Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SpaceX Injunction Dissolved

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the failure-to-launch dept.

The Courts 98

An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, SpaceX filed suit against the U.S. Air Force in an attempt to enforce competition for rocket purchases. They argued it was a bad idea to blindly shovel money into Russia's coffers for rides to space, and said there was no way for other rocket manufacturers to get a foot in the door. Last week, it looked like they were getting traction — an injunction was granted, temporarily halting the Air Force's process of buying rockets. Unfortunately for SpaceX, that injunction has now been dissolved. At the heart of the suit was Executive Order 13,661, which blocks the transfer of wealth to people in the Russian Federation who are related to the situation in the Ukraine. SpaceX said that since Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was the head of their space agency, payments to the agency were effectively payments to him. The U.S. departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury all sent letters to the court saying this was not the case, and the court agreed. Here's the final ruling."

cancel ×

98 comments

Once Again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961435)

The Obama Administration Screws Over America.

Re:Once Again (3, Interesting)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 2 months ago | (#46961495)

The argument was inherently flawed.
By the same argument, are income tax payments "effectively payments" to John Koskinen, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?

Re:Once Again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961741)

You clearly have no understanding of how the Russian Mobster Government works.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that Putin and his cronies are not getting a cut of the action?

Re:Once Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962195)

Whoa, easy there! You'll drop your tinfoil hat.

Re:Once Again (4, Insightful)

krashnburn200 (1031132) | about 2 months ago | (#46963253)

Everyone was all about the tin foil hats before Snowden as well when you talked about NSA spying. on everyone.
Now the same people are all "err well, everyone already /knew/ that..."

Re:Once Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46988863)

Well, to be fair, the NSA program was being openly discussed in relatively mainstream media and congress in 2012, before Snowden came along:

For example,
http://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/03/20/nsa-chief-denies-wireds-domestic-spying-story-fourteen-times-in-congressional-hearing/

Lots of times these stories are there in the open but no one's paying attention (the story related to lack of WMDs in Iraq was being discussed in testimony before congress by intelligence experts before the invasion; there were cover stories in the Economist about the onset of the Great Recession economic collapse a year or so before it happened).

It's not really a tinfoil hat thing, or even a even-a-broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day thing, it's a matter of how news spreads or does not.

Re:Once Again (2)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 months ago | (#46963403)

Yeah, you can't make any judgement about Putin's government until it invades Georgia^WUkraine^Wsome other country!

Re:Once Again (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 months ago | (#46965171)

"All I want is peace. Peace. Peace!"

"Aaaaaa... little piece of Poland, a little piece of France.
A little piece of Portugal, and Austria perchance.
A little slice of Turkey, and all that that entails
And then a piece of England Scotland lreland and Wales
A little nip of Norway, a little spot of Greece
A little hunk of Hungary, oh what a lovely feast
A little bite of Belgium, and now for some dessert
Armenia Albania, and Russia wouldn 't hurt..."

Re:Once Again (1)

dl_sledding (1624921) | about 2 months ago | (#46981325)

Sweet.

Re:Once Again (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 months ago | (#46982981)

Well, I should really give proper credit to Mel Brooks... (from To Be or Not to Be)

Re:Once Again (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 months ago | (#46962295)

That's not really the courts' decision to make, though. Congress authorized the President to freeze transfers to certain individuals. The President designated some of them here. Therefore the law prohibits transferring money to these specific individuals. It does not ban transferring money to the government of Russia, only to some of its specific politicians, in their individual capacity.

Now it's possible that Russia is so corrupt that there's no meaningful difference between Putin's money and the government's money. But if Congress and/or the President believe that and want to prohibit the transfer of money to Russia as a whole, not only to certain Russian individuals, they need to make that decision and enact that law.

Re:Once Again (3, Interesting)

stox (131684) | about 2 months ago | (#46962571)

"Now it's possible that Russia is so corrupt that there's no meaningful difference between Putin's money and the government's money."

How else do you think Putin attained a net worth of $70B?

Re:Once Again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962679)

Kickbacks, insider trading, extortion. There's lots of ways to attain wealth besides embezzlement.

Re:Once Again (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 2 months ago | (#46964703)

Kickbacks, insider trading, extortion. There's lots of ways to attain wealth besides embezzlement.

A kickback is taking money that you control, but don't own, paying it out to a third party, who funnels some of it back to you. So that is a form of embezzlement.

Re:Once Again (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 months ago | (#46965189)

Actually, it's pretty clear how he did it. He helped privatize all of the national industries in exchange for stock from the cronies he gave the industries to. It would basically be like Obama saying "hey, Warren Buffet, buddy - take the US Forest Service and do whatever you want with it - but I get 20% of the profits!"

Ironically, it was a display of the purest form of the capitalism he pretends to protest - fairly close to the way the 19th century railroad and oil robber barons made their fortunes in the US. Except he managed to do it while being a politician making bald faced lies to his people and the world at the same time, which makes it even more impressive.

Re:Once Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962329)

And you have no understanding of how the American Legal System works. Your beliefs and fears are not enough to make a judgement.

Re:Once Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961771)

Legally the argument was baseless.

Morally they have a damn good point.

Re:Once Again (1)

xfizik (3491039) | about 2 months ago | (#46962559)

Morals in business and politics? Oh, my...

Re:Once Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46963119)

It's a good thing then that it's not the job of US courts to rule on questions of morality.

Re:Once Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46965579)

Apart from the bit where they already have by creating sanctions against Russia for doing things they don't like.

The Government can't have it both ways here. Well O.K, apparently they can, and people like you will defend the duplicity.

Re:Once Again (1)

jafac (1449) | about 2 months ago | (#46962411)

It was just a political stunt to try to appeal to nationalist sentiment. Probably ill-considered, and we would not have seen it if there weren't presently political tensions. Whether Musk won or not, he got some publicity out of this.

Re:Once Again (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 2 months ago | (#46964009)

We could use some more "nationalist sentiment" from the corporations in the US. "nationalist sentiment" can help pressure corporations to make decisions that benefit both the US work force and consumers first with everybody else coming in a distant 2nd.

Re:Once Again (2)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 2 months ago | (#46963687)

Well, I would say SpaceX has a good point nonetheless. See this:

http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

Basically the federal government deliberately limits its choices in contractors, and then spends a ton of money and doesn't get good results. (Meanwhile a lot of the anti-capitalist types falsely use this as an argument for why the government is more efficient than the private sector.)

hey, it's good, we already bought these guys (2)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 months ago | (#46962839)

the launches are in the bank. trust us. they said they'll send the negatives any day now...

didnt you know? (1, Troll)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#46961437)

the blocks on russian money is just for show. Does everyone forget the conversation obama and putin had? Something along the lines of wait until after the election and ill have more leeway?? Im not saying that invading ukrane is what they were talking about but, im saying we dont know what he was talking about

Obama and putin are buddy buddy, anything america is doing against russia right now is only to keep the american people happy, its not to actually get results

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961535)

Can it really be that simple. I mean, sure. You cause problems for Russia, Russia can cause trouble to EU banks, which could cause another 2008. But just for show? I can't imagine it being JUST so.

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961607)

Obama was stating a factual truth, elections compromise decisions, that is why judicial elections are often considered suspect, and are pretty much heavily regulated compared to other political office.

Now practically speaking, the US and Russia don't even ostensibly have any official ideological differences, and what with the oligarchs in power over there no longer pretending to support communism and oppose capitalism, but yeah, the conflicts are a bit rear, if anything, they want a little cold war to build up military spending on each side.

Unfortunately, the last guy who dared to speak out about that was Eisenhower.

Re:didnt you know? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961671)

Its clear that Obama is a sleeper agent for Russia. He has had a leading role the renaming of the KGB to NSA.

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962247)

Following that logic, it is even MORE clear that Bush is a sleeper agent for North Korea.

Re:didnt you know?FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962699)

"Following that logic, it is even MORE clear that Bush is a sleeper agent."
about all the credit I am going to give him, Obama has the intelligence to at least be a sleeper agent.

Re:didnt you know? (3, Interesting)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#46962485)

Obama and putin are buddy buddy

Some times I wish this were true, but it is not. I think, Obama is genuinely and sincerely appalled by Putin's aggression against Ukraine and other countries. He is just caught completely by surprise — Obama is a master of class warfare rhetoric, which helps him domestically, but he is learning foreign relations as well as simple history of the world on the job.

This is not me — a racist RethugliKKKan saying it — sympathetic newspapers [nytimes.com] in 2008 agreed, that it is Joe Biden, who brings foreign policy heft to the ticket [go.com] :

Mr. Biden is among the best-informed lawmakers on international affairs, a gap in Mr. Obama’s résumé.

I'd say, things could've been a lot worse under an Administration, where a jovial lunatic is the primary fount of foreign policy expertise. Or, maybe, they are just as bad as they could get...

Whereas Putin is an expert, Obama is a neophite — an out-of-his-league amateur. While Putin can order his army into Ukraine at any moment — they already have "PEACEKEERS" painted on their helmets and vehicles — Obama can't even muster enough determination to send body-armor to Ukrainian military.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#46963929)

but he is learning foreign relations as well as simple history of the world on the job.

Situation normal. See also the President of the day laughing at the joke of "Uncle Joe" Stalin about mass killings of his own civilians while Churchill went pale in horror. There is a structural disconnection between Presidents and people with a clue - for example Kissenger was the only official conduit for intelligence information to Nixon which resulted in some serious misconceptions about the Vietnam war that could have led to WWIII if Nixon had taken them seriously enough. If the joint chiefs hadn't had their own spy in the executive branch giving them feedback who knows what would have happened.

Obama can't even muster enough determination to send body-armor to Ukrainian military.

Does the US really want to support the current Ukrainian government? They may not be as morally dubious as the Algerian government that the US already supports militarily but as a new operation that really needs to be considered carefully. It may not be as hard as picking a side in Syria but it's not a black and white choice either. Backing Saddam against Iran was a pretty stupid mistake in hindsight so backing anyone opposed to people we do not like is already proven to be a stupid policy.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#46983043)

There is a structural disconnection between Presidents and people with a clue

There is clueless and then there is Obama-clueless — in a class all his own. Even Sarah Palin was able to foresee Putin's attack on Ukraine as next after his invasion into Georgia [independent.co.uk] .

It may not be as hard as picking a side in Syria but it's not a black and white choice either.

It is "black-and-white". The only possible negative is angering Russia. That's all.

Backing Saddam against Iran was a pretty stupid mistake

Saddam Hussein has always been considered a "lesser evil". Ukraine's new government — contrary to Putin-TV's allegations — is not evil in the slightest. Their case is as clear-cut as that of Czechoslovakia and Poland of the late 1930-ies — and Obama does seem to agree with that. He just can't do anything about it for some reason.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#46985333)

Didn't you notice incidents such as overt poisioning of oppenents happening in Ukrane politics? It's hard to pick the "good guys" when things have got that medieval.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#46985499)

Didn't you notice incidents such as overt poisioning of oppenents happening in Ukrane politics?

Yep, and the victim — Victor Yuschenko [wikipedia.org] — was the guy, who dared to run against Putin's choice for Ukraine's President. To you the names like "Yanukovich" and "Yuschenko" may appear similar, but a foreign policy expert advising the leader of the free world must be able to keep up.

It's hard to pick the "good guys" when things have got that medieval.

On the contrary, it is very easy — if Putin-TV talks against them, they are most probably alright. The "things" have gotten far more "medieval" in Syria, yet America's sympathies there are perfectly "black-and-white", for some reason. That we no longer have "good options" in Syria [wsj.com] can be blamed on Obama and his Department of State. If he does not act quickly, there may be no "good options" left in Ukraine either.

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964347)

Whereas Putin is an expert, Obama is a neophite - an out-of-his-league amateur.

Putin is the former head of the KGB, Obama is a former community organizer.

That about sums it up.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#46962565)

"anything america is doing against russia right now is only to keep the american people happy, its not to actually get results"

Except that the polls have been saying for a couple years now that the majority of us actually want the government to settle down and be less interventionist overseas. See these [antiwar.com] recent results for instance. Commissar Nulands project has nothing to do with making Americans happy.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#46963095)

Exactly, The correct response to russia invading another country is more than giving them a stern talking to, but america is tired of wars, so obama is keeping us happy while doing the wrong thing on the world stage. I mean hey, hitler ONLY wanted poland right?

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964053)

You do realize that the rest of the world laughs when America lectures Russia on how they shouldn't invade other countries, right?

Re:didnt you know? (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 months ago | (#46966251)

there is a HUGE difference between invading iraq (which I disagreed with and still do) and NOT making it the 51st state, and what russia is doing now

A true comparison would be if we invaded canada next week and declared it a part of america

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46963349)

There is a huge difference between not wanting our government to invade other nations (beginning a long and costly occupation) and not wanting our government to hold up it's end of nuclear disarmament treaties (The Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons under the understanding that we would ensure their boarders).

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964089)

The Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons under the understanding that we would ensure their boarders.

Yeah, that was a funny one. Almost as funny as when the US government said they wouldn't expand NATO eastwards, and the dumb Russians believed them.

Ha-ha.

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46966063)

> the US government said they wouldn't expand NATO eastwards, and the dumb Russians believed them
It's not that they believed, it's that Yeltsin didn't give a flying fuck about anything other than booze and staying in power.

Re:didnt you know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46963305)

They were discussion nuclear disarmament, and Obamma was saying that he was limited in what he could do about reducing the US nuclear stockpile before an election (as anything the Republicans could spin as "weak on defense" would cause him grief during the campaign), but that after his second term election he'd have more room to discuss the issue.

Re:didnt you know? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#46963855)

They are not going to do a Panama on Ukraine (comparisons hurt don't they?). Putin is getting everything he wants without a full invasion. Ukraine is being turned into a satellite state that will do as it is told on issues Putin considers important instead of a micromanaged occupied territory.

Beat them at their own game (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961455)

Elon should start launching spy sats for Russia and China!

What? Or more accurately, WTF? (2)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 2 months ago | (#46961483)

"The U.S. departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury" Isn't this the same administration that is supposed to be supporting US business, and sanctioning Russia re: Ukraine? I really hope the media and less likely the people, bring light to this bullshit and get on SpaceX side.

Re:What? Or more accurately, WTF? (2)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 months ago | (#46961685)

For you see how the actual "capitalism" is really, really broken. Enjoy, it's not every day you can see the true masters of the world acting in daylight.

Re:What? Or more accurately, WTF? (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 2 months ago | (#46962155)

This isn't capitalism. Otherwise, the USAF would be buying the cheapest or the best - not stuck on one foreign vendor.

Re:What? Or more accurately, WTF? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962185)

So today we learn that capitalism is all about buying cheap junk.

Re:What? Or more accurately, WTF? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962619)

The RD-180 is incredibly superior to the merlin engine spacex has at this time. It could be airforce priority isn't cost efficiency but reliability and perhaps some other parameters at which merlin isn't competitive at this time.

And same goes for the Atlas 5 launcher itself. It's a superior vehicle to Falcon 9 *at this time*. This can change fairly quickly but I guess upon reviewing current achievements and flexibility of Falcon 9 vs Atlas 5 Falcon 9 came up rather short.

At some point this could change then it's entirely possible airforce will come to spacex themselves.

Mission accomplished (5, Insightful)

photonic (584757) | about 2 months ago | (#46961489)

I don't think Elon expected to win that easy, but look how much publicity he got for filing a simple claim and getting a temporary injunction. He got to say a few times how they are 4x cheaper than the old guys, that might be remembered by some press and politicians the next time there is a big contract up for grabs.

Re:Mission accomplished (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#46961747)

Except that even if they are four times cheaper, it won't help them much if the bid will be for launchers with proven reliability. The military has probably more money to lose with they KH-47s (or whatever number they're using now) burning up than any civilian customer with their telco sats.

K.S. Kyosuke = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961853)

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964359)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke = "Run, Forrest: RUN!" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46967473)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46967483)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46972087)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

K. S. Kyosuke = "Run, Forrest: RUN!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46972095)

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:Mission accomplished (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961869)

Yeah and HP junk printers are 4x cheaper too, but have you seen the cost of the ink and the quality of the output?

EVERY business selling for the first time to government on a newly privatised endeavour starts off "cheap". The first hit is always free. What is your point? Boeing was once nimble and efficient, too.

Re:Mission accomplished (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 2 months ago | (#46961951)

I don't think Elon expected to win that easy, but look how much publicity he got for filing a simple claim and getting a temporary injunction. He got to say a few times how they are 4x cheaper than the old guys, that might be remembered by some press and politicians the next time there is a big contract up for grabs.

Huh? The goal of every politician is to spend the MOST money. Money is power.

But was anyone listening? (1)

westlake (615356) | about 2 months ago | (#46961977)

I don't think Elon expected to win that easy, but look how much publicity he got for filing a simple claim and getting a temporary injunction.

I'm looking but I'm not finding much.

The truth is that stories like this rarely make the front page or survive a single 24 hour news cycle before they are shoved into the back of the fridge and more or less forgotten.

Re:But was anyone listening? (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 2 months ago | (#46963879)

In the grand scheme of things the rocket engine procurement policies do not have much of an effect on the general population. After all there is only so much you can care about or worry about in a 24 hour period.

Re:Mission accomplished (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 2 months ago | (#46962029)

look how much publicity he got for filing a simple claim and getting a temporary injunction.

inspired someone to make this video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Elon musk's spaceship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962063)

It takes 60 days for a seller to collect their funds off of a ebay/paypal after selling an item. 60 whole days.

By then, one is probably homeless and on the streets, while paypal/ebay collect interest on that homeless person's money.

But Elon Musk has a spaceship!

Re:Mission accomplished (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46963393)

You are missing the big point though. The ULA is so scared of SpaceX that they are trying to get the government to pre-order a fucking huge amount of rockets. That way ULA can continue to collect its obscene monopoly prices long after it becomes clear that SpaceX is ready to handle the work.

Mixed feelings (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 months ago | (#46961499)

On one hand, i think that SpaceX should get a shot at competing here, but I don't think they should go about it through taking advantage of overreaching executive order.

Kill 13661, let SpaceX bid. Then I'll be happy.

Re:Mixed feelings (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961807)

Maybe the US Government should stop issuing overreaching executive orders.

Re:Mixed feelings (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 months ago | (#46962009)

Maybe the US Government should stop issuing overreaching executive orders.

For that to happen, it would have to start producing laws again. All Congress produces right now is campaign events [nypost.com] , and days off for themselves [huffingtonpost.com] . Passing a law that the POTUS supports might make him look good, and we can't have that. Passing a law that the POTUS doesn't support would require a 2/3 majority, which would require working with a lot of Democrats, who might also end up looking good, so we can't have that either.

In the meantime, executive orders are the only way left to keep the government staggering along in a manner vaguely resembling a real functioning government.

Re:Mixed feelings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964297)

The Presidency has grown too powerful. With the exception of enforcing the law, perhaps it's time to get rid of the executive orders.

We so need term limits in Congress. I say 12 years with an extension to 14 years if someone is appointed to replace someone. Two years is long enough to replace someone with an election. And yes, that's total between both houses. Not 12 in each.

Clarity at last (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46967417)

I see. So it is all the Republicans fault. Surprised you blame Bush. Thanks for clarifying why Saint Obama a.k.a. The Dark Doofus is failing. It is someone else at fault.

TFS is wrong. (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 2 months ago | (#46962741)

but I don't think they should go about it through taking advantage of overreaching executive order.

They didn't. SpaceX requested an injunction to freeze USAF contracting more launches to ULA. They didn't request an injunction on engine purchases from Russia.

The judge decided to add that one herself.

Copy and pasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961687)

They're all almost copies of each other. Sounds like one person drafted this response and handed it out for signatures.

More detail diving down. (4, Informative)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 months ago | (#46961707)

SpaceX said that since Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was the head of their space agency, payments to the agency were effectively payments to him. The U.S. departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury all sent letters to the court saying this was not the case, and the court agreed

Please nobody get worked up arguing against this statement, because that's not really what their arguments were.

The key phrase from the Judge's ruling is:

These letters collectively explain that, “to the best of [the relevant Department’s] knowledge, purchases from and payments to NPO Energomash currently do not directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661.”

However, that's not how I read the attached letters at all. The first three all effectively say, "Yes, if Rogozin controls Energomash, that looks like it would qualify, but only the Treasury Department can officially make that call."

The Fourth is actually from the Treasury Department (so its the important one), and it essentially says "it looks like something that technically falls under the order. However, we have to officially say that an entity is blocked before it is, and we don't want to say that about Energomash right now." So basically they get to pick and chose each and every entity to be affected by the Executive Order, and this isn't (yet) one they've picked.

That makes a certain amount of sense. Because all of this comes from an Executive Order, its really up to the "Executive" (the POTUS), and those under him, who or what gets blocked. If we'd like a general rule that can be applied broadly, that's what laws are for.

Re:More detail diving down. (1)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | about 2 months ago | (#46961955)

Yup, the letters all agree that if Rogozin controls NPO Energomash, payments must be blocked, but Treasury must "make an affirmative determination" that this is the case. Nothing compels them to actually make that affirmative determination.

Yes, they know that NPO Energomash is owned and controlled by the Russian Government. And yes, they know that Rogozin is the head of their space agency. But you could show them a cancelled check from Treasury with Rogozin's signature on it, and they still wouldn't be compelled to "affirmatively declare" that he was in control.

Re:More detail diving down. (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 months ago | (#46963157)

Well it more like that the "rules" set out in the EO are just a description of the goals of the EO, which Treasury uses as a guideline when they are deciding exactly which people and organizations will get their money blocked. However, its still Treasury deciding on a person-by-person and company-by-company basis who is getting blocked. If they feel like not blocking a specific company, and the POTUS (whose order they are following) is OK with that, that's currently their prerogative.

Again, if we want an actual rule that can be applied rather than a list subject to the whims of one guy, that's what laws are for. I'm sure Congress will be getting around to that any day now.

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961751)

Laws only exist to punish those who don't make them.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962797)

Get off the koolaid son.

Didn't you get the memo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961819)

Smart independent business owners are never smarter than the people in Washington. its the koolaid you drink when you get indoctrinated into their club that makes you smrt.

Funny thing is... (2)

puddingebola (2036796) | about 2 months ago | (#46961825)

Funny thing is, the way things work in Russia, payments to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin probably really are payments to Dmitry Rogozin.

Re:Funny thing is... (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 2 months ago | (#46962319)

I miss the old Soviet days, when it was the reverse.

There's enough bad blood right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961847)

I get SpaceX's point and I think there is some validity there for competition, but with everything else that is going on with regards to the Russia situation I think the best thing to do would be to keep things as they are. The space program is a more important symbol for peace than I think a lot of people realize or are willing to give it credit for. It's a shame we keep cutting the budget so we can instead burn the money on dumb projects like the F-35.

Good Call (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46961925)

Thank God. This helps maintain some form of meaningful relationship with Russia and re-enforces humanities space force initiative.

It is good to have some form of redundancy between economies and technology spanning geographies.

LawyersX and CourtsX run up the meter (4, Insightful)

Bob_Who (926234) | about 2 months ago | (#46961987)

Conspicuous legal procedures and political gymnastics are part of the Corporate/Government - Lobby/Courts Eco-system. SpaceX must exercise their ability to influence courts' legal authority to be immediately responsive to their trade concerns. My point is that the injunction or its dissolution is not important, but the speed in which they accessed court authority is meaningful.

When SpaceX lawyers make a legal assertion the US Court System prioritizes their concerns and responds immediately. Meanwhile, all other stuff on the court dockets languish in obscurity and red tape. If SpaceX has the legal/political clout to effect immediate response from the courts, then that is what I find most noteworthy. Whether or not their injunction is upheld is less important than their ability to get the government's (and our) undivided attention on the issue of their concerns. Its nice to have corporate clout, since corporations are now people. DemocracyX at work.

Re:LawyersX and CourtsX run up the meter (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 2 months ago | (#46962051)

The best post on this thread yet.
Well done.

Re:LawyersX and CourtsX run up the meter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962451)

Maybe you could comment on what, exactly, you find so terrible about the concept of corporate personhood, and why you believe that concept arose. After you've made an eloquent post defending your position, then you could do a little actual research into it, and maybe make a follow-up post where you reconcile your "Occupy"-like beliefs with reality.

Go. This should be interesting...

Re:LawyersX and CourtsX run up the meter (2)

Thruen (753567) | about 2 months ago | (#46963063)

The usual problem people have with corporate personhood is more of a campaign finance issue than anything, and it's obvious that's the problem here, but there were arguments against it before anyone made a big deal of that. I think some of the arguments were based more around the idea of corporations being equal to people and less with the legal ramifications, but there have always been legitimate concerns. Corporate personhood is used to shift blame around, and as we've seen recently in GM's case, it can help people avoid jail time for murder. It's helped con men get away with ruining lives, charging for goods and services then closing up shop and disappearing. The only reason we need it now is that the laws aren't written to apply to corporations, they're written to apply to people. Without corporate personhood, contract law can't be enforced when it involves one or more corporations, because the laws just aren't worded that way. Basically, corporate personhood let us avoid rewriting other laws specifically so they can be applied correctly to corporations, it was the easy way to do things but that doesn't make it the right way.

Problems with corporate personhood long predate the "Occupy" movement, and if you've done any of the research you suggest he does you know that. I'm not saying I have a better idea in mind, rewriting laws to apply to corporations wouldn't be easy, even deciding which ones to change would be a challenge. But you're a fool to think there are no real problems with corporate personhood, especially replying to a post that perfectly describes the result of the most commonly cited problem with corporate personhood; their influence in government.

And before you spout some BS about how people can collectively donate as much as corporations, no, most of us can't. Here's a quick explanation of the situation: The people who decide how much money they will pay us have already decided how much they're going to need for lobbying efforts, and when we spend money fighting against them, they spend more fighting against us, and then pay cuts cover it. Like I said, this is more of a campaign finance issue than a corporate personhood issue, but every individual problem with corporate personhood appears to be a problem with the laws being applied. This is because we've opted for corporate personhood instead of rewriting the laws. The trouble is all we really do is swap the word "person" with "corporation" and that isn't enough, not by a long shot.

Injunctions are all about speed. (1)

westlake (615356) | about 2 months ago | (#46963067)

My point is that the injunction or its dissolution is not important, but the speed in which they accessed court authority is meaningful.

You request an injunction when speed is essential.

An injunction is a court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action. Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are temporary injunctions. They are issued early in a lawsuit to maintain the status quo by preventing a defendant from becoming insolvent or to stop the defendant from continuing his or her allegedly harmful actions. Choosing whether to grant temporary injunctive relief is a discretionary power of the court.

There is a balancing test that courts typically employ in determining whether to issue an injunction. The defendant's 5th Amendment due process rights are weighed (heavily) against the possibility of the defendant becoming judgment-proof, and the immediacy of the harm allegedly done to the plaintiff (i.e., how badly does the plaintiff need the injunction). When it is possible, the defendant must always be put on notice of the injunction hearing, and the duration of the injunction is typically as temporary as possible. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, plaintiffs demanding an injunction are required to post a bond.

Injunction [cornell.edu]

load of crap (2)

tommyatomic (924744) | about 2 months ago | (#46962339)

I read through the final ruling. Its not a ruling. its a sidestep that effectively undermines the executive orders of the president. Each government agency is basically saying that even though executive order 13661 requires them to in no way do any business or pay any money to the russians that they have decided even though Rogozin controls the manufacture of russian rockets that the assorted government agencies assert that they have to first investigate the company in question and they'll let the court know when they get around to it. probably never.

load of crap

"After my election..." (1)

prisoner-of-enigma (535770) | about 2 months ago | (#46962691)

"After my election I have more flexibility." -- Obama to Medvedev [google.com]

How pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46962855)

Musk tries to push his stuff on political argument. Maybe they should try to compete on technical terms? Their competition is Soviet era tech (to be precise, 70's technology) that Russians mantained without much actual R&D investment.

Re:How pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964107)

Their competition is Soviet era tech (to be precise, 70's technology) that Russians mantained without much actual R&D investment.

Which is why it costs four times as much.

Next time... (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#46963311)

If SpaceX does win the contract next time it's competed (which is likely, given how much NASA is helping them) I wonder how they'll react when some other upstart jumps in and wants their contract voided.

Re:Next time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964017)

I'm guessing SpaceX would be quite happy if another company could sell launches for a quarter of what they charge, because we'd then be well on the way to opening up the solar system.

NASA is not helping them ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964931)

... they are forced by congress and by the circumstances.

Fact is contrary to what you read on the media, SpaceX hasn't managed to actually perform a complete mission and the partial success they have had is ALWAYS with serious issues. If it wasn't for the Canadian arm, the crappy Dragon capsule would never be able to dock with the station. Every time it flies the capsule has issues with thruster freezing ... but you never hear about it on the news.

And this is how you can tell it is all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46964049)

Bullshit politics and why we should never get involved and leave everyone to their fate.

Related to the situation in the Ukraine (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 months ago | (#46964159)

If US should not transfer wealth to anyone related to the situation in the Ukraine, then trade should be halted with Ukraine itself, Russia, but also Germany, and more generally EU, and even US. All that folks are at work in Ukraine right now.

Musk Apartheid SpaceX Flame Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46968973)

Musk is the LOOZER and SpermX Flames Out on the pad.

Ha ha
FU

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...