SpaceX set for Wednesday morning rocket launch from Florida
SpaceX crews on Florida's Space Coast are preparing for a rocket launch Wednesday morning.
SpaceX plans to launch a Falcon 9 rocket at 9:30 a.m. from the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
The launch will be in support of SpaceX's Starlink satellite system.
Wednesday's launch comes after SpaceX's 9th test launch Tuesday night of its Starship mega rocket.
SpaceX said this launch will be the 19th flight for the rocket's first-stage booster, which previously launched Ax-2, Euclid, Ax-3, CRS-30, SES ASTRA 1P, NG-21, and 12 Starlink missions.
After the launch, SpaceX plans to land the first-stage booster again on its 'Just Read the Instructions' drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean.
Channel 9 will monitor the planned rocket launch and provide updates on Eyewitness News.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
40 minutes ago
- Medscape
Sorting Out Long COVID Symptoms in Babies
By the time many children with lingering symptoms of COVID-19 reach Lael Yonker's pediatric pulmonology clinic, they have likely been told those problems are 'just a cold.' 'When kids come to me, they're very frustrated. They often will cry just because I'm listening to them and I'm not questioning whether or not they have long COVID,' Yonker, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said. 'I'm trying to address their symptoms.' Often, family members bring up the possibility of long COVID, she said. That's because when caregivers relay the symptoms of poor appetite and sleepiness, most pediatricians do not think the chronic condition could be a possible diagnosis, she said. Until now, only small studies had been published on characterizations of the condition in infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, Yonker said. But new research published in JAMA Pediatrics found distinct patterns of long COVID symptoms in young children. Researchers from the NIH-funded RECOVER-Pediatrics Consortium analyzed data from over 1000 children aged 0-5 years, comparing those with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection to uninfected peers. The study found that 14% of infected infants and toddlers and 15% of infected preschoolers had probable long COVID, similar to rates in teens and school-aged children. For infants and toddlers, the most strongly associated and prolonged symptoms associated with a history of COVID-19 infection were poor appetite, trouble sleeping, wet and dry cough, and stuffy nose. In preschool-aged children, daytime tiredness, and dry cough were prominent. Teens and school-aged children are more likely to have memory trouble, lightheadedness, and other neurologic issues. The findings may challenge the assumptions of clinicians that very young children are less affected by long COVID, held in part because this population often cannot describe what they are experiencing. 'There is an underappreciation among parents and pediatricians that long COVID can present in younger children,' said Suchitra Rao, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study. 'Much of the existing literature has focused on adults, so this is an important study which can shed more light on how younger children present with lingering symptoms.' Symptoms Often Last Months in Young Kids Rachel Gross, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City and lead author of the new study, said identifying long COVID in very young children can be challenging. 'They have limited verbal communication, limited social skills, and even a limited understanding of what their symptoms mean to them and how they can express it,' she said. Because of this, Gross and her colleagues relied on caregiver reports in the study. The study included 1186 children under the age of 6 years, 670 of whom had tested positive for the virus at some point; 516 children had not been infected. Caregivers of all children completed a detailed survey about their children's symptoms that had lasted for more than 4 weeks since the pandemic began, whether or not the problems were related to COVID-19 infection. The researchers defined prolonged symptoms as those lasting more than 4 weeks and still present at the time of reporting. On average, infants and toddlers had symptoms that lingered for 10 months and nearly 17 months in preschool-aged children. Building Clinician Awareness of Pediatric Long COVID Using their findings, the researchers developed an age-specific tool to identify children likely to have long COVID. For infants and toddlers, symptoms like poor appetite and sleep problems were more common. For preschoolers, fatigue and dry cough were key signs. If a child's score crossed a certain threshold, they were classified as 'long COVID probable.' Children with higher scores on the index 'often had worse overall health, lower quality of life, and delays in development,' said Tanayott Thaweethai, PhD, associate director of Biostatistics Research and Engagement at Massachusetts General Hospital and an author of the study. The instrument is currently applicable in research settings, not clinical practice, Thaweethai said. 'It's not meant to be by itself a diagnostic tool,' Thaweethai said. 'There very much could be children who are experiencing long COVID who may not present in exactly this way.' Still, Thaweethai said he hopes pediatricians recognize its potential value. 'These are important signs that warrant further investigation to really determine if these symptoms for that child are attributable to a prior COVID infection,' he said. Long COVID Rules for the Youngest Current clinical guidelines for long COVID rely on research in adults. But across pediatric and adult medicine, the condition remains without a clinical biomarker. 'There isn't a blood test right now or any specific test for diagnosing long COVID,' Gross said. 'It really is diagnosed based on this history of prolonged symptoms.' Gross suggested clinicians ask parents to track their children's symptoms — documenting start date, duration, and severity. While the study did not specifically evaluate the effects of vaccination on the risk for long COVID, Thaweethai said prior studies have suggested vaccines for the disease are protective against prolonged symptoms. 'There are essentially no treatments for long COVID, and vaccination can prevent COVID. Therefore, it's one of our only tools for preventing long COVID,' he said. 'We really need to understand how long children are having these symptoms, how they wax and wane over time, how getting a reinfection with COVID changes the symptoms and the trajectory,' Gross said. 'If we're seeing these different symptoms in infants and toddlers and preschool aged children, what happens when those particular children enter school age? What happens to the symptoms that they have at that point? We don't have the answers to those questions yet.' As clinicians and researchers continue to untangle the complexities of long COVID in children, Yonker urged pediatricians to keep listening. 'Long COVID is a disease that impacts life,' she said. 'Some of these kids have their lives impacted — if there's school refusal, if they're having post-exertional malaise and not able to participate in activities in school and learn to their potential.' Lara Salahi is a health journalist based in Boston.
Scientific American
41 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Can Trump's NASA Afford to Send Humans to Mars?
US President Donald Trump last week laid out one of the biggest challenges ever for NASA — to land the first humans on Mars. But his detailed budget request for the fiscal year 2026 also proposed cancelling dozens of the space agency's missions, including projects to study Earth, Mars and Venus. And the next day, on 31 May, Trump withdrew his nomination for NASA chief, the businessman and commercial astronaut Jared Isaacman. All of this has left the space agency in turmoil, and the scientists who normally participate in NASA's missions split over whether they support the push for the red planet. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. A budget shortfall NASA has wanted to put people on Mars for decades, but both technological and budget limitations mean that probably will not happen until the 2040s under current plans. Trump wants to accelerate that timeline. On 30 May, the White House proposed to spend some US$1 billion in 2026 on Mars plans, including research into new spacesuits and an astronaut landing system. 'These investments will provide the technologies necessary for future Mars exploration and eventual crewed missions to Mars,' the NASA budget plan said. If the space agency really does want to focus on sending humans to Mars, space-policy specialists say, it will need to massively ramp up its spending. A human mission to Mars is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars spread over a number of years; the agency currently spends $25 billion a year on all of its programmes, and Trump has proposed cutting that to under $19 billion. 'Right now, with the budgets that are proposed, we can't afford to send people to Mars,' says John Grunsfeld, an astrophysicist and former NASA astronaut who led the agency's science programmes from 2012 to 2016. Trump's latest rhetoric on Mars echoes decisions he made during his first term as president, when, in 2017, he announced that NASA would send astronauts back to the Moon. In 2022, the agency tested a mega-rocket that is intended to achieve that objective, but that mission, Artemis I, was uncrewed. Many technical challenges remain before people can be put on the lunar surface — a goal currently slated for 2027. One challenge is achieving success with the giant Starship vehicle, built by the aerospace company SpaceX in Hawthorne, California. Once NASA's mega-rocket has propelled astronauts into lunar orbit, they will rendezvous with Starship, which will fly them to the Moon's surface. But Starship has yet to orbit Earth successfully, much less demonstrate the frequent launches and in-space refuellings needed for the Moon landing; its most recent test flight ended in an explosion on 27 May. Days after that blow-up, Elon Musk, the billionaire chief executive of SpaceX who has advised Trump, said he still hoped to launch the first Starship to Mars next year. Some scientists have been put off the idea of landing humans on Mars by Musk's involvement. The technology entrepreneur has long talked of colonizing the red planet, but with little consideration of societal ethics or international norms. In recent months, he led the Trump administration's efforts to downsize the US government and slash its science funding, even as SpaceX is likely to compete for billions of dollars' worth of government contracts on the quest for Mars. A tough environment Others are more excited about the prospect of landing people on the red planet. NASA has overseen missions to Mars many times, sending a series of robotic spacecraft, including the Curiosity and Perseverance rovers. Some researchers say that astronauts could explore more quickly and gain better insight into whether Mars has ever hosted extraterrestrial life. 'If we definitively want to answer the question of whether Mars had life or has life today, I think we have to send humans,' says Tanya Harrison, a planetary scientist with the Outer Space Institute who is based in Ottawa, Canada. But even those in favour caution that a journey to Mars would not only be costly — taking funding away from numerous other research programmes — but would also pose many physical risks. On the way to Mars, astronauts would face extreme isolation and higher doses of deadly space radiation over longer periods than they have ever been exposed to on the Moon or on space stations. If they were to land successfully on Mars, they would have to get out of their capsule without collapsing after the zero-gravity voyage; begin working in a frigid environment where the soil is full of toxic chemicals and there is almost no air to breathe; and deal with abrasive dust storms. There are solutions, such as living inside an underground lava tube that was created by volcanic activity, which could offer protection against radiation and dust storms. But visiting Mars will be like visiting Antarctica — another hostile, perilous environment — with vastly greater risks, scientists say. 'I want to disabuse people of the assumptions that they have that humans are going to be fine,' Erik Antonsen, a researcher in space physiology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said at conference on human space exploration on 28 May. Science at the table Trump's proposal is likely to have support from some politicians in the US Congress. They might vote to appropriate at least a proportion of the vast sums required to go to Mars because they are keen to achieve exploration milestones before China's burgeoning space agency does. China has announced plans to put astronauts on the Moon by 2030, and on Mars after that. So some scientists are determined to make the best of it. 'Given that there is active planning going on for developing the architecture for human missions through NASA, we feel it's important that science has a seat at the table,' says Bruce Jakosky, a planetary scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder. He and others led a study in 2023 that identified key scientific goals, including studying astrobiology, that astronauts might accomplish on the red planet. In the near term, Jakosky says, NASA should prioritize a robotic mission to bring back dozens of rock, dirt and air samples gathered on Mars by the $2.7-billion Perseverance rover. Doing so would demonstrate that the agency is capable of sending spacecraft to and from Mars, he says, and would allow scientists to analyse the rocks for signs of life and for clues to how toxic the Martian surface could be. However, the agency has struggled with how to pay for such a mission, and Trump has proposed cancelling it. In Grunsfeld's view, NASA should focus on building a streamlined architecture to get humans to Mars as simply as possible. That could mean, for example, testing new spacesuit designs at the International Space Station and dropping plans for astronauts to build extensive Moon bases. 'We need to use the technology we have to the maximum extent,' he says. Whatever NASA, Congress and Trump decide, the current political uncertainty is a huge challenge, Harrison says. She worries that last week's proposals might not lead to sustained momentum: 'Is this blustering for right now, and will Mars be forgotten a year from now?'
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Could Trump–Musk Tensions Jeopardize SpaceX's Valuation?
SpaceX, Elon Musk's flagship aerospace company, is now valued at a staggering $350 billion following an internal employee share buyback in December 2024 — making it the most valuable private company in the U.S. and arguably one of the most strategically important. But that massive valuation now faces an unexpected source of risk: political tensions between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. While SpaceX remains technically dominant and commercially indispensable, rising political hostility could have real implications for federal contracts and regulatory approvals — both of which underpin a large portion of the company's future cash flow expectations. SpaceX's rise to a $350 billion valuation is grounded in two core pillars: But valuation is not just about technology — it's also about contracted revenue and political alignment. SpaceX's most critical customers remain NASA, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Space Force, with long-term contracts that support everything from lunar missions to national security payloads. Those relationships are deeply strategic — and politically sensitive. Recently, tensions between Elon Musk and Donald Trump have become unusually public. Their disagreement — reportedly over political influence, media ownership, and policy alignment — has escalated to the point where Trump has hinted at a possible "review" of government contracts involving Musk-linked companies if he returns to office. While this could be political bluster, the risk is not theoretical. Federal procurement decisions, particularly in defense and aerospace, can be influenced by the political environment. A freeze or slowdown in contract flow, more stringent regulatory reviews, or even unofficial blacklisting from future missions could materially affect the assumptions underlying SpaceX's valuation. Moreover, Starlink, while more commercially independent, relies on spectrum allocation, regulatory clearance, and foreign licensing — all of which could be indirectly affected by U.S. political posturing. At $350 billion, SpaceX is being valued at levels normally reserved for profitable, publicly listed tech giants. Much of that valuation assumes: But if even partial disruption hits SpaceX's government revenue pipeline, or if regulatory friction slows Starlink expansion, the company's growth story would lose key drivers. And because the $350 billion valuation came from an internal buyback — not an open market raise — it may not fully reflect the pricing discipline of institutional capital. While SpaceX is not in immediate danger, the political noise introduces a new kind of valuation overhang. Pre-IPO investors, secondary market participants, and regulators will all be watching to see: Until recently, SpaceX's risks were mostly technical — around rocket performance, satellite economics, or project execution. Now, for the first time, politics may be its biggest threat. SpaceX at $350 billion reflects world-class engineering, unmatched market position, and transformative long-term potential. But that valuation also depends on a stable political and regulatory environment — especially when so much of its revenue is tied to U.S. government partnerships. If the feud between Trump and Musk intensifies, it could lead to subtle but meaningful shifts in contract behavior, regulation, and investor sentiment. That wouldn't bring SpaceX crashing down — but it could force a re-rating of expectations in both private and future public markets. As such, the Trump–Musk dynamic may represent the most unexpected threat yet to SpaceX's soaring valuation. Investing in a single stock/asset can be risky. Conversely, the Trefis High Quality (HQ) Portfolio, which comprises 30 stocks, has a history of comfortably outperforming the S&P 500 over the past four years. Why is that? As a group, HQ Portfolio stocks delivered superior returns with lower risk compared to the benchmark index, creating less of a turbulent experience as reflected in HQ Portfolio performance metrics.
