8 ms·

Seats filled for first all-civilian spaceflight crew

70 points by reddotX 6y ago

midasuni 6y ago
Virgin Galactic launched 17 years ago with the goal of putting people over 100km up, based on a previously successful flight by spaceshipone They failed miserably. Meanwhile spacex has been founded and got to the point commercial customers are about to go up, not just to 100km, but to orbital speeds.
- mongol 6y ago
  Yes, why? I think there was a fatal accident?
  - jonsen 6y ago
    Two clowns at the stick in a craft designed by a cartoonist.
    - MobileVet 6y ago
      This is disrespectful of both the pilots’ careers and loss of life. They both had thousands of hours of flight time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash
      - jonsen 6y ago
        I’m sorry but that was my sincere conclusion at the time.
  - BitwiseFool 6y ago
    SpaceShipOne was designed around winning the X-Prize and it was never meant to go beyond a simple suborbital flight that just barely reaches the edge of space. It's a capable spacecraft for that specific mission but the design is quite limited. It requires a carrier aircraft and it also utilizes a very complicated descent mechanism (flairing wings rather than parachutes). SpaceX started with orbital launch capability and then designed a manned vehicle afterwards. This was the critical difference.
- tppiotrowski 6y ago
  I watched Burt Rutan’s team claiming the X-Prize in early 2000s. Maybe scaling from single person to multiple crew had unexpected complexity? “The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.” [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule
  - midasuni 6y ago
    SSO could take a pilot and two passengers. Always felt it was a mistake not to commercialise that in 2004.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  SpaceX has the benefit of the Commercial Resupply contract and other launches as a revenue stream to support R&D where Virgin Galactic only ever had the suborbital hop which didn’t really have any government grants or bids to fund it. SpaceX’s overall design is also very traditional so to just get launches going there were a lot less completely novel problems to solve where Space Ship One is a pretty complex design.
cies 6y ago
People frown on (heavy) cars nowadays. Then there is some backlash to passenger jet flights that pump (near) tax free fuel. Private jets that basically do the same with less passengers. Now we have passenger space flight. I'm not for "climate shaming" people into "green behavior". I'm all for a fair and square pollution taxes, that every polluter has to pay. But this kind of news make even me frown...
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Sign me up for some climate shaming. I'm for whatever works at this point.
  - cies 6y ago
    That's my problem, I expect the climate shaming approach is (1) a total waste of effort, (2) does not hurt the heavy polluters and (3) does not consider hidden pollution (plastic straws vs flowers or meat). Hence I think the only way out fair and square taxation. It's not a new idea, and thus has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ben_w 6y ago
    15 years ago I would’ve agreed 100%. Growth of green energy, and the cost reductions of the same, mean I now think this particular war is won, even if some specific metaphorical battles have yet to begin. There’s still nitrogen, phosphate, biodiversity, and antibiotics abuse to care about, but I’m confident greenhouse gases are a solved problem and that people will get rich by reducing emissions by at least half by December 2030.
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      I'm going to use the car off a cliff metaphor here because I think it's appropriate. We're still in a car that's headed off the cliff. We've only just reached the point where when people want to press the accelerator harder it reliably causes widespread yelling from those convinced that hurtling off a cliff is a bad idea. We not only aren't steering away from the cliff edge, we haven't even checked the brakes work, maybe this car doesn't have brakes, and if we only finally try them after we go off the cliff I can assure you they won't help then. But yes, these days most calls to accelerate faster are getting shouted down, if you think that's enough I hope we both live long enough for you to find out how wrong that was.
FpUser 6y ago
>"“When this mission is complete, people are going to look at it and say this was the first time that everyday people could go to space,” Isaacman, 38, told reporters." Did not Russia earn some cash for flying passengers to the ISS some time ago?
- adventured 6y ago
  Not so-called everyday people, as Isaacman is describing. Russia flew extremely wealthy people to the ISS a few times, at a cost of something like $20 million per seat (Charles Simonyi for example).
  - FpUser 6y ago
    >"Isaacman, founder and CEO of e-commerce firm Shift4 Payments, is forking over an unspecified but presumably exorbitant sum to fellow billionaire and SpaceX owner Elon Musk to fly himself and three others into orbit aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule." These everyday people did not pay either. That wealthy guy just brought them in by paying large sum. So I think this "being first" part is disingenuous / propaganda. I think we might take a while to wait till "ordinary people" could actually afford such trip.
  - maccard 6y ago
    Isaacman [0] is worth $2.7B, is an experienced pilot, and purchased all seats and chose his crew. One is an aerospace professional and ex US-airforce, one is an ex-astronaut candidate with a PhD, and the other is a physician with deep historic ties to a very prominent childrens hospital & the charity that isaacman is a huge donor of. These are all extraordinary people, and not "everyday" people by any means. They are there because a billionare chose them and they're qualified, extraordinary people, (and a billionare is sponsoring them). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman
    - meowster 6y ago
      In that case, I wonder how "random" the drawing was for one of those seats. I read the Terms and Conditions, and it seemed on the up-and-up.
lotu 6y ago
It doesn't look like they are going to the ISS. If so I think this will be the first orbital space mission not going to space station. I know the spaceX capsule has been described as roomy by space standards but it's still the size car. It's definitely a very intimate setting.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rst 6y ago
  It's SpaceX's first crewed mission not going to the ISS. Before SpaceX, there were plenty of others, of course.
  - lotu 6y ago
    I meant since the Columbia Disaster in the early 2000's, I just didn't type very carefully. Obviously there have been missions before the space station, and I think the Chinese may have done some orbital missions in that time frame but I think it might be the first in a long time for the established space powers.
    - rst 6y ago
      There were non-ISS Shuttle flights after Columbia (most notably Hubble telescope refurb flights); also, the Chinese have had manned missions (including one to a small station of their own, since the US Congress chose to bar them from the ISS).
- tzfld 6y ago
  >the first orbital space mission not going to space station Thinking that space exploration resumes only to SpaceX is the same for me as some of my acquaintances thinking Facebook being the whole internet.
sandworm101 6y ago
Wrong. A founding principlal of NASA is that it is entirely a civilian agency. This was a big deal (no military overflights) and nasa vehicles are never armed. (One russian space station was, Almaz). And while NASA once handled spy satalites (Shuttle's NRO launches) they were owned and operated by other civilian agencies (cia, nsa, nro etc). Maybe they mean to say first crew without any former soldiers? Ok. That might be true, but is a fine line to draw. I have never heard of any other organization be openly proud of not employing veterans on a project. Does this mean that any country with mandatory military service, making everyone a former soldier, is unable to ever launch a civilian crew?
- patagonia 6y ago
  This is borderline “a difference without a distinction”. NASA and the military have a very cozy relationship. NASA was partially a solution to a political problem. Sure astronauts are on “detached duty” but I doubt the astronauts would agree they are not military people. This flight of all truly “civilians” does seem different. It is meaningful.
  - sandworm101 6y ago
    It's spaceflight, rocket technology. I dont see any organization launching such massive rockets without substanial military ties. SpaceX lauches spy satalites all the time and employs lots of x-military people but i dont call it any more military than nasa (nasa is not currently handling any military projects). If we really want to draw legal lines, the US still has selective service in place. Any American males on this flight are subject to it, giving them a small tie to the US military in that they has registered as potential recruits. They have a number and a card somewhere. The fact that someone is x-military does not mean they are never again a civilian. Being drafted doesnt mean you are soldier forever. Lots of all x-military flights have happened.
- bb611 6y ago
  This crew does have a US military veteran, so even that distinction isn't accurate.
patagonia 6y ago
Not gonna lie I spent over $400 trying to get on this flight. But, I am stoked for the person that won the sweepstakes. It is indeed an inspiration. I mean, I literally now see it as a possibility, as probable, that I’ll go to space in my lifetime. And I’m watching citizens go this year. Well done Musk and Isaacman.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Better start saving now. Even if spacex manages to get costs down to nothing, seating will be limited. It wont always be a lottery. People will fight tooth and nail for tickets. I think those with the deepest pockets will win out.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Best time to get a cheap ticket is right after the first dearly crash!
amelius 6y ago
If you put them in a simulator they probably wouldn't know the difference.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  No similator can simulate suatained microgravity. Nearly every astro ever flown has gotten sick when experiancing it for the first time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
cbsks 6y ago
Bummer! That sweepstakes was probably the best chance I will ever have of getting into space. Unless someone invents a time machine and I can go back in time and get a degree in geology and become a test pilot in the Air Force (I think a background similar to that would give someone the best chance of getting to Mars)

70 points by reddotX 6y ago

Virgin Galactic launched 17 years ago with the goal of putting people over 100km up, based on a previously successful flight by spaceshipone They failed miserably. Meanwhile spacex has been founded and got to the point commercial customers are about to go up, not just to 100km, but to orbital speeds.

mongol 6y ago
Yes, why? I think there was a fatal accident?
- jonsen 6y ago
  Two clowns at the stick in a craft designed by a cartoonist.
  - MobileVet 6y ago
    This is disrespectful of both the pilots’ careers and loss of life. They both had thousands of hours of flight time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSS_Enterprise_crash
    - jonsen 6y ago
      I’m sorry but that was my sincere conclusion at the time.
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  SpaceShipOne was designed around winning the X-Prize and it was never meant to go beyond a simple suborbital flight that just barely reaches the edge of space. It's a capable spacecraft for that specific mission but the design is quite limited. It requires a carrier aircraft and it also utilizes a very complicated descent mechanism (flairing wings rather than parachutes). SpaceX started with orbital launch capability and then designed a manned vehicle afterwards. This was the critical difference.
tppiotrowski 6y ago
I watched Burt Rutan’s team claiming the X-Prize in early 2000s. Maybe scaling from single person to multiple crew had unexpected complexity? “The first 90 percent of the code accounts for the first 90 percent of the development time. The remaining 10 percent of the code accounts for the other 90 percent of the development time.” [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety-ninety_rule
- midasuni 6y ago
  SSO could take a pilot and two passengers. Always felt it was a mistake not to commercialise that in 2004.
rtkwe 6y ago
SpaceX has the benefit of the Commercial Resupply contract and other launches as a revenue stream to support R&D where Virgin Galactic only ever had the suborbital hop which didn’t really have any government grants or bids to fund it. SpaceX’s overall design is also very traditional so to just get launches going there were a lot less completely novel problems to solve where Space Ship One is a pretty complex design.

cies 6y ago

People frown on (heavy) cars nowadays. Then there is some backlash to passenger jet flights that pump (near) tax free fuel. Private jets that basically do the same with less passengers. Now we have passenger space flight. I'm not for "climate shaming" people into "green behavior". I'm all for a fair and square pollution taxes, that every polluter has to pay. But this kind of news make even me frown...

pmiller2 6y ago
Sign me up for some climate shaming. I'm for whatever works at this point.
- cies 6y ago
  That's my problem, I expect the climate shaming approach is (1) a total waste of effort, (2) does not hurt the heavy polluters and (3) does not consider hidden pollution (plastic straws vs flowers or meat). Hence I think the only way out fair and square taxation. It's not a new idea, and thus has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ben_w 6y ago
  15 years ago I would’ve agreed 100%. Growth of green energy, and the cost reductions of the same, mean I now think this particular war is won, even if some specific metaphorical battles have yet to begin. There’s still nitrogen, phosphate, biodiversity, and antibiotics abuse to care about, but I’m confident greenhouse gases are a solved problem and that people will get rich by reducing emissions by at least half by December 2030.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    I'm going to use the car off a cliff metaphor here because I think it's appropriate. We're still in a car that's headed off the cliff. We've only just reached the point where when people want to press the accelerator harder it reliably causes widespread yelling from those convinced that hurtling off a cliff is a bad idea. We not only aren't steering away from the cliff edge, we haven't even checked the brakes work, maybe this car doesn't have brakes, and if we only finally try them after we go off the cliff I can assure you they won't help then. But yes, these days most calls to accelerate faster are getting shouted down, if you think that's enough I hope we both live long enough for you to find out how wrong that was.

FpUser 6y ago

>"“When this mission is complete, people are going to look at it and say this was the first time that everyday people could go to space,” Isaacman, 38, told reporters." Did not Russia earn some cash for flying passengers to the ISS some time ago?

adventured 6y ago
Not so-called everyday people, as Isaacman is describing. Russia flew extremely wealthy people to the ISS a few times, at a cost of something like $20 million per seat (Charles Simonyi for example).
- FpUser 6y ago
  >"Isaacman, founder and CEO of e-commerce firm Shift4 Payments, is forking over an unspecified but presumably exorbitant sum to fellow billionaire and SpaceX owner Elon Musk to fly himself and three others into orbit aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule." These everyday people did not pay either. That wealthy guy just brought them in by paying large sum. So I think this "being first" part is disingenuous / propaganda. I think we might take a while to wait till "ordinary people" could actually afford such trip.
- maccard 6y ago
  Isaacman [0] is worth $2.7B, is an experienced pilot, and purchased all seats and chose his crew. One is an aerospace professional and ex US-airforce, one is an ex-astronaut candidate with a PhD, and the other is a physician with deep historic ties to a very prominent childrens hospital & the charity that isaacman is a huge donor of. These are all extraordinary people, and not "everyday" people by any means. They are there because a billionare chose them and they're qualified, extraordinary people, (and a billionare is sponsoring them). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Isaacman
  - meowster 6y ago
    In that case, I wonder how "random" the drawing was for one of those seats. I read the Terms and Conditions, and it seemed on the up-and-up.

lotu 6y ago

It doesn't look like they are going to the ISS. If so I think this will be the first orbital space mission not going to space station. I know the spaceX capsule has been described as roomy by space standards but it's still the size car. It's definitely a very intimate setting.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rst 6y ago
It's SpaceX's first crewed mission not going to the ISS. Before SpaceX, there were plenty of others, of course.
- lotu 6y ago
  I meant since the Columbia Disaster in the early 2000's, I just didn't type very carefully. Obviously there have been missions before the space station, and I think the Chinese may have done some orbital missions in that time frame but I think it might be the first in a long time for the established space powers.
  - rst 6y ago
    There were non-ISS Shuttle flights after Columbia (most notably Hubble telescope refurb flights); also, the Chinese have had manned missions (including one to a small station of their own, since the US Congress chose to bar them from the ISS).
tzfld 6y ago
>the first orbital space mission not going to space station Thinking that space exploration resumes only to SpaceX is the same for me as some of my acquaintances thinking Facebook being the whole internet.

sandworm101 6y ago

Wrong. A founding principlal of NASA is that it is entirely a civilian agency. This was a big deal (no military overflights) and nasa vehicles are never armed. (One russian space station was, Almaz). And while NASA once handled spy satalites (Shuttle's NRO launches) they were owned and operated by other civilian agencies (cia, nsa, nro etc). Maybe they mean to say first crew without any former soldiers? Ok. That might be true, but is a fine line to draw. I have never heard of any other organization be openly proud of not employing veterans on a project. Does this mean that any country with mandatory military service, making everyone a former soldier, is unable to ever launch a civilian crew?

patagonia 6y ago
This is borderline “a difference without a distinction”. NASA and the military have a very cozy relationship. NASA was partially a solution to a political problem. Sure astronauts are on “detached duty” but I doubt the astronauts would agree they are not military people. This flight of all truly “civilians” does seem different. It is meaningful.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  It's spaceflight, rocket technology. I dont see any organization launching such massive rockets without substanial military ties. SpaceX lauches spy satalites all the time and employs lots of x-military people but i dont call it any more military than nasa (nasa is not currently handling any military projects). If we really want to draw legal lines, the US still has selective service in place. Any American males on this flight are subject to it, giving them a small tie to the US military in that they has registered as potential recruits. They have a number and a card somewhere. The fact that someone is x-military does not mean they are never again a civilian. Being drafted doesnt mean you are soldier forever. Lots of all x-military flights have happened.
bb611 6y ago
This crew does have a US military veteran, so even that distinction isn't accurate.

patagonia 6y ago

Not gonna lie I spent over $400 trying to get on this flight. But, I am stoked for the person that won the sweepstakes. It is indeed an inspiration. I mean, I literally now see it as a possibility, as probable, that I’ll go to space in my lifetime. And I’m watching citizens go this year. Well done Musk and Isaacman.

sandworm101 6y ago
Better start saving now. Even if spacex manages to get costs down to nothing, seating will be limited. It wont always be a lottery. People will fight tooth and nail for tickets. I think those with the deepest pockets will win out.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Best time to get a cheap ticket is right after the first dearly crash!

amelius 6y ago

If you put them in a simulator they probably wouldn't know the difference.

sandworm101 6y ago
No similator can simulate suatained microgravity. Nearly every astro ever flown has gotten sick when experiancing it for the first time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

cbsks 6y ago

Bummer! That sweepstakes was probably the best chance I will ever have of getting into space. Unless someone invents a time machine and I can go back in time and get a degree in geology and become a test pilot in the Air Force (I think a background similar to that would give someone the best chance of getting to Mars)