logo
Trump's Threat to Kill SpaceX Presents One Hidden Safety Concern

Trump's Threat to Kill SpaceX Presents One Hidden Safety Concern

Yahoo06-06-2025
Because of a political fallout, tech mogul and SpaceX owner Elon Musk has now attracted the verbal ire of President Trump. While sparring over social media, the President suggested that he could and would cancel Musk's government contracts relative to SpaceX. Briefly, this led Musk to claim that SpaceX would "decommission" the crucial Dragon spacecraft, but later reversed his position, saying, "Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." This is the very same type of vessel which recently led to the rescue of astronauts Butch Wilmore and Sunni Williams who were stranded on the International Space Station for much longer than originally planned.
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
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Plans To Force Thousands Of USDA Workers To Leave D.C. Area
Trump Plans To Force Thousands Of USDA Workers To Leave D.C. Area

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Plans To Force Thousands Of USDA Workers To Leave D.C. Area

The Trump administration plans to push thousands of U.S. Agriculture Department workers out of the Washington, D.C., region by forcing them to relocate to far-away offices if they want to keep their jobs. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the plan in a press release Thursday, with her office claiming the move would 'better align' the agency 'with its founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry.' Rollins said the department employs around 4,600 workers in the D.C. area, but by the time the transition is over, it plans to have 'no more than 2,000' left in and around the nation's capital. It also expects to close most of its buildings in the area, including a major research center. The D.C.-area employees would be transferred to 'hub' locations in Raleigh, North Carolina; Kansas City, Missouri; Indianapolis, Indiana; Fort Collins, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah, the agency said. Rollins acknowledged the move would create 'personal disruption for you and your families,' in a video directed at agency employees. 'This decision was not entered into lightly,' she said. Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing USDA workers, told HuffPost in a statement that the move would damage the agency. He noted that, despite common misperceptions, 85% of federal employees already live outside the Washington, D.C., region. 'But D.C. is the center of our nation's government for a reason, as it facilitates needed coordination between senior leadership and field offices and ensures agencies are at the seat of the table when decisions are made at the White House and in Congress,' Kelley said. He singled out the announced closure of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland as particularly misguided, calling it a 'crown jewel' for critical research. 'I'm concerned this reorganization is just the latest attempt to eliminate USDA workers and minimize their critical work,' Kelley added. The relocation proposal is reminiscent of a similar, controversial plan at the USDA from the first Trump presidency. In 2019, then-Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that two agencies within the USDA would be relocated to Kansas City to save money and place employees in the Heartland. The move crushed morale and prompted many workers to leave rather than upend their families' lives; it also fueled a successful union organizing campaign among USDA staff. Mick Mulvaney, who had served as Trump's budget director, later boasted about how many resignations the plan had spurred. HuffPost reported earlier this year on how that move was still dogging the agency and its mission more than five years later. A USDA economist said the relocation plan appeared to be little more than a mass layoff in disguise. 'We had a lot of people who had spent their careers working on very specific fields — very niche questions,' the economist said. 'And when they left, it was so sudden and abrupt that there wasn't time to bring in the next generation. You had to just leave all of your work and go.' Rollins argued that pushing workers to other states would benefit the agency's work. 'President Trump was elected to make real change in Washington, and we are doing just that by moving our key services outside the beltway and into great American cities across the country,' she said. The proposal aligns with Trump's broader attacks on the federal workforce. Since taking power in January, the administration has gone to great lengths to push federal employees out of the government, either by firing them through legally dubious means, enticing them to leave through early retirement offers or making them so miserable that they decide to quit. More than 15,000 USDA employees took the administration's 'deferred resignation' proposal earlier this year, raising concerns about how it would continue to enforce food safety, administer agricultural programs and conduct critical research. In fact, so many chose to leave that USDA leadership had to encourage some to change their minds. Related... USDA Cuts More Than $1 Billion Earmarked For Local Food In School Lunches More Than 5,000 Fired USDA Employees Just Got Their Jobs Back Trump Has A Plan To Sabotage The Government — And It Worked Perfectly His First Term

Tesla Stock Crashed Today. Why Elon Musk Thinks It's Time to Buy.
Tesla Stock Crashed Today. Why Elon Musk Thinks It's Time to Buy.

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Tesla Stock Crashed Today. Why Elon Musk Thinks It's Time to Buy.

Key Points Tesla didn't impress investors with its quarterly update. CEO Elon Musk also warned of some turbulent days ahead. Another Musk prediction might have Tesla bulls excited. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Investors knew electric vehicle (EV) sales have been slumping for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA). The EV leader announced a 13.5% year-over-year drop in second-quarter deliveries on July 2. Yet the stock is tanking today after Tesla reported its full second-quarter financial update today. Shares dropped as much as 10% before paring some of that loss. As of midday trading, Tesla stock was still down by about 9% after what was considered a disappointing report. Tesla bulls still might have a reason to buy the dip, however. The robotaxi rollout is on track While investors already knew deliveries were down 13.5%, there was further disappointment in seeing automotive revenue decline by 16% versus the year-ago period. That shows increasing pressure on vehicle pricing. Gross profit margin declined year over year as a result. That wasn't the end of the bad news, either. Free cash flow was just $100 million in the second quarter. Even its previously fast-growing energy generation and storage business reported a 7.5% revenue drop versus last year. CEO Elon Musk focused on the future in the earnings conference call, and Tesla bulls probably liked what he said. Musk stated: "I think we will probably have autonomous ride-hailing in probably half the population of the US by the end of the year. That's at least our goal, subject to regulatory approvals. I think we will technically be able to do it." Pump the brakes on Tesla Tesla's robotaxi business is what Tesla bulls are counting on. Some analysts think autonomous ride-hailing services could become a trillion-dollar business. While there could be much competition for that market, Tesla could become a major player, with voluminous amounts of data from its EVs already on the road. Elon Musk has made bold predictions that haven't always materialized. Risk-tolerant investors might want to buy today's dip with a proper allocation based on that potential robotaxi market. But it shouldn't come as a surprise if the predicted rollout of Tesla robotaxis isn't as big or as fast as Musk predicted yesterday. Should you buy stock in Tesla right now? The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $634,627!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,046,799!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,037% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 182% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 21, 2025 Howard Smith has positions in Tesla. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Tesla Stock Crashed Today. Why Elon Musk Thinks It's Time to Buy. was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

US mulls limited authorizations for oil firms in Venezuela, sources say
US mulls limited authorizations for oil firms in Venezuela, sources say

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US mulls limited authorizations for oil firms in Venezuela, sources say

By Marianna Parraga, Matt Spetalnick and Timothy Gardner HOUSTON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to grant new authorizations to key partners of Venezuela's state-run oil company PDVSA, starting with Chevron, which would allow them to operate with limitations in the sanctioned OPEC nation, four sources close to the matter said on Thursday. If granted, the authorizations to the U.S. oil major, and possibly also to PDVSA's European partners, would mark a policy shift from a pressure strategy Washington adopted earlier this year on Venezuela's energy industry, which has been under U.S. sanctions since 2019. A senior State Department official said in a statement they could not speak about any specific licenses to PDVSA's partners, but added the U.S. would not allow President Nicolas Maduro's government to profit from the sale of oil. The U.S. might now allow the energy companies to pay oilfield contractors and make necessary imports to secure operational continuity, two of the sources said. "Chevron conducts its business globally in compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government, including in Venezuela," a company spokesperson said. Though Venezuela and the U.S. conducted a prisoner swap this month, relations between the two countries have been tense for years, and the Trump administration has publicly supported opposition leaders who say their candidate won last year's election, not Maduro. Trump in February announced the cancellation of a handful of energy licenses in Venezuela, including Chevron's, and gave until late May to wind down all transactions. The U.S. State Department, which in May blocked a move by special presidential envoy Richard Grenell to extend the licenses, is this time imposing conditions to any authorization modifications, so no cash reaches Maduro's coffers, the two sources added. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio could still decide to ban the move at the last minute or modify the scope of the new authorizations. It was not immediately clear if the terms of the license that could be granted to Chevron would be reproduced for other foreign companies in Venezuela, including Italy's Eni and Spain Repsol, which have been asking the U.S. to allow them to swap fuel supplies for Venezuelan oil. The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store