Trump's Threat to Kill SpaceX Presents One Hidden Safety Concern
And it's the fate of the International Space Station that is actually the number one reason why an utterly defunded SpaceX might be a very dangerous thing. In 2024, NASA awarded SpaceX a contract valued at $843 million. The purpose? To deorbit the International Space Station by the end of the decade. Basically, the ISS is not designed to stay in orbit forever, and before it is replaced by something more permanent, it will have to be safely moved to a low Earth orbit. This means that SpaceX is currently tasked by the U.S. government to build the United States Deorbit Vehicle (USDV).
"Selecting a U.S. Deorbit Vehicle for the International Space Station will help NASA and its international partners ensure a safe and responsible transition in low Earth orbit at the end of station operations," Ken Bowersox said in a NASA statement last year.In a hypothetical world in which Trump decides to rescind all government contracts for SpaceX, that would presumably include killing the all-important job of SpaceX building the USDV. And if SpaceX doesn't build the USDV, who will help mitigate the very real fallout of a large space station?
Again, hypothetically, there are other organizations that have spacecraft, but as the stranding of Wilmore and Williams recently demonstrated, SpaceX has proven to be the most reliable way for the U.S. to get people in and out of space. In fact, the whole reason that Wilmore and Williams were stranded was because the Boeing Starliner — a rival aerospace venture to SpaceX — was unable to complete a return trip because of safety concerns.
Concurrent with all of this, Blue Origin's New Glenn craft isn't even close to being ready. Notably, Blue Origin's other craft, the New Shepard, isn't designed to go far enough into space to be useful to the ISS.
One might wonder if SpaceX really needs the money. And it's possible the company doesn't. As Musk pointed out on June 3, the entirety of what NASA pays to SpaceX ($1.1 billion) is dwarfed by SpaceX's current revenue ($15.5 billion). Basically, SpaceX's Starlink services are making plenty of money for the company, so if Trump rescinded even just that contract valued at roughly $800 million, it wouldn't come close to putting SpaceX out of business.
Legally, Trump might be able to try and sever ties between SpaceX and the U.S. government, specifically, NASA. But practically speaking, this seems very unlikely long-term. Right now, SpaceX is the best bet for creating a safe deorbit for the ISS. And, if any more astronauts get stranded — from any country — it seems like Musk's Dragons are still the most reliable space taxi.Trump's Threat to Kill SpaceX Presents One Hidden Safety Concern first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 6, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
SpaceX launches 28 Starlink satellites days after service outage
July 26 (UPI) -- SpaceX early Saturday launched another 28 Starlink satellites into low-Earth orbit from Florida, days after a short service outage hit the space-based internet provider. The Falcon 9 lifted off at 5:01 a.m. EDT from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station's Pad 40. The first-stage booster launched for the 22nd time, including Crew-6 and 17 previous Starlink missions. About 8 minutes after liftoff, the booster landed on "A Shortfall of Gravitas" drone ship stationed in the Atlantic Ocean. It was the 119th touchdown on the droneship and the 480th to date for SpaceX in Florida and California. This year, it was the 91st Falcon 9 launch, according to SpaceFlight Now. There are more than 8,000 Starlink satellites in orbit, according to astronomer Jonathan McDowell. On Thursday, Starlink users reported a rare full network outage of internet service. It began at 4 p.m. About 2 1/2 hours later, SpaceX announced most service had been restored. Then, 1 1/2 hours later, full service was back, Starlink reported. "The outage was due to failure of key internal software services that operate the core network," Michael Nicholls, vice president of Starlink Engineering at SpaceX wrote on X. "We apologize for the temporary disruption in our service; we are deeply committed to providing a highly reliable network, and will fully root cause this issue and ensure it does not occur again." There are more than 6 million Starlink customers worldwide, including 2 million in the United States after debuting in 2021. The next SpaceX launch is scheduled for 8:55 p.m. PDT Saturday from Vandenbrug Space Force Station's Pad 4E in California. An additional 24 Starlink satellites are scheduled for deployment.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump threatens to withhold trade deals from Thailand, Cambodia amid conflict
President Trump threatened to withhold potential trade deals from Thailand and Cambodia amid a border conflict that has displaced tens of thousands of civilians and left at least 32 people dead. Trump said on Saturday that he spoke with Cambodia's prime minister Hun Manet and that he called Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai to 'request' a ceasefire and an end to the cross-border war. 'We happen to be, by coincidence, currently dealing on Trade with both Countries, but do not want to make any Deal, with either Country, if they are fighting — And I have told them so,' Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. 'Many people are being killed in this War, but it very much reminds me of the Conflict between Pakistan and India, which was brought to a successful halt,' the president added, referring to U.S. efforts to help broker a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May after the two exchanged tit-for-tat strikes. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has continued on Saturday, its third day. In Thailand, 19 people were killed, while in Cambodia, the death toll has reached 13, according to The Associated Press. The conflict has erupted after five Thai soldiers were wounded on Wednesday from a land mine explosion. In another Saturday post on Truth Social, Trump, who is visiting Scotland, said he had a 'very good conversation' with Wechayachai, Thailand's acting prime minister. 'Thailand, like Cambodia, wants to have an immediate Ceasefire, and PEACE. I am now going to relay that message back to the Prime Minister of Cambodia,' Trump wrote on Saturday. 'After speaking to both Parties, Ceasefire, Peace, and Prosperity seems to be a natural. We will soon see!' Trump's conversations with leaders of Cambodia and Thailand come as he has threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs on a host of countries, including the two currently at war. Both Bangkok and Phnom Penh would face a 36 percent reciprocal rate, which Trump and other administration officials said would go into effect on Aug. 1.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
