#Fiber deployed today will be providing #broadband to customers long after Elon Musk goes to Mars.

This is so insane😭😭😭

If she wasn’t working for Elon Gwynne Shotwell would be hailed as an incredible success story and the most powerful woman in aerospace. Instead it’s radio silence from the media

GAO on F-35 sustainment, still breaking it down Related: I have not until now used a certain newly-coined term of art in a defense-acquisition context, but I expect I will need it now in reference to the JPO. That word is "paypig".

You can't keep a good failure down.

I think this was to be expected. These stocks were pumped by retail enthusiast investors, an important share of them may now look up to buying SPCX instead. With SPCX the sheer quantity of ’space’ stocks available to space fans may now exceed their total investment capacity

1st: this is the first time hearing of a Waffle House ever closing the dining area. 2nd: There is a reason and you should not be in the parking lot. 3rd: start moving now.

See what they did there @LionnetPierre ?

They were selling rifles in there

SpaceX might be one of the most exciting companies ever to go public. That's exactly why we'd urge caution. History shows that highly anticipated IPOs often arrive with enormous expectations already priced in. Here's what to consider before investing: sungroupwp.com/post/spacex-g…

>>> (Also aircraft is both singular and plural but I digress)

This is revealing on more than one level.

.@DivesTech says there's an 80% chance SpaceX and Tesla will merge by next year discusses regulatory timing. "Musk is obviously well aware in terms of the sensitivity given like do they get too big regulators in this environment relative to the strong and stronger in terms of from a big tech perspective." "So I think there's some of that at play, but also you don't want to drink out of a fire hose."

Speaking of "Space is hard, business case and profits are harder" @LionnetPierre

Dear @McCainJack how does the "elite 82nd Airborne" assist during a sea rescue? Did they fly over water to retrieve the Apache crew?

Freddy is our modern day Alexis de Tocqueville

For those who wonder (and since @SpaceX is mostly an AI company now) here's a graphical tracker of AI spend and revenues. isaiprofitable.com/

Starting with some energy, and my inability to write brief updates, I am just extremely proud of the NASA crew, our industry, and our international partners. We are getting into a rhythm here at NASA. Earlier this year, setbacks put the Artemis II rocket back in the VAB for repairs, and we determined it was necessary to add another mission, Artemis III in 2027. Since then, we have unveiled the Ignition plans to build a Moon Base and nuclear-powered spaceships, launched a highly successful mission around the Moon, brought the crew home safely, and now watched the torch pass to Artemis III. There will be no shortage of major milestones to celebrate in the months ahead as we build the Moon Base and launch the Nancy Grace Roman telescope. I am beyond proud of the team and all the momentum and excitement around the space program. I do want to take this moment to address two of the questions I have been seeing since the crew announcement. Why are there no women assigned to Artemis III? I have seen reactions ranging from disappointment to outrage. I have personally been to space twice with 50% female crews. My closest advisors and some of the smartest engineers I know are women. In our latest NASA leadership organization, nearly 50% of the Center Directors and Mission Directorate leadership are women. The last astronaut candidate class selected under this Administration was majority female because they were the best of the best, including one astronaut I previously went to space with. In a world with so much controversy, I hope this can be a moment where we celebrate the astronauts selected, respect the integrity of the process, and recognize the extraordinary depth of talent across the entire corps. The crew selection does not involve any political appointees. The Astronaut Office assigns the crew that gives the mission the best chance of meeting its objectives, taking into account many factors, including the background and expertise of the astronauts, such as test pilot experience, development work on specific programs, and availability. For example, those raising this concern may not be aware of the pipeline of crews already preparing to launch to the Space Station, or those who have been undergoing lunar-specific training that would be a better fit for a future surface mission. The Artemis III astronauts are experienced, qualified, and deserve to be celebrated for the mission they have been assigned, just as the crews that follow will be celebrated when their time comes. We have an extraordinary astronaut corps, and every mission and every crew is part of a larger campaign to get America back to the Moon and to build the future we all dreamed about as children. What are the objectives for Artemis III if both landers will not be fully ready? Coming off a highly successful lunar mission like Artemis II, it is not surprising that the bar is set high for Artemis III. I think it is important to understand how difficult and dangerous it is to land astronauts on the Moon. We have not done it in a very long time, and we want to draw from a past playbook for success. That means getting into a cadence of launching, learning, and rolling improvements into the next mission. First and foremost, it is imperative for SLS to be flying with some frequency for operational currency and, honestly, safety. Earlier this year, it was very clear across NASA leadership that an additional mission was necessary in 2027. It is also imperative to gain interoperability data from rendezvous and docking with landers in Earth orbit. We do not need those landers that are still in development to be fully capable and certified for landing on the Moon on Artemis III, but we do need to test certain systems and controllability. Not to mention, we are moving quickly into a future where we do not require a single rocket to bring everything necessary for a mission to space, and as such, gaining experience with multi-launch campaigns and on-orbit assembly is directionally correct. The Blue Origin test lander for Artemis III will incorporate many of the most important systems and subsystems that have not previously been operated by the provider, including ECLSS in a crew cabin, and other avionics. With SpaceX, they have demonstrated many of those capabilities continuously on Crew Dragon, but other controllability tests are important based on the negative-X axis acceleration that will be necessary when Starship undertakes the TLI burn to the Moon with a docked Orion. After Artemis III, we will learn a lot and roll in further improvements, be that hardware, software, or procedural updates, as both providers undertake end-to-end uncrewed demonstrations to the surface in 2028, in advance of Artemis IV, where NASA astronauts will finally complete the grand return to the Moon. As I said in my remarks yesterday, when Gene Cernan left the lunar surface on Apollo 17, he said, “We leave as we came, and, God willing, we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.” We are returning, and we are doing so with the fire carried forward from Apollo, the lessons learned from Artemis II, the crew of Artemis III, and all those who will follow. NASA will send the very best crews for the right missions. If the composition of our astronaut corps and our latest class of candidates says anything, it is that we have exactly the talent required to get the job done. Godspeed Artemis III, and all those who will follow.

The World Cup tourists have discovered Buc’ees

Brought down by a clanker, saved by a clanker, if you like clankers the time to join the military is now!

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told reporters just now he “doesn’t agree” with this, and that a defense reconciliation bill “will have to happen.”