Preparing Starship 7 for flight https://t.co/4kthNdG1uX

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 15, 2024

NET Jan 11

will25u said:

---

The FAA will host in-person public meetings on Jan. 7, Jan. 9 and virtually on Jan. 13 to discuss the potential environmental impacts of @SpaceX's revised proposal to increase Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle operations in Boca Chica, TX. Meeting materials: https://t.co/nqmmKrVMcB pic.twitter.com/0YFp92bS7j

— The FAA ✈️ (@FAANews) December 16, 2024

---

Last gasp. I really don't understand why the FAA insists on doing this. While this admin was very pro FAA powers expansion the last time, he's not going to be this time I have a good hunch.

Between Elon being a driving force in his election, what i think is an actual passion for space flight, and a very real desire to tie his legacy to it.... they're not doing anything beyond shooting themselves in the foot. The FAA is not exactly well loved now, and this makes sure they're 100% safe low hanging fruit when reform cuts happen.

Just let musk launch. Because chica could be launching 5x a day and would still be releasing less pollution and have a lower environmental impact in a year than ExxonMobil's heavy crude units have in a month.

The concept of coming up with a realistic price for something with built in profit, and a profitable model in the future, is not unique. All cost+ contracts do is promote waste and sandbagging.... the "worries and concerns" you're presenting now still happen under cost+ with all the additional headaches.

If you can't develop something under a clear cut budget and timeline, don't get in the business

will25u said:

---

The FAA will host in-person public meetings on Jan. 7, Jan. 9 and virtually on Jan. 13 to discuss the potential environmental impacts of @SpaceX's revised proposal to increase Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle operations in Boca Chica, TX. Meeting materials: https://t.co/nqmmKrVMcB pic.twitter.com/0YFp92bS7j

— The FAA ✈️ (@FAANews) December 16, 2024

---

What a ridiculous waste of time and money.

I can help them out. If one launch has zero impact, five/ten/twenty launches will have zero impact.

The FAA needs to get out of the way and approve the requested launch schedule asap.

I mean, that's not technically accurate; but a mishap would have to occur to cause an environmental impact at this point it seems.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

The concept of coming up with a realistic price for something with built in profit, and a profitable model in the future, is not unique. All cost+ contracts do is promote waste and sandbagging.... the "worries and concerns" you're presenting now still happen under cost+ with all the additional headaches.

If you can't develop something under a clear cut budget and timeline, don't get in the business

---

Coming up with a realistic price to build and launch a rocket is easy. How many are going to blow up during test flights? How many test flights is it going to take to achieve an approved design or get crew rated or whatever the metric for the milestone is? Just as a for instance, if it costs you a half a billion to design, build, fuel, and launch one rocket and you assume in your fixed price that it is going to take you 6 flights to accomplish the milestone, what happens when it actually takes 8? That is a billion dollar loss. If you are running at a 10% margin, you just robbed the profit from $10 billion dollars of other work with that loss. Under a cost plus contract, the contractor can estimate closer to the real # they think it will take because they know if it takes more, they will still get paid. But cost plus contracts require a contract manager who can keep the project on task and avoid the mission creep that explodes the budget.

On those kind of fixed price contracts, nobody is bidding them tight. The fixed prices have a ton of slack in them in the favor of the contractor. The government is not saving money by making it a fixed price contract for an open ended development and then awarding it to a contractor like Boeing with no demonstrated capability to stay within budget. The problem with the cost plus contracts is that nobody on the NASA side is policing the contractor or themselves when they start working outside of the scope of the contract. As long as they get paid for it, the contractor is going to do anything the government directs them to do, even if it kills the schedule and doubles the eventual budget.

NASA has shown no capability to actually effectively manage a cost plus contract, which is why everybody is trying to get them to go to fixed price on everything. If they go to fixed price, then spend the whole project making new demands and requirements that were not in the original scope, the contractor is just going to hit them with a ton of change orders and slide the schedule to accommodate the changes, making it little different from a cost-plus job. So in my mind, it comes back to NASA being an ineffective contract management agency moreso than what kind of contract vehicle they choose to use.

Ag87H2O said:

---

will25u said:

---

The FAA will host in-person public meetings on Jan. 7, Jan. 9 and virtually on Jan. 13 to discuss the potential environmental impacts of @SpaceX's revised proposal to increase Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle operations in Boca Chica, TX. Meeting materials: https://t.co/nqmmKrVMcB pic.twitter.com/0YFp92bS7j

— The FAA ✈️ (@FAANews) December 16, 2024

---

What a ridiculous waste of time and money.

I can help them out. If one launch has zero impact, five/ten/twenty launches will have zero impact.

The FAA needs to get out of the way and approve the requested launch schedule asap.

---

No one should care. Even if it turns into a wasteland, developing cheap space travel at the frequency they're doing it is a benefit to the US, first, and humanity second. Can easily be argued it's part of our strategic defense capabilities so get out of the way.

Single engine static fire demonstrating a flight-like startup for an in-space burn pic.twitter.com/jELpcCOaO5

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) December 17, 2024

They're not slowing down.

FAA knows DOGE is coming. Amazing what a change in administrations can do to speed up the process.

SpaceX must still receive FAA signature on RCC-324-11 tailoring change request, TR24-001-STARSHIP, prior to initiation of Flight 7

Rumor mill is saying the ISS is going to crash soon via de-orbit. pic.twitter.com/wxjDfKfUq8

— Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower (@Perpetualmaniac) December 18, 2024

Anon predicts uncontrolled deorbit of ISS.

Crew-10 was just pushed back too…

I guess that is one way to bring back those 2 that Boeing couldn't bring back.

Phatbob said:

---

I guess that is one way to bring back those 2 that Boeing couldn't bring back.

---

How many people are currently up there?

Lol at anyone in FEMA high enough to get that kind of briefing posting on 4Chan

Actually, I did learn recently that Emergency Management Agencies take the lead when catastrophic space failures occur, mostly in regards to residential impacts of the debris field...

For instance, when the space shuttle broke up across Texas/Louisiana, it was a miracle (so they said) that no one died from debris. People had components crashing through roofs into living room coffee tables, but no one go hit.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Rumor mill is saying the ISS is going to crash soon via de-orbit. pic.twitter.com/wxjDfKfUq8

— Zach Vorhies / Google Whistleblower (@Perpetualmaniac) December 18, 2024

Anon predicts uncontrolled deorbit of ISS.

---

Well, we know the track record of Q.

Why would a crack cause a deorbit? If anything they would evacuate the module in question.

aggiehawg said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

I guess that is one way to bring back those 2 that Boeing couldn't bring back.

---

How many people are currently up there?

---

7 Total from what I can find.

Thanks. Prayers sent for them.

2024 rolls on. Sign me up, i'm down for whatever.

Maybe Lucky Larry Silverstein acquired the contract to decommission the ISS at end of service life?

nortex97 said:

---

Why would a crack cause a deorbit? If anything they would evacuate the module in question.

---

What if they already have done that but can't do it 100% of the time because the crack is in a module you have to pass through to get to one of the escape vehicles?

nortex97 said:

---

Why would a crack cause a deorbit? If anything they would evacuate the module in question.

---

I would assume that with the "crack" they still have gyroscopic attitude correction that is used regularly...almost daily according to google. If the "crack" causes some kind of separation/pressure loss/sensor failure...they could lose complete control.

If this rumor is true, sounds to me like they may de-orbit while they have control...

Doesn't really make sense. If there was a leak with enough force to change the orbit then I can't imagine they'd have atmosphere inside for long. Days max. Who cares about their orbit when they're venting their air?

Ag87H2O said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Why would a crack cause a deorbit? If anything they would evacuate the module in question.

---

What if they already have done that but can't do it 100% of the time because the crack is in a module you have to pass through to get to one of the escape vehicles?

---

The leak is in Zvezda. It's a critical module with electrical power distribution, life support systems and power, attitude and propulsion systems used to boost the station. If it gets to the point where they have to seal off the Zvezda, that could impact boosting the station.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Why would a crack cause a deorbit? If anything they would evacuate the module in question.

---

What if they already have done that but can't do it 100% of the time because the crack is in a module you have to pass through to get to one of the escape vehicles?

---

The leak is in Zvezda. It's a critical module with electrical power distribution, life support systems and power, attitude and propulsion systems used to boost the station. If it gets to the point where they have to seal off the Zvezda, that could impact boosting the station.

---

I had heard from a pretty reliable source that there was a crack in the Russian module and that they had tried to seal it but that attempts had failed and that it was slowly growing. Said the Americans weren't even sure the totality of the problem because the Russians were not being completely open about it. They know they are losing atmosphere and that it is slowly getting worse. Said they had not even been able to run contingency scenarios because we didn't have all the information needed to run them - which was a big concern. As of a month ago, it wasn't an emergency yet, but it was a big concern and part of the reason they needed to get space suits to the two Starliner crewmembers.

Quote:

---

As of a month ago, it wasn't an emergency yet, but it was a big concern and part of the reason they needed to get space suits to the two Starliner crewmembers.

---

Can I get a translation on that? What are the spacesuits needed for under these circumstances? TIA.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

As of a month ago, it wasn't an emergency yet, but it was a big concern and part of the reason they needed to get space suits to the two Starliner crewmembers.

---

Can I get a translation on that? What are the spacesuits needed for under these circumstances? TIA.

---

I don't want to speak out of turn because I'm not an expert, but it was my understanding that each astronaut has a custom suit that is made to fit them personally, and in case of an emergency they needed to be able to put on the suits until they could make it to the escape vehicles and normalize the atmosphere and air pressure. My apologies if I am wrong on this, I know I'm out of my lane.

So you're telling me 4chan might have a chance??

I guess all of that is relatively widely known so they're just making stuff up to a plausible conclusion

I hope this isn't true. But if true, God speed with a solution as things, situations, systems, etc., in decay tend to accelerate to their conclusion.