge oversimplification. Just the fact that company is located in America is somewhat meaningless to whatever it represents America or not - or if it can represent it all. Again - the example of flag on a ship. It's barely a testimony to the place of registration.

They represent capabilities of private industry

Yes, that pretty much sums up my point of view.

neither company you listed has a single "owner"; more than the one person has shares

You are correct, however I was talking here about a major shareholder.

About Atlas V using Russian engines: Yes, it does. It does not represent a US capability to build launch vehicles

"Yes it does" what? Could you explain what you mean by that? Cause I see "yes it does, no it doesn't" here.

[vger]

Don't mix ideology with countries. That's the way that leads right into nationalism.

Isn't nationalism practically a prerequisite for answering the question posed in this thread?

[MajorThomas]

To OP: No point in answering the idiot's assertions. If they're so full of crap they wouldn't listen to anything, let alone a finely crafted response.

[DaRocketCat]

Yes SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp absolutely do, as they only prosper because of the US federal government and the grants and contracts it awards. Furthermore US law prohibits exporting rocketry and many other high tech products (ex: F22). Just like Lockheed Martin and Boeing represent the military capabilities of the US federal gov't, Spacex and Orbital Sciences mostly represent US space capabilities.

[cpast]

Hm... so you propose geographical location?

Where company is determines which country it represents?

IMHO that's a huge oversimplification. Just the fact that company is located in America is somewhat meaningless to whatever it represents America or not - or if it can represent it all. Again - the example of flag on a ship. It's barely a testimony to the place of registration.

It's irrelevant for ships because ships aren't generally physically located where they're registered, nor were they built there, nor are operational decisions about where they're sent made there. A ship changing the nation in which it is registered -- a ship flagged in, say, the US can be reflagged in Panama by paying a fee, with no change to anything connected to the ship itself. That might apply when talking about an individual rocket (i.e. "This particular Proton rocket, number ##-###), but I'm talking about the ability to *make* rockets (and things like types of rockets), where the location it's constructed is significant and is not easy to change (factories and labor forces being less mobile than ships).

Yes, that pretty much sums up my point of view.

Then read the "but also" thing immediately following what you quoted.

You are correct, however I was talking here about a major shareholder.

Yeah, that was kinda a nit I was picking, not so relevant (in retrospect, wouldn't have included it).

"Yes it does" what? Could you explain what you mean by that? Cause I see "yes it does, no it doesn't" here.

What I meant was: The fact that the Atlas V uses Russian engines means some American rockets use Russian engines; it doesn't just mean that ULA uses some Russian engines. As a consequence of that, the Atlas V does not represent an independent American launch capability -- not because it doesn't count as an American rocket (which is what I interpret you as saying, that privately built rockets don't count as American rockets), but because it relies on technology from outside the US. Fundamentally, the Atlas V is an American rocket, because it was designed, and is mostly built, in the US; however, because it relies on Russian components for its construction (and the engines aren't a minor thing; if it had relied on Canadian wiring, that wouldn't be a big deal to change, while engines are a big deal), it isn't an *independent* launch capability. It makes sense to call it a US rocket, but not to point to it as evidence that the US has the independent ability to build entire rockets without relying on components built elsewhere. I'm not sure if that's any clearer; I have a pretty firm idea in my head about what I mean, but may not be getting it across right.

[Vilheim]

Meh. The more we can get away from 'X represents Y country', the happier I will be. To me, the less nationalism, the better.

Think about it. What actual good does nationalism do for humanity as a whole?

[R0cketC0der]

Yes SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp absolutely do, as they only prosper because of the US federal government and the grants and contracts it awards. Furthermore US law prohibits exporting rocketry and many other high tech products (ex: F22). Just like Lockheed Martin and Boeing represent the military capabilities of the US federal gov't, Spacex and Orbital Sciences mostly represent US space capabilities.

IIRC both the falcon 1 and falcon 9 were developed 100% on private budget.