Yes, they are considered they're own real property. I've looked at literally thousands upon thousands of deeds and never actually seen water reserved like you'd see with oil and gas or minerals. Not once.

The post just kinda of was interesting since you don't often see "buying/selling water rights" here. But, it's obviously much more involved and probably more relevant now with data centers, chip factories, etc etc

I've seen a fair number of minor water use reservations in deeds that pre-date the 1967 Water Rights Adjudication, but I read a lot more old deeds than most people. I still see a good amount of subsurface water clauses. You don't see this kind of surface water reservation in deeds for the fee estate like other reservations because the State separated the riparian water rights from the surface and made them appropriative with the 1967 act.

A&M has a whole course on this. I enjoyed it, but I was reliably informed that I was the only one that did that semester. And it's been a long time and I'm sure I forgot a lot of it.

Dr Kaiser's water law class I presume?

What gave it away? The subject matter, or the student disdain for it?

normaleagle05 said:

---

What gave it away? The subject matter, or the student disdain for it?

---

Both. I actually audited it after graduation and loved it. My wife was a grad student of his and TAed the class for a couple of years, so she was well aware of the general attitude of the students. He was one of my favorite profs at A&M.

I think I was 29 when I took it. Water law and spending time with JDs may just be adult subjects.

This is a thread about aerospace. Bird law would be more applicable here.

Booster 20 has arrived at the Massey Outpost ahead of initial cryo-proof testing. pic.twitter.com/AxpwvkniW0

— Avid Space (@LabPadre) June 5, 2026

Bird law, you say?

Everyone that watches this thread should really go watch the CSI Starbase video about the bird powered water deluge system.

NASA Stennis replacing their pumps/piping for the test stand water deluge system

My company was bidding on that project. Didn't get it. Pretty bummed about it. Not sure who ended up with it.

JUST IN: NASA orders International Space Station astronauts to prepare for evacuation as Russia attempts to fix a worsening air leak.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) June 5, 2026

Not good.

nortex97 said:

---

JUST IN: NASA orders International Space Station astronauts to prepare for evacuation as Russia attempts to fix a worsening air leak.

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) June 5, 2026

Not good.

---

https://www.reuters.com/world/nasa-live-international-space-station-astronauts-prepare-possible-evacuation-due-2026-06-05/

NASA live updates: ISS astronauts to return to planned operations after air leak prompts evacuation alert

• NASA told five International Space Station astronauts to return to planned operations
• They were earlier asked to shelter in their spacecraft and prepare for possible evacuation
• Russian state space corporation Roscosmos says two oxygen leaks were detected aboard ISS
• No immediate threat to crew, Roscosmos says

SpaceX just quietly amended its S-1 announcing another mega deal

$920M/month from Google from October 2026 through June 2029

With both parties being able to terminate the agreement with 90 days notice

Things are getting exciting 🚀 pic.twitter.com/vnEFaWrlXm

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) June 5, 2026

UPDATE ON THE SPACEX $SPCX IPO:

Investor demand is now roughly $150 billion, about double the $75 billion offering, per Reuters sources.

That's 2x oversubscribed.

For context, bankers told Reuters that 2x is "modest" by typical IPO standards. What makes it impressive is the… pic.twitter.com/tzgBkh6lUK

— IPO Newsroom (@IPONewsroom_) June 5, 2026

Interesting tidbit in the Ars Technica Rocket Report

Quote:

---

NASA chief urges new ride for Blue Moon. Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket was supposed to launch the company's first lunar lander, Blue Moon Mark 1, sometime this fall. The Blue Moon test mission is an important precursor for Blue Origin's future human-rated Moon lander for the Artemis program, and NASA is eager to see it fly. The rocket's explosion on the launch pad last week makes a launch on New Glenn this year unachievable. NASA now wants to find an alternative launcher for the first of Blue Origin's Blue Moon demo missions, Spaceflight Now reports. In an interview with Fox Business on Thursday, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman described a "whole of government response" to the May 28 incident with the New Glenn. "We are also decoupling the lander from the launch vehicle and the pad itself," he said.

Only one option... "NASA is laser focused on the lander because we're laser focused on our mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon before 2028, and we're going be able to keep that lander in development, progressing, so it's available for our test mission in 2027, which is Artemis III, and potentially available to meet our landing objectives in 2028," Isaacman said.
A NASA spokesperson confirmed to Spaceflight Now that NASA would like to see the launches of the Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo lander and potentially the Blue Moon Mark 2 crewed lander move to a rocket that's not New Glenn. For Mark 1, at least, the only realistic option is SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket, but there are several technical hurdles to making that happen.

---

https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/06/rocket-report-blue-origin-explosion-still-making-headlines-impulse-raises-money/

Anthropic and Google are now paying @SpaceX a combined $2.17 billon per month for compute capacity. That's a revenue run rate of $26 billion per year. BIG MONEY. https://t.co/SeKwWKMIQi

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 5, 2026

✈️ JUST IN: The X-59 has gone supersonic!

The X-59 achieved supersonic speeds for the first time ever today — a major milestone for NASA’s Quesst mission and an important step toward upcoming flights that will demonstrate its quiet supersonic technology ahead of future… pic.twitter.com/mwblICs4vN

— NASA Aeronautics (@NASAaero) June 5, 2026

will25u said:

---

✈️ JUST IN: The X-59 has gone supersonic!

The X-59 achieved supersonic speeds for the first time ever today — a major milestone for NASA’s Quesst mission and an important step toward upcoming flights that will demonstrate its quiet supersonic technology ahead of future… pic.twitter.com/mwblICs4vN

— NASA Aeronautics (@NASAaero) June 5, 2026

---

Not Space NASA, or SpaceX... But check out Mike Rowes recent podcast, The Way I Heard It, where he interviews the founder of Boom supersonic.

You'll recall these guys are developing a 60 seat super sonic passenger plane and the goal is no audible boom at ground level.

The sonic boom can be started do dissipate by a variety of factors... Shape of the pressure waves on the front and back of the plane, wave velocity variations with atmospheric temperature, and ultimately cruise altitude.

Their engines are developed and generating revenue as data center power. 46MW per engine

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

will25u said:

---

✈️ JUST IN: The X-59 has gone supersonic!

The X-59 achieved supersonic speeds for the first time ever today — a major milestone for NASA’s Quesst mission and an important step toward upcoming flights that will demonstrate its quiet supersonic technology ahead of future… pic.twitter.com/mwblICs4vN

— NASA Aeronautics (@NASAaero) June 5, 2026

---

Not Space NASA, or SpaceX... But check out Mike Rowes recent podcast, The Way I Heard It, where he interviews the founder of Boom supersonic.

You'll recall these guys are developing a 60 seat super sonic passenger plane and the goal is no audible boom at ground level.

The sonic boom can be started do dissipate by a variety of factors... Shape of the pressure waves on the front and back of the plane, wave velocity variations with atmospheric temperature, and ultimately cruise altitude.

Their engines are developed and generating revenue as data center power. 46MW per engine

---

Is your company running low on money? Sneaker company? Jet manufacturer? If all else fails and you need revenue, turn to AI or data centers.

Boom is ahead by having already demonstrated boomless supersonic flight. February last year I think.

Their Superpower gas turbine generators are generating revenue through pre-sales but installed units are not forecast before early 2027. Their CEO just announced today that they've finished assembly of the first Symphony (their jet turbine for planes and power plants) high pressure rotor system. Still working toward a fully assembled unit.

Boom team has finished assembly of the entire high pressure rotor system for Symphony. We’ve got 85% of engine parts in inventory now and are sprinting to get the rest of this motor built pic.twitter.com/6XBStWV04i

— Blake Scholl 🛫 (@bscholl) June 5, 2026

I see Superpower (their 42 MW gas turbine power plant in a shipping container) as analogous to Starlink. It leverages their tech to solve a common problem (deployable high output power) that generates revenue while they work toward their real goal of selling supersonic jets to every airline.

SpaceX the sneaker company is limping by on globally available broadband internet while they develop their proprietary line of Exatmospheric Bird basketball shoes. It's shameful.

Boom plays fast and loose with their info. Their first "motor" isn't the whole engine, just the high pressure portion of the turbine. The low pressure is a second shaft. Since they're taking a supersonic flight design and industrializing it, they'll have to redesign the low pressure compressor (no fan at front, no static pressure increase from the intake). They purchased the initial design from a company in Florida and are now trying to do the rest on their own.

The "sprint core" won't make much power, and from there they need to design the low pressure, the enclosure, and the power turbine. Then get it made. Then validate it. Then scale. Then get it reliable. I would be surprised if they make it, unfortunately.

Making a reliable gas turbine is *really* hard.

They definitely seem to be in the "We're about to launch Falcon 1!" stage of development. Likely not to be pretty or quick from here.

But it is nice to see Americans trying hard things on their belief that their own success is possible.

"NASA is laser focused on the lander because we're laser focused on our mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon before 2028"

I don't understand why Mk1 is required for Artemis III. There's other CLPS providers and there's another HLS provider.

Jet engine to gas turbine isn't that strange of a pivot.

TexAgs91 said:

---

"NASA is laser focused on the lander because we're laser focused on our mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon before 2028"

I don't understand why Mk1 is required for Artemis III. There's other CLPS providers and there's another HLS provider.

---

Because they want to have competition that is active and they want the landers flying and testing RPOD with Orion as soon as possible to maximize options.

Artificially extending the competition doesn't make sense though. The goal is foot prints on the moon before China, or at least before the end of Trump's term.

Nasa selected BO as an alternate for HLS in case SpaceX screwed the pooch. In that scenario, Nasa would say, "sorry SpaceX, you didn't deliver. We're going with Blue Origin". But it went the other way. If BO isn't ready for Artemis III's flight, I fully expect Nasa to say, "Sorry Blue Origin, you didn't deliver. We're going with SpaceX". And Nasa shouldn't unnecessarily prolong Artemis III's flight either.

Nasa wants the competition. This is the competition. Nasa should keep its thumb off the scale so it's a fair competition.

If SpaceX can only launch reliably but only Blue Origin can land on the Moon then NASA does not achieve its goals. It's a smart hedge to try and keep them both in the running for some portion of the hardware if your actual goal is to accomplish the mission in the stated timeframe.

When was the last time anyone saw some HLS hardware from SpaceX? I'm optimistic, but if I was responsible for the mission I'd keep as many options on the table as I could. Going to the moon is hard.

TexAgs91 said:

---

"NASA is laser focused on the lander because we're laser focused on our mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon before 2028"

I don't understand why Mk1 is required for Artemis III. There's other CLPS providers and there's another HLS provider.

---

NASA will go with the first HLS ready for Artemis 4. Before the NG explosion BO looked closer to putting something on the Moon than Starship.

If you're going to build a lunar base, which HLS do you want to go with?

TexAgs91 said:

---

If you're going to build a lunar base, which HLS do you want to go with?

---

Both - as it maximizes the flexibility and launch cadence.

Truth is if you want to do this maximizing likelihood for success, you push on every individual part of mission. It costs money, but the best way to mitigate schedule risk is to avoid singular dependence on developmental hardware.