Okay so you actually cannot “guarantee” the prior contract’s award process was bad.

And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.

No, there is no clear conflict of interest. You have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. Stay consistent. Don’t back off your threshold for evidence now.

Yes, there very obviously IS a conflict of interest.

“Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad.

“Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here.

Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X

Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X

That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.

Who is “person”? As I said, you have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. There may very well be zero conflict of interest.

I mean… I guess you’re welcome to simply have faith that this particular contract is not being fiddled with by the same people (a slew of SpaceX’ers) as literally every other contract in the federal government despite those exact people entering FAA just a few days ago [1] but uh… I would bet money on it.

Would you like to bet? If this contract is reviewed by someone with SpaceX equity, I win, and if it’s not, you win?

1: https://fedscoop.com/faa-aviation-safety-system-doge-notam/