getting closer and closer Thanks

fullback44 said:

---

getting closer and closer Thanks

---

I just watched this and he seems to think we are headed for a May launch and after listening to him list out all of things still left to do I kind of believe him.

https://www.youtube.com/live/7r3l3QyPZ2A?si=1l7e3nahj9PUSadq&t=8499

txags92 said:

---

NASA needs to morph into a support agency to help guide commercial space development. The days of needing NASA to be the spearhead developing brand new technologies in house or on NASA led giant bloated government contracts need to be winding down. We need to set goals for what we want done and give grants or contracts to private companies that prove they can do it.

---

Isaacman's stated goal is for NASA to work on off world technologies rather than lift technologies. Things like space based nuclear propulsion where a mishap could be catastrophic to a commercial operator doing it separate from the government.

hph6203 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

NASA needs to morph into a support agency to help guide commercial space development. The days of needing NASA to be the spearhead developing brand new technologies in house or on NASA led giant bloated government contracts need to be winding down. We need to set goals for what we want done and give grants or contracts to private companies that prove they can do it.

---

Isaacman's stated goal is for NASA to work on off world technologies rather than lift technologies. Things like space based nuclear propulsion where a mishap could be catastrophic to a commercial operator doing it separate from the government.

---

That is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. We can already see the progression of lift and station/habitat developing commercially. Let NASA be the research/grant supervision for the theoretical stuff to take the next steps and then let the commercial providers implement it.

Best idea I've heard for nasa moving into the future.

txags92 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

NASA needs to morph into a support agency to help guide commercial space development. The days of needing NASA to be the spearhead developing brand new technologies in house or on NASA led giant bloated government contracts need to be winding down. We need to set goals for what we want done and give grants or contracts to private companies that prove they can do it.

---

Isaacman's stated goal is for NASA to work on off world technologies rather than lift technologies. Things like space based nuclear propulsion where a mishap could be catastrophic to a commercial operator doing it separate from the government.

---

That is exactly the kind of thing I had in mind. We can already see the progression of lift and station/habitat developing commercially. Let NASA be the research/grant supervision for the theoretical stuff to take the next steps and then let the commercial providers implement it.

---

Ironically the item you identified for station/habitat (I'm assuming LEO) was an item that was noted as a deficiency for LEO and forcing a change of strategy for commercial LEO development. So right now it seems like the only thing that is really commercial and not NASA funded is launchers.

Get yo' dollas ready ladies and gents!

There are rumors that SpaceX will also be allotting 20% to retail instead of the common 10%.

JUST IN: SpaceX reportedly aims to file for IPO as soon as this week

— Kalshi (@Kalshi) March 25, 2026

$1.75 trillion. That would make SpaceX the largest IPO in human history. And it might be underpriced.

Saudi Aramco held that record. December 2019. $1.7 trillion valuation, $25.6 billion raised. It took the Saudi government guaranteeing $75 billion in annual dividends for five… https://t.co/BpkqR2CKkH

— Aakash Gupta (@aakashgupta) March 25, 2026

So for those who haven't bought into an IPO before, what is the best way to try to get a piece of that 10-20%?

It’s interesting to read critiques of the Moon base proposal, which seems like the smart path forward and could fit within NASA’s budget. The gist I’m hearing from critics is that this Isaacman priority is happy talk, will all fade away, and not happen. Then you realize these…

— Eric Berger (@SciGuySpace) March 25, 2026

Then you realize these were the same people who:

- Said Isaacman wouldn't be renominated
- Said he would was a political amateur
- Said he couldn't build a coalition to cancel EUS and put SLS on a path toward sunset
-Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays)
- Said he would never get Congress, which called it a "national priority," to go along with canceling Gateway
- Said he would never actually cancel Gateway

These people are now saying Isaacman can't get NASA and its contractors to execute on a plan that has administration and Congressional support. The reality is, from a policy and political standpoint, NASA is in a better place now than it has been for years. If the Moon Base fails that's on NASA and private industry, not stupid policy. And believe me, I've seen a lot of terrible, pie-in-the-sky space policy over the decades. #JourneyToMars

It's a new era. I'm not sure everyone realizes this, but Isaacman and his team have eyes wide open to a lot of the major challenges facing NASA and they're trying to fix them. They're working long days. Weekends. It's inspiring to see our government work like this, especially in an era when so much seems broken. I don't know what will happen. Maybe this Moon base all will fade away. But I do know that NASA's chance for success in the next couple of decades is a lot higher today than it has been for a long, long time. What we were doing was decidedly not working. This has a chance.

txags92 said:

---

So for those who haven't bought into an IPO before, what is the best way to try to get a piece of that 10-20%?

---

If you have to ask, you're probably not getting in the first wave.

AtlAg05 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

So for those who haven't bought into an IPO before, what is the best way to try to get a piece of that 10-20%?

---

If you have to ask, you're probably not getting in the first wave.

---

You sign up for a select price range and how many shares you want. Basically a lottery system based on how many shares are allocated to the broker you use and if you get selected. You may get none or one share. May get what you ask for.

AtlAg05 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

So for those who haven't bought into an IPO before, what is the best way to try to get a piece of that 10-20%?

---

If you have to ask, you're probably not getting in the first wave.

---

I assumed as much but figured I would ask. Without an option to buy in the initial offering, I am assuming buying the inevitable initial dip of profit taking a few days after the IPO is probably the best chance to get in early?

I do wonder if the IPO will do anything for the value of things like DXYZ where they claim to have a stake in Spacex as part of their portfolio. I sold most of mine last year, but still have a few shares I am hanging onto.

txags92 said:

---

So for those who haven't bought into an IPO before, what is the best way to try to get a piece of that 10-20%?

---

Honest answer, be way up the food chain at a Blackrock, Merrill, or other very big name Wall Street VC firm. This IPO was very likely extremely way oversold from the moment it was mentioned in the backroom deals to people that are absolutely watched like hawks for insider trading (not Congress).

The only way for even the average accredited investor to get in on this will be to buy it in the days/weeks after it starts trading and the volatility wears off.

You MIGHT be able to get a "reasonable" limit order to go somewhere just above the IPO price, but I bet it's going to seesaw pretty hard.

I love a government official that can take a joke pic.twitter.com/K3qlbVneaV

— Woofers (@NotWoofers) March 25, 2026

Anyone buying pre-IPO?

German private aerospace company ISAR is attempting to launch their second flight in the next few minutes. Was at approximately T -10 minutes now they pushed it back to T- 23. They're launching from Norway.

NASASpaceFlight nerds are streaming it on their YouTube channel.

Stupid boat

A boat is downrange.

Abort at the very last possible second. Darn.

PJYoung said:

---

-Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays)

---

If Starship is going to take Orion to the moon starting with Artemis IV, the same mission we land people on the moon, and assuming all the things that have to go right for Starship in order for that to happen, how does Blue Origin have a chance to beat out Ship for HLS?

The SpaceX-detractors would claim that SpaceX is at least 2 years late in milestones for their HLS, and with no public indications of even a test article, BO might just get theirs ready faster. I don't agree, but that is the argument I believe.

txags92 said:

---

So for those who haven't bought into an IPO before, what is the best way to try to get a piece of that 10-20%?

---

Have high 6 or 7 figures liquid at a brokerage that is participating and then give them a call.

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

-Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays)

---

If Starship is going to take Orion to the moon starting with Artemis IV, the same mission we land people on the moon, and assuming all the things that have to go right for Starship in order for that to happen, how does Blue Origin have a chance to beat out Ship for HLS?

---

They're competing for the same mission.

lb3 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

-Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays)

---

If Starship is going to take Orion to the moon starting with Artemis IV, the same mission we land people on the moon, and assuming all the things that have to go right for Starship in order for that to happen, how does Blue Origin have a chance to beat out Ship for HLS?

---

They're competing for the same mission.

---

Artemis 4, or whatever Artemis mission actually lands people on the Moon initially, is still mostly a flags and footprints mission. Winning that race is just a press conference passing notion. It's Artemis 10-50 that will define who is really capable of developing lunar infrastructure.

Blue Origin seems to be a real contender based on their New Glenn booster landing success on only the second try. Can they scale manufacturing to actually compete with SpaceX? Maybe, but they're way behind. I could believe they'll deliver with some hardware before SpaceX right before they get lapped.

A year from now SpaceX will have two assembly facilities, fed by one giant factory (second coming soon), capable of working on a combined 48 ships and boosters at the same time. Which doesn't include the Megabay's capacity. I think they have ~4 work stands each? No one has ever assembled/refurbished 48 spaceships at a time. No one has ever had 48 spaceships at a time. And that'll just be the ones in the Gigabays.

I've seen some production postings from Blue Origin. They're coming along on the next NG flight and a second lunar lander.

I've also looked through the windows of Starfactory from Highway 4 last October. There were at least 6-7 nose cones sitting in there at that time. Only 2 have come out since then, S39 & S40. I think people expect that this represents the production capacity of Starfactory. They're very wrong. The factory has been idle while the launch site and Massey's have been coming up to V3 spec. Barring a major catastrophe, SpaceX is on the verge of being bored by NASA's current plans for two years from now.

NG is also just another LEO re-usable first stage. Orbital re-fueling and upper-stage re-usability are absolute category differentiators, as program objectives.

I hope it works very, very well, and provides some competition but if Starship is even 75% of the re-usability/cadence that SpaceX is aiming for in the next few years the BO product will only provide a semblance of competition.

TIME’s new cover: SpaceX is racing to build its most powerful rockets yet with the goal of returning humans to the moon. Gwynne Shotwell is leading the charge alongside Elon Musk. Read it here: https://t.co/b4Wb6H6BTQ pic.twitter.com/bF8RxJMXWG

— TIME (@TIME) March 26, 2026

It kills me to say this, but I think BO has the capability to pivot from NG to something bigger more quickly than you would think. Now that they have BE-4 working pretty well from what I can see, and NG is performing within parameters, they can now divide their efforts between optimization of NG, the lander (which they've been developing that engine for a few years already, I think it's BE-7), and the next rocket. And while we love to poke fun at Bozos, there are legitimately smart people at BO who are just as aware of Starship's paradigm-shifting potential as we are. If they can ever get the bureaucracy machine sorted, I think they could push SpaceX.

Makes you wonder what would've happened if they'd successfully stolen Shotwell those years ago.

nortex97 said:

---

The SpaceX-detractors would claim that SpaceX is at least 2 years late in milestones for their HLS, and with no public indications of even a test article, BO might just get theirs ready faster. I don't agree, but that is the argument I believe.

---

Then I don't see how Starship would be ready to take Orion to the moon on Artemis IV.

If both are ready, I would think Nasa would select Ship for HLS given the requirements of the lunar base plan they just laid out.

lb3 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

-Said he was an Elon puppet (who has subsequently prioritized getting Blue Origin moving on HLS due to Starship delays)

---

If Starship is going to take Orion to the moon starting with Artemis IV, the same mission we land people on the moon, and assuming all the things that have to go right for Starship in order for that to happen, how does Blue Origin have a chance to beat out Ship for HLS?

---

They're competing for the same mission.

---

Yeah, thanks lol

Look at the differences in their architecture.

Stumbled upon this today and thought y'all would enjoy it. This YT channel has upscaled imagery and videos from the Apollo missions.

Beautiful stuff...

I have some good friends who are moon landing deniers. It's really tragic to me that they cannot let themselves appreciate the greatest achievement of humanity ever. Moon landing deniers aren't able to assess the evidence because it conflicts with their greater worldview and prejudices.

Are they true deniers or just contrarians like most of the flat earthers?

Complete deniers. "We never went to the moon." I find that moon landing deniers is based entirely on psychology and not epistemological evidence. They cannot believe that the government tells the truth. "They" are always lying…whoever "they" is.

Having worked with Apollo veterans early in my career, I have a hard time comprehending how deniers exist. They're fascinating to me.

lb3 said:

---

Having worked with Apollo veterans early in my career, I have a hard time comprehending how deniers exist. They're fascinating to me.

---

YouTube rabbit hole - it just reinforces what you want to watch and you go deeper and deeper into niche conspiracies until you start spouting nonsense.