Connect with us

Business

NASA astronauts spend unexpected July 4 on the International Space Station

Published

on

NASA astronauts spend unexpected July 4 on the International Space Station

Astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore spent an unexpected Fourth of July aboard the International Space Station — but it was hardly a patriotic display of engineering prowess.

The two NASA astronauts docked with the orbiting lab June 6 for what was supposed to be an eight-day mission, but their return home may be delayed for months in what has become a star-crossed test flight for Boeing’s new Starliner capsule.

Not only was the launch of the spacecraft with astronauts aboard for the first time repeatedly delayed due to multiple problems, but NASA and Boeing are taking a cautious approach in returning the pair to earth largely due to five thrusters that malfunctioned during docking.

Four of the tiny engines that direct the craft in space are now working properly, but engineers don’t have a clear understanding of what caused the shutdown, so they have decided to conduct ground tests at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico, NASA officials said. The tests will put a Starliner thruster through its paces in a replicated space environment.

The delay also will allow engineers to further study a helium leak in the capsule’s propulsion system that was first detected prior to launch and worsened as Starliner made its way up to the space station roughly 250 miles above earth. The gas is used to pressurize the Starliner’s propulsion system.

Advertisement

However, both the company and space agency stressed at a press conference earlier this week that the astronauts are not stranded in space and, if need be, they could board Starliner and return to Earth immediately if there is an emergency aboard the space station.

“We’re not stuck on ISS. The crew is not in any danger, and there’s no increased risk when we decide to bring Suni and Butch back to Earth,” said Mark Nappi, manager of Boeing’s Commercial Crew Program.

Ken Bowersox, an associate administrator at NASA, said the delay will allow for the collection of more data and that there is no hurry to bring the astronauts back. “We have the luxury of time,” he said.

Before launch, NASA had said the batteries aboard Starliner were rated for 45 days but during the press conference they indicated they were performing well and would be rated to last another 45 days. On regular missions to service the station, Starliner would stay docked for six months.

NASA and Boeing also will not have a chance to examine the thrusters or investigate the helium leak when Starliner returns since the propulsion system is jettisoned before the return to earth.

Advertisement

Nevertheless, the desire to conduct ground tests expected to take weeks has highlighted yet again how far Arlington, Va.-based Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace company, has fallen behind Elon Musk’s Hawthorne upstart SpaceX — at least in the program to service the space station.

Both companies were given multibillion-dollar contracts in 2014 to develop their crafts, and since 2020 Elon Musk’s Hawthorne company has ferried more than half a dozen crews aboard its Crew Dragon capsule to the station — while Boeing has managed only two remote flights, including a first that failed to reach orbit and a second in May 2022 that docked with the orbiting lab.

The current mission with astronauts aboard was scheduled to launch last year but was delayed due to the need to replace flammable tape used extensively in Starliner and a second issue with the parachute system that will slow its descent for a ground landing in the Southwest.

Then, this year’s May 6 launch date was repeatedly delayed, at first due to a malfunctioning valve on the Atlas V rocket that launches Starliner into space. The workhorse rocket is manufactured by United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Additional launch dates were missed due to the helium leak, believed caused by a single defective seal, so software fixes were developed to work around it — but then additional leaks developed after the launch. However, NASA and Boeing officials says the craft has 10 times more helium than it needs to return to earth.

Advertisement

Boeing has reportedly had to absorb $1.5 billion in Starliner cost overruns, even as it continues to deal with the fallout from the two crashes of its 737 Max 8 jets in 2018 and 2019.

The company is weighing whether to plead guilty to a charge of fraud over allegations it misled regulators who approved the new, larger version of the 737, including how much flight training pilots would need, according to the Associated Press.

Boeing also announced plans this week to acquire Spirit AeroSystems, a key supplier it had spun off in 2005 as it moved to outsource more work on its commercial jets. Spirit supplied the fuselage of the Alaska Airline Max 9 that experienced a panel blowout Jan. 5 on its way to Ontario International Airport in San Bernardino County. Boeing’s chief executive called the acquisition “in the best interest of the flying public.”

Meanwhile, SpaceX last month was awarded a NASA contract worth as much as $843 million to build a spacecraft to guide the International Space Station out of orbit so it can burn up in the atmosphere when it is retired in 2030.

Bloomberg reported last month that the privately held company is now valued at a record $210 billion following a company tender offer to insiders that priced shares at $112.

Advertisement

Should Starliner get certified, the dismantling of the space station would leave the spacecraft with only a handful of scheduled service flights, prompting speculation that Boeing may end the program.

However, the company says it has plans for Starliner to service the Orbital Reef orbiting station in development by Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space company.

Business

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

Published

on

Rent-hike ban to protect fire victims ends despite gouging concerns

A rule intended to prevent rent gouging in the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires has lapsed in Los Angeles County, possibly exposing some renters to hikes.

The executive order that blocked rent increases was issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom amid the devastating wildfires last year. Under the order, landlords couldn’t increase rents by more than 10% above their prefire levels.

The rule, which was supposed to be temporary and was repeatedly extended, ended Friday after a vote to extend it again failed to garner enough votes. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, sounded the alarm in a motion to extend price protections that failed to pass at the Board of Supervisors’ May 19 meeting.

“These price gouging protections continue to be necessary as construction and rebuilding continue, and as thousands of people remain displaced,” the motion said. “Families which signed short-term leases could face drastic price increases of 50% or more without further price gouging protection.”

Advertisement

Los Angeles County is home to more than 1 million rental properties, though not all of them needed protection from the new rule. There are already stricter rent increase caps for many residences, depending on the location, type and age of the building. Despite the rent control in the region, the people of Los Angeles pay among the highest rents in the country.

It is uncertain whether renters will face rapidly rising rents now that the protection has lapsed. But some real estate experts and policymakers said there was no need for the temporary rule that was part of the governor’s state of emergency.

Supervisors Kathryn Barger, Janice Hahn and Holly Mitchell abstained from voting on the motion to extend the protection, while Supervisors Hilda Solis and Horvath supported it.

“I abstained because I did not see sufficient evidence to justify extending this emergency ordinance, nor did I see evidence to eliminate it entirely,” Hahn said.

Barger’s office said she supported allowing the protections to sunset while waiting to see whether new information emerged.

Advertisement

“Market data already shows countywide rents are only about 2% above pre-emergency levels and rental inventory has grown,” Barger representative Helen E. Chavez Garcia said. “The Supervisor is also mindful of the burden these ongoing protections place on small property owners throughout the county.”

Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There haven’t been steep rent hikes in neighborhoods within three miles of the Palisades fire, according to a Times analysis of data from Zillow, the property listing company.

In ZIP Codes within three miles of the Palisades fire, rent increased 4.8% from December 2024 to April 2025. In areas around the Eaton fire, which destroyed swaths of Altadena, rent jumped 5.2% in the same period.

In L.A. County, ZIP Codes farther from the fires saw only about a 2% increase.

Advertisement

A landlords representative, Jesus Rojas of the Apartment Owners Assn. of Greater Los Angeles, told the supervisors during public comment at the meeting that the county’s rent-gouging rules have “long outlived the emergency they were intended to address” and are now being “wrongfully used to harm thousands of rental housing providers throughout the county.”

“There is no proof that multifamily rental housing providers are hugely increasing rents for impacted homeowners,” Rojas said.

Indeed, there are strong signs that the property market in the Los Angeles area has at last begun to cool.

L.A. metro-area rent prices recently fell to a four-year low, with the median rent slipping to $2,167 in December.

Meanwhile, condominium sales had their slowest start of the year in decades. Condo sales in Los Angeles have plummeted to a 20-year low, with fewer than 2,000 units sold in January and February — the worst start to the year since 2005.

Advertisement

Newsom defended the price-gouging protections shortly after they went into effect.

“In the days following the Los Angeles firestorms, we worked quickly to protect Los Angeles survivors from any form of exploitation,” he said in February 2025. “The state has the tools in place to not only block price gouging during this emergency, but also to prosecute bad actors.”

The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs said it received more than 2,000 complaints after the fires, alleging that retailers and landlords were taking advantage of people put in hardship by their losses, and sent out more than 2,000 cease-and-desist letters to businesses and landlords for alleged price gouging, said Morine Merritt, who oversees department investigations into consumer and real estate fraud.

“Close to 90% of the complaints that we received involved allegations of rent increases,” Merritt said in an interview. Now that the fire-related protections have expired, existing laws and “regular market conditions determine price increases for goods and services, including rents,” she said.

Crackdowns on fire-related rent gouging have been rare, said Chelsea Kirk of the activist organization the Rent Brigade, which analyzed L.A. County’s rental market in the year after the fires. It reported 18,360 potential examples of price gouging in listings but said that few lawsuits had been filed by authorities so far.

Advertisement

Last week, Rent Brigade announced what it said was the first private civil lawsuit brought by a family that claimed to be rent-gouged in the aftermath of the wildfires. Plaintiffs Randall and Candy Renick, whose Altadena home was damaged, said they were charged nearly three times the maximum permitted rate for nearly 10 months. They seek restitution of $96,000 plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

The rental market has probably stabilized since the fires, Kirk said, but other families may still be “locked into illegal rents” that they agreed to pay when they were in a rush to find housing after they were displaced.

Continue Reading

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending