Mediaboss Marketing

Back in 2014, the United States held its own little internal space race. NASA chose two companies to bring us back to the International Space Station, providing them with funding to build a crewed space vehicle: One established, long-proven aerospace engineering firm, and one upstart run by a guy who names all his kids like theyre Warhammer figures. Ten years later, the race has a clear loser: Boeing.

Krispy Kreme's Q1 beat driven by heart donuts

Boeing received $4.2 billion in federal funding to build its Starliner system, far more than the $2.6 billion allowance SpaceX got for its Dragon. Its far and away the more established competitor, with over a century of aeronautics experience, yet Starliner is only now preparing for its first crewed flight four years after Dragons, and $1.5 billion over budget. Ars Technica looked into what went wrong:

But at least SpaceX was in its natural environment. Boeings space division had never won a large fixed-price contract. Its leaders were used to operating in a cost-plus environment, in which Boeing could bill the government for all of its expenses and earn a fee. Cost overruns and delays were not the companys problemthey were NASAs. Now Boeing had to deliver a flyable spacecraft for a firm, fixed price.

Boeing struggled to adjust to this environment. When it came to complicated space projects, Boeing was used to spending other peoples money. Now, every penny spent on Starliner meant one less penny in profit (or, ultimately, greater losses). This meant that Boeing allocated fewer resources to Starliner than it needed to thrive.

...

In a fixed-price contract, a company gets paid when it achieves certain milestones. Complete a software review? Earn a payment. Prove to NASA that youve built a spacecraft component you said you would? Earn a payment. This kind of contract structure naturally incentivized managers to reach milestones.

The problem is that while a company might do something that unlocks a payment, the underlying work may not actually be complete. Its a bit like students copying homework assignments throughout the semester. They get good grades but havent done all of the learning necessary to understand the material. This is only discovered during a final exam, in class. Essentially, then, Boeing kept carrying technical debt forward so that additional work was lumped onto the final milestones.

Boeing, as weve all recently seen, is no longer an aeronautics company its a profit company, the kind of business you get when MBAs hellbent on efficiency take over from the engineers. That mindset didnt vibe well with a government contract, and the so-called efficiencies never showed up to help. Ars Technica continues:

There was no single flight software team at Boeing. The responsibilities were spread out. A team at Kennedy Space Center in Florida handled the ground systems software, which kept Starliner healthy during ground tests and the countdown until the final minutes before liftoff. Separately, a team at Boeings facilities in Houston near Johnson Space Center managed the flight software for when the vehicle took off.

Neither team trusted one another, however. When the ground software team would visit their colleagues in Texas, and vice versa, the interactions were limited. The two teams ended up operating mostly in silos, not really sharing their work with one another. The Florida software team came to believe that the Texas team working on flight software had fallen behind but didnt want to acknowledge it. (A Boeing spokesperson denied there was any such friction).

The full Ars Technica piece is worth a read, as it goes into the myriad ways that Boeing failed with the Starliner project. Cost fixations, siloed development, a lack of proper testing, even the companys lack of vertical integration all worked together to kneecap the project. Going to space is hard enough when you arent focused on doing it as cheaply as possible.

A version of this article originally appeared on Jalopnik.

Link:

How Boeing lost the space race to Elon Musk's SpaceX - Quartz

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has delayed its decision on Invesco Galaxys application for a spot Etherexchange-traded fund (ETF).

In a May 6 filing, the SEC gave itself another 60 days to decide on the Invesco Galaxy spot Ether (ETH) ETF, with the next deadline set to July 5.

The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein, the SEC wrote.

In recent months, the SEC has delayed decisions on applications from all eight prospective Ether ETF issuers, including BlackRock, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, Hashdex and Ark 21Shares, in line with analyst expectations.

May 23 is the final deadline for VanEcks Ether ETF application and the only deadline that matters, said Bloomberg ETF analyst James Seyffart in a March 20 X post.

In March, senior Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas downgraded his odds of the SEC approving the ETFs from 50% to 35%, as he was less convinced the regulator would approve VanEcks bid by the deadline.

Related: SEC will classify Ether as security, deny spot Ether ETFs Michael Saylor

Speaking to Cointelegraph on March 12, Balchunas looked to a prolonged period of radio silence from the SEC to prospective fund issuers, combined with increasing political pushback for SEC Chair Gary Gensler, as reasons for the decreasing likelihood of approval.

Seyffart said his cautiously optimistic attitude toward the pending Ether ETF applications had changed. As of March 20, he expects that all applications for an Ether ETF will ultimately be denied by the SEC on May 23.

Despite this consensus from ETF analysts, Ethereum advocate Anthony Sassano said he maintains conviction that the regulator could approve the funds by VanEcks final deadline.

Sassano looked to the agencys approval of Ether futures ETF products in 2023, citing a March 9 meeting between the regulator, crypto asset management firm Grayscale and crypto exchange Coinbase as further reasons why the SEC could still approve the applications.

Magazine: The real risks to Ethenas stablecoin model (are not the ones you think)

Visit link:

SEC punts Invesco Galaxy spot Ethereum ETF decision to July - Cointelegraph

At the meeting, TPWD commissioners acknowledged that SpaceX had already alienated some locals. There's clearly a frustration among the people there about the road closures and all that kind of stuff, Commissioner Paul Foster said.

They stressed they were only approving negotiations and that the land deal could still fall apart. Because of the other processes here, this could still be turned down, Vice-Chairman Oliver Bell explained.

Since TPWD initially acquired land in Boca Chica through a National Coastal Wetlands grant, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will need to sign off on the deal. A FWS spokesperson said TPWD has not yet started an environmental assessment that would be required to finalize the sale.

Then theres the lawsuit, brought by nonprofits like the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, Save RGV and the South Texas Environmental Justice Network. It argues TPWD does not have authority to make the land deal and seeks to have a judge declare it unlawful.

When TPWD applied for a National Coastal Wetlands grant in 1992, the agency said it would permanently preserve the land to protect it from imminent development threats, the lawsuit states. Among the exhibits in the case are comments the agency submitted to the FAA in 2021, in which it expressed concerns about direct loss of habitat and unexpected anomalies (e.g., explosions) due to SpaceX.

The crux of this lawsuit is about giving away what belonged to the people, said Marisa Perales, a partner at Austin-based Perales, Allmon & Ice who is representing the plaintiffs. Its about the government not so much SpaceX, but our elected officials and appointed officials giving away what belonged to the people.

One plaintiff in the case says its had plenty of experience with the government giving its land away. That plaintiff, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, has fought to preserve wildlands in the region for years.

Tribal Chair Juan Mancias says the group has around 1,600 enrolled members. While not a recognized tribe, the groups they claim lineage from undeniably lived in this region. As early as 1940, the Smithsonian Institute had gathered linguistic data on Comecrudo people here. These days, the group prefers to call itself the Estok Gna, a phrase that roughly translates to the human person.

Mancias traveled to the TPWD meeting in Austin to speak against the land deal. I don't consent or give consent to any of the swapping or land sale, he told commissioners in March. This land is our ancestral land.

In an interview, Mancias said Boca Chica beach was sacred the place where the Creator made the first woman. Then, later, he created the first man with the leftovers," he said.

Mancias seemed largely unbothered by the Esto'k Gnas unrecognized status. I would say the white man cant tell me who I am, he said. I know who I am. I know how I grew up. I had a good pair of grandparents who told me who I was.

The group first asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognition in 1998 but being unrecognized had its benefits. Because were not recognized, Mancias added wryly, we dont have the opportunity for them to take our federal contracts away. They cant threaten us like that and tell us to be quiet.

On a recent afternoon, Basald wandered along Boca Chica beach, collecting seashells. He comes out here when he can, sometimes to pray with other Estok Gna.

Growing up in what he calls an assimilated family, Basald said reconnecting with his Native heritage was a gradual process. It started as a teenager, with questions like: Where are we from? What kind of Native are we? He threw himself into studying Native groups, ultimately earning a Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Arizona in 2009. In 2017, he formally enrolled in the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation.

Like Mancias, Basald sees the proposed SpaceX land deal as part of a long legacy of land-taking in the area. White people from another part of the world came over here and projected the fallacy that there was nothing here, he said. In their minds, because there was nothing here, they could create whatever they wanted.

Leaving Boca Chica beach, Basald drove past the sites of new LNG terminals another environmental fight in which the Estok Gna are involved. Not long ago, he said, this land had mangroves. They are continuing to destroy the world, and thats how you get climate catastrophe, he added later. Its all connected.

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Here is the original post:

In South Texas, SpaceX looms over iconic beach - Courthouse News Service

Following a daylong delay, SpaceX successfully flew its 75th Falcon 9 out of Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., late Thursday, as a veteran booster roared into the night with 20 Starlink internet communications satellites, including 13 birds equipped with Direct-to-Cell functionality. The B1082 coreflying for the fourth time after previous space-bound treks in January, February and just last monthrose from Space Launch Complex (SLC)-4E at the mountain-ringed West Coast site at 9:30 p.m. PDT and returned eight minutes later to a pinpoint landing on the deck of the Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (ASDS), Of Course I Still Love You, situated offshore in the Pacific Ocean.

Originally slated to fly yesterday, a mere eight hours after another Starlink-laden Falcon 9 mission from the East Coast, SpaceX elected to stand down B1083 for undisclosed reasons. Teams realigned for a backup opportunity extending from 8:20 p.m. PDT through 10:18 p.m. EDT Thursday, with the mission finally going airborne a little past the halfway point of the launch window at 9:30 p.m. PDT.

Aboard the booster were 20 Starlinks, including 13 with Direct-to-Cell capabilities, which permit mobile network providers to offer seamless global access to texting, calling and browsing, whether on land, lakes or coastal waters, without the need to change hardware or firmware. The first Direct-to-Cell satellites flew in January and within six days of reaching orbit SpaceX engineers successfully sent their first text messages using the system.

As a network, Starlink enables high-speed and low-latency internet provision to over 70 sovereign nations and international markets in North and South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa. Last week, the Hawthorne, Calif.-headquartered launch services provider announced that Starlink connectivity is now available in Uruguay, bringing to 76 the total number of sovereign nations or regions to receive coverage.

The downsized V2 Mini satellites, first flown in February of last year, boast three to four times greater usable bandwidth than earlier Starlink iterations. V2 Minis include key technologiessuch as more powerful phased-array antennas and the use of E-Band for backhaulwhich will allow Starlink to provide 4x more capacity per satellite than earlier iterations, SpaceX explained. Among other enhancements, V2 Minis are equipped with new argon Hall thrusters for on-orbit maneuvering.

Florida-based intercity operator Brightline adopted Starlink on its trains in 2023, the first passenger rail service in the world to do so. Additionally, El Salvadors Ministry of Education has begun integrating Starlink capability into its schools to help close the digital divide between urban and remote rural communities and 50 Rwandan schools are now connected via Starlinks high-speed internet service. As of April, Starlink reportedly had about 2.7 million registered subscribers or customers worldwide.

Flying last nights mission, B1082 is a relative newcomer to the SpaceX fleet, having flown 2024s inaugural SpaceX mission in early January. A second launch in February set records including the 300th flight of a Falcon 9 and the 200th consecutive safe landing of a booster, while a third last month lofted the U.S. Space Forces USSF-62 mission with the first Weather System Follow-on Microwave (WSF-M) meteorology satellite.

It also marked the 75th launch of a Falcon 9 out of Vandenberg since September 2013 and the 15th so far this year. That accomplishment has been made possible by 16 boosters, which have delivered more than 1,400 Starlinks, nine batches of Iridium NEXT global mobile communications satellites, five military missions for the National Reconnaissance Office, the U.S. Space Force and the Space Development Agency (SDA) and four multi-customer Transporter stacks, totaling 289 discrete payloads and covering a smorgasbord of science, technology and educational outreach disciplines and applications.

Added to that list, Vandenberg Falcons boosted several Earth-observation payloads and NASAs Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) into deep space to investigate the asteroid Didymos and impact its tiny companion, Dimorphos. With an increased launch tempo achieved in the last two years alone, more than half of these 75 West Coast missions have flown since the start of 2023.

And that tempo has seen a rapid uptick in the numbers of Vandenberg Falcons flying more regularly than ever before. SpaceX accomplished its first dual-launch month from the Californian site in February 2022, then saw three flights for the first time in April of last year and completed its first four-mission month last January.

Last year, SpaceX managed a personal-best-beating 28 Falcon flights from the West Coast at an average cadence of a launch each 13 days. And 2024s achievement of 15 flights inside the first half of the year is currently averaging a mission every 8.6 days, which a back-of-the-envelope extrapolation suggests as many as 42 Vandenberg launches before the New Years Eve bell tolls.

FOLLOW AmericaSpace on Facebook and X!

Like Loading...

Original post:

SpaceX Continues Record-Setting Year, Launches 75th Vandenberg Mission - AmericaSpace

Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

Its a reliably memorable scene in any courtroom drama: The lawyer stands up to call the next witness, the door swings open, and its the priest who testifies he was at a Yankees game with the accused at the time of the crime and has ticket stubs to prove it! The decedents daughter, who stepped out of the shower to find her fathers bloody body, only to be exposed as an extravagantly permed fraud by Elle Woods! Mocha Joe, back to exact vengeance on Larry David for his spite store! As attorney extraordinaire (and personal role model) Lionel Hutz advised his client, Homer Simpson: I have a foolproof strategy to get you out of here: surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the last!

But in real life, I regret to inform you, there are no surprise witnesses. To the contrary, judges typically require prosecutors to disclose the names of their upcoming witnesses at least a day in advance, and often more than that. Its a matter of practicality, and it goes to the defendants fundamental right to defend himself; its difficult for a defense lawyer to prepare for the next day if he doesnt know who exactly hell be cross-examining. I once tried to get cute and told the judge at the end of a trial day I wasnt sure who Id be calling the next morning. The judge retorted, Either give us your witnesses names right now or dont bother showing up tomorrow. Point taken.

Yet when it comes to witness lists and, to be sure, in other respects the ongoing trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan is more like a movie than real life. Judge Juan Merchan, in a departure from normal practice, has permitted the prosecution to call its witnesses on the fly with a bare minimum of advance notice to the defense. The DA has turned over a witness list containing dozens of names, and Trumps team has a general idea who the witnesses will be but as to who will testify when, the defense is learning at essentially the same time as the rest of us.

Judge Merchan has reasoned that Trump cant be trusted not to publicly attack upcoming witnesses, and therefore has forfeited his right to advance notice. Hey, when you violate a gag order ten times, you suffer the consequences. When Trumps lawyer Todd Blanche promised that hed personally ensure that Trump refrained from public comment about upcoming witnesses, the judge responded, I dont think you can make that representation. Tough but fair.

The former federal and state prosecutor breaks down the headlines at the intersection of law and politics.

The result makes life harder for Trumps defense team, but it also makes the trial more cinematic for all of us. Whos next? Did we see anyone entering the courthouse? Could Stormy Daniels be up? Karen McDougal? Wheres Michael Cohen today? Hope Hicks reportedly drew gasps from the assembled media and courtroom observers when prosecutors called her to the stand.

Alas, there will be no surprise when it comes time for the biggest potential witness of all: the defendant himself, Donald John Trump. Let me preempt the Hamlet routine that surely will play out over the next couple weeks, the to be or not to be around whether Trump will take the stand in his own defense: He shouldnt, and he wont.

Trump, like any defendant, has an unconditional right to testify or not to testify. Nor can the prosecutor make any comment or ask the jury to draw any inference from any defendants decision not to take the stand. (It hardly needs to be said, but just to clear up any confusion: Contrary to Trumps preposterous courthouse rant, the gag order has zero to do with his ability to take the stand in his own defense.)

We can already see Trumps subtle but unmistakable retreat from bluster to sanity. At first, Trump boasted that he would testify in his own defense. Note the careful word choice: Would, which includes an element of conditionality, isnt quite the same as will. Days later, he prudently stepped back: Well, I would if its necessary. Right now, I dont know if you heard about today. Today was just incredible. People are saying the experts, Im talking about legal scholars and experts theyre saying, What kind of a case is this? There is no case.

Few legal scholars are saying quite that, of course, but, overstatement aside, Trump has the right strategic idea here. Indeed, hes got two ironclad reasons not to testify.

First: Hed get annihilated. Trump wouldnt necessarily suffer a Colonel Jessup Youre goddamn right I did! moment his self-preservation instincts are too strong for that but hed surely get twisted in a pretzel when confronted with the difficult questions posed by the prosecutions case. Did he in fact have affairs with McDougal and Daniels? If not, why did he falsely deny knowing them? Did he know about the hush-money payments made for his benefit? Did he authorize them? Why? And why did he falsely claim publicly to know nothing about the women and the payoffs? Why did he sign a series of reimbursement checks to Michael Cohen? Theres little chance hed offer coherent, consistent, plausible explanations.

Thats the risk whenever a defendant takes the stand: It essentially shifts the burden of proof to the defense table. Typically, if the jurors believe the defendant lies on the stand, its over. Cross-examination would simply be too fraught for Trump. He has every right to duck it, and hed be foolish to waive that right and expose himself here.

That brings us to the second point: Trump doesnt need to take the stand in his own defense. Thats not to argue that hes got an acquittal locked up, not by any stretch. (I still believe a conviction is more likely than not on balance.) But its become clear that his lawyers have all the ammunition they need to raise a defense, even without the risk of putting the client on the stand. Why take the risk of calling Trump to the stand to deny his sexual tryst with Daniels when she already signed a statement in 2018 declaring I am denying this affair because it never happened? Why does Trump need to swear he never dealt with Jeffrey McConney about the internal accounting behind hush-money reimbursements when McConney admitted the same in cross? Why must Trump proclaim Michael Cohen a liar when virtually every prosecution witness who has ever met the infamous Fixer has ranted about how he is (or was) a mendacious sleaze?

Indeed, if Trump takes the stand, the whole case will rise or fall on his testimony. If he doesnt, it likely will turn on Cohens. From the perspective of Trumps legal team, thats an easy call.

Weve seen this routine before. Trump vowed that he would testify, wanted to testify, was aching to testify before Robert Mueller, in Congress, and in some of his civil matters before he bailed out and avoided examination under oath. He did testify (sort of) at two of his recent civil trials involving E. Jean Carroll and business fraud in New York. But if Trump thinks those experiences prepared him for a criminal trial, hes mistaken. Both times he testified in civil court, the examinations were narrow, his testimony lasted only minutes, and he essentially self-destructed on the stand anyway. In criminal court, the restrictor plates come off, and prosecutors can drill Trump about the core allegations against him for as long as they please.

As we move toward the end phase of this trial, my sense is that both sides should be satisfied not overjoyed, but satisfied with how the case has gone. Prosecutors have done a solid, workmanlike job building their case, and Trumps lawyers have planted the seeds of reasonable doubt. As a defense attorney, thats about the best you can hope for at this point: Youre in the game and youve got a shot to pull it out. To call Trump to the stand would upend the trial and shove all the defense chips over to an extraordinarily risky bet. For all his public bluster and equivocation, theres simply no way Trump will engage in unilaterally assured self-destruction.

This article originally appeared in the free CAFE Brief newsletter. You can find more analysis of law and politics from Elie Honig, Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance, and other CAFE contributors at CAFE.com

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

Read the original:
Will Donald Trump Take the Stand at His Trial? - New York Magazine