Literally a dumpster is on fire

OKCAg2002 said:

---

Literally a dumpster is on fire

---

I know they have a growing operation around Austin, but try to avoid those grads…

Private PoopyPants said:

---

Something tells me they were not planning for that to happen.

---

They're not allowed to clear part of the area around the site as it is part of the 'natural' habitat of the gross area.

(3/3) Anticipating some of the replies on this. I believe the X in the middle is considered part of the "existing high marsh habitat" and requires approval from the Army Core of Engineers. The X on the right, is outside of the property line...can't touch it.

📸: @RGVaerialphotos pic.twitter.com/WBepfJUU8I

— Zack Golden (@CSI_Starbase) September 9, 2022

Not a big deal. Fire is good for that vegetation.

You can't fill it in or do top soil removal, but you can burn it.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

I watched their 404 permitting process from afar, but it seems REALLY weird that their consultant advised them on leaving that *****ula of wetland habitat.

Would have been a much better idea to shave off 15-25 feet from the edge of property boundary and run a buffer between their property and the neighbor. At least then your property is fairly squared off...

Counterpoint: if you're allowed to set it on fire, who cares if you do?

Da gubmint

nortex97 said:

---

Private PoopyPants said:

---

Something tells me they were not planning for that to happen.

---

They're not allowed to clear part of the area around the site as it is part of the 'natural' habitat of the gross area.

---

Oh, good fracking grief - how do we flush this country's infestation of bureaucratic debris and tyrannous overlords down the proverbial toilet. Enough of this flatulous flapping of hands and wringing of frilly undergarments.

STATIC FIRE! Ship 24 fires up (maybe all six?) engines!https://t.co/wN8scrtmKQ pic.twitter.com/KQL2w9dEvR

— Chris Bergin - NSF (@NASASpaceflight) September 8, 2022

Yesterday, yes.

In case anyone is interested, Everyday Astronaut is covering Firefly's second launch attempt today. We're currently T- 2 hours.

Good luck to them.

Great oped at spacenews supporting NASA funding nuclear propulsion technologies (thermal/electric);

Quote:

---

A NASA colleague once brilliantly explained that NEP and NTP are the difference "between a Prius and a Porsche." Both cars will get you to a destination, but each at different speeds and with different trade-offs.

Having both systems operational would provide decades of capability and throw the doors of human deep space exploration wide open. This new technology development will be no easy task both NEP and NTP systems need significant technology research and development now to create working systems ahead of other space-faring nations.

As America did with the Apollo Program, we'll have to start from scratch, inventing new materials, engines and nuclear systems that just don't exist today. This is why we need action now.

To enable these new nuclear propulsion systems, we should rely on the real brain power of our nation our academic institutions and American industry.

While some brilliant small R&D projects have taken place in federal agencies like DARPA (their DRACO mission) and NASA (their Fission Surface Power project), government agencies lack the cutting-edge facilities and intellectual capacity to make this essential tech development R&D come to fruition by the mid-2030s.

Leadership of a new national lab by a university-affiliated partner will produce significant government cost savings. Combining the smarts of academia with the lean business sense of industry will be far more cost effective than earmarking this work to be done in tiny increments by government agencies that are not prepared to take on this technology challenge.

Federal agencies should provide the funding and the real property, along with security and safety oversight and services to the new lab, led by a university-affiliated organization. Academia and industry will always find ways to do the actual R&D faster, better and cheaper than government bureaucrats.

American industry is more than ready to join in this important aerospace technology race. America's best and brightest from multiple business sectors can knock down the long pole of space nuclear propulsion while advancing practical commercial uses of this new technology capability, right here on Earth. Like any new disruptive technology, economic opportunity and societal benefit will follow once these systems are proven through in-space demonstration missions.

It's time to stop waiting for obtuse space policy scribblings about extended study and analysis to appear from the Space Council or other administration oracles. Congress should direct the formation of a new hybrid national lab dedicated to creating and demonstrating advanced space nuclear propulsion systems within a decade. Without immediate Congressional direction, America will continue to fall behind in a critical technology needed to power our future human exploration of deep space.

---

This is the type of vision that, in my more cynical/honest moments, makes me wish SLS would fail spectacularly sooner rather than later (without loss of life etc).

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

In case anyone is interested, Everyday Astronaut is covering Firefly's second launch attempt today. We're currently T- 2 hours.

---

They just called an abort around t-60. Hoping to see them succeed.

Looks like they're resetting for a 6:20 Central T-0

T-0 pushed back to 7pm PDT. 9 central.

I think we end up scrubbing tonight. Kinda sounds like they thought they could fix the issue, but now they are using every last second because they haven't yet.

Anyone know the next launch window if they don't go today? Starting to cloud up

Did this get overlooked in the buildup to the Artemis launch, err the Artemis wet dress?

NASA Awards SpaceX 5 more crew flights to ISS

Quote:

---

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX)

The CCtCap modification brings the total missions for SpaceX to 14 and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station until 2030

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350.

---

More at the link

Officially scrubbed. Not sure why, trying to get kiddo to bed.

I've been hearing about it...starliner is on life support. At this point, they have enough crew dragon flights to finish the current stated life span of the station entirely. Boeing has also likely begun losing money, and their seems to be some real doubt they will even make the two launches they're contracted for at the moment, much less the 4 they've negotiated.

If Sierra Nevada gets a launch next year and is successful, starliner will finally quietly have the plug pulled by the look of it.

Maximus_Meridius said:

---

Officially scrubbed. Not sure why, trying to get kiddo to bed.

---

I think I heard something earlier about issues with helium. Same time tomorrow from my understanding.

Didn't Boeing pay much get shamed into eating the costs for OFT2 after their software debacle on OFT1? I know the traditional NASA contracting would pay much pay Boeing to develop the capsule/system, but we're they relying on launch fees to recoup some development costs as well?

If it does die, I suppose ULA can resell those AtlasV flights that were allocated to it.

Since NASA has gone ahead and contracted SpaceX for the balance of their remaining planned ISS crew services is there any reason to move forward with man rating with the 7 day CFT currently planned for 2023?

Itnwas a fixed price contract, so NASA payed up front for the capsule, and two manned flights. The contract also required them to complete an unmanned flight as well. My understanding is that there is a separate contract for 4 more flights at a fixed price.

The second unmanned flight came out of their original payment( something like 2.5billion), as will the cost of any other flights.

There is some scuttle butt that Boeing has actually reached a point now that they will lose money on the two manned flights, and that the failures in the maneuvering systems near the ISS during the secod unmanned flight have eyebrows raised at NASA. I said it when it happened, I maintain it now..... you cannot have a system fail to the point it's at its last backup, and declare " well clearly the backups work so it's a success!!!" . I think Boeing would like them to let them out of the test flights, but I agree with AA for once, NASA is going to want them to at least man rate it, so it can be used as a backup and the flights they have planned can be used as a reboost until other options are ready.

Yes, nasa will man rate it. Keep in mind NASA is paying at least 60% more per astronaut (or, maybe more than double, I dunno) for the indignity/honor of flying on the Starliner vs. Crew Dragon to the ISS.

Quote:

---

In its announcement of the seat purchase NASA did not elaborate on its reasons for purchasing 14 missions from SpaceX and just six from Boeing. However, this decision to buy all of the remaining seats from SpaceX is likely due to past performance and price. SpaceX started flying operational missions to the space station in 2020, with the Crew-1 mission. Although Boeing's Starliner has a crewed test flight early next year, likely in February, its first operational mission will not come before the second half of 2023.

Additionally, there is some question about the availability of rockets for Starliner. Boeing has purchased enough Atlas V rockets from United Launch Alliance for six operational Starliner missions, but after that the Atlas V will be retired. During a news conference last week, Boeing's program manager for commercial crew, Mark Nappi, said the company is looking at "different options" for Starliner launch vehicles. These options include buying a Falcon 9 from a competitor, SpaceX, paying United Launch Alliance to human-rate its new Vulcan rocket, or paying Blue Origin for its forthcoming New Glenn booster.

Whatever NASA's ultimate reasons, it is clear in hindsight that the space agency has gotten a much better deal from SpaceX in the commercial crew competition.

There are several ways to assess the true costs of the program to NASA, but probably the simplest way is adding up the money NASA awarded each company for development of their crewed spacecraft and for flying operational missions and dividing that by the number of seats purchased over the lifetime of the program. Recall that each of the two spacecraft, Boeing's Starliner vehicle and SpaceX's Crew Dragon, is rated to carry four astronauts for NASA.

In 2014, NASA narrowed the crew competition to just two companies, Boeing and SpaceX. At that time, the space agency awarded Boeing $4.2 billion in funding for development of the Starliner spacecraft and six operational crew flights. Later, in an award that NASA's own inspector general described as "unnecessary," NASA paid Boeing an additional $287.2 million. This brings Boeing's total to $4.49 billion, although Finch told Ars that Boeing's contract value as of August 1, 2022, is $4.39 billion.

For the same services, development of Crew Dragon and six operational missions, NASA paid SpaceX $2.6 billion. After its initial award, NASA has agreed to buy an additional eight flights from SpaceXCrew-7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -13, and -14through the year 2030. This brings the total contract awarded to SpaceX to $4.93 billion.

Costs to NASA

Since we now know how many flights each company will be providing NASA through the lifetime of the International Space Station, and the full cost of those contracts, we can break down the price NASA is paying each company per seat by amortizing the development costs.

Boeing, in flying 24 astronauts, has a per-seat price of $183 million. SpaceX, in flying 56 astronauts during the same time frame, has a seat price of $88 million. Thus, NASA is paying Boeing 2.1 times the price per seat that it is paying SpaceX, inclusive of development costs incurred by NASA.

From these numbers it may seem like Boeing is profiteering from a government program, but that is likely not the case. Commercial crew is a fixed-price program, which means the companies are responsible for overruns. Boeing has already reported about half a billion dollars in charges due to the need to refly an uncrewed Starliner demonstration mission. Two sources told Ars the program has been a money-loser for Boeing, as it has struggled to manage the transition from cost-plus to fixed-price contracts.

---

Long story short; NASA has no reason to keep throwing that much at a program that also needs a new launcher to work, past the Atlas rockets they already have contracted for.

Aside: pretty cool.

Now that is a view pic.twitter.com/R7BQEg3RYe

— T-Zero Systems (@systems_zero) September 6, 2022

No obvious limit to rocket reflight so far https://t.co/rBrcyjxJea

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 11, 2022

New shepherd just blew up after launch!!!
No people onboard. Unmanned flight.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

New shepherd just blew up after launch!!!
No people onboard. Unmanned flight.

---

WTF, video? What was the purpose of the flight if unmanned?

Crew capsule separated safely.

Premium said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

New shepherd just blew up after launch!!!
No people onboard. Unmanned flight.

---

WTF, video? What was the purpose of the flight if unmanned?

---

Some type of cargo flight. Capsule is still on its way down under parachutes.

Right at MAX-Q throttle up.

Looks like it didn't blow up. Booster looked like it started flaming out and the capsule separated. Bet that was a spectacular crash!

will25u said:

---

Right at MAX-Q throttle up.

---

Launch is at 1:20