Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission To International Space Station (nasa.gov)

Posted by Soulskill on from the magic-rocket-ride dept.

An anonymous reader writes: NASA has placed its first mission order for SpaceX to launch astronauts to the International Space Station from U.S. soil. SpaceX is now in a race with Boeing, who received a similar order in May, to see which private space company can deliver astronauts to the ISS first. NASA said, "Commercial crew missions to the space station, on the Boeing CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft, will restore America's human spaceflight capabilities and increase the amount of time dedicated to scientific research aboard the orbiting laboratory." They anticipate dramatic reductions in cost for launching astronauts to orbit compared to similar missions aboard Russian rockets. "Each company also must successfully complete a certification process before NASA will give the final approval for flight. Each contract includes a minimum of two and a maximum potential of six missions. A standard commercial crew mission to the station will carry up to four NASA or NASA-sponsored crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo. The spacecraft will remain at the station for up to 210 days, available as an emergency lifeboat during that time."

69 comments

  1. SpaceX and Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.

    1. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.

      The badly written title has more than one problem. When I read it, NASA was in charge of SpaceX and giving it a go or else military legal threat.

    2. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.

      At this point they're not really competing, both have been guaranteed contracts through the commercial crew program. This launch goes to SpaceX, other launches go to Boeing but the big hurdle for both is still the man rating. I imagine the road didn't get any shorter after SpaceX's launch failure and without that it's just a piece of paper.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by rasmusbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.

      You mean Americans who have subsidised Boeing with orders of magnitude more money in tax breaks over the decades than they have SpaceX... Yeah, they might be biased.

      The rest of us just are probably just exited that a company is seriously attempting radical reductions in cost per unit of weight to orbit.

      I would love to see Boing or any other mega-corporation attempt similar reductions in launch cost, but I doubt that will happen unless they are challenged by an outside company, like SpaceX...

      Which brings me back to cheerleading for SpaceX. It's almost impossible to discuss space business without sounding like a SpaceX cheerleader.

    4. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by DarkSabreLord · · Score: 2
      TFA:

      This is the second in a series of four guaranteed orders NASA will make under the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contracts. The Boeing Company of Houston received its first crew mission order in May.

      Boeing's contract is not mentioned because it happened 6 months ago. This is SpaceX's first contract with NASA for a crewed mission.

    5. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I think you missed the point the parent was trying to make. Their point was that SpaceX was mentioned in the title but not Boeing.

      You're also wrong on your off-topic point: they are competing. They both one contracts, but Boeing won the contract at a higher rate than SpaceX. If SpaceX delivers the same product at a lower cost, that will hurt Boeing's future position in the market.

    6. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Boeing was news back in May.

    7. Re:SpaceX and Boeing by khallow · · Score: 1

      Funny how Boeing and SpaceX are competing for it but there is no mention of Boeing in the title. I smell bias.

      No mention of Orbital Sciences or Rocketplane Kistler either. They were competing too before Congress killed off that competition.

  2. I hope that goes better than last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope it goes better than the last SpaceX launch.
    Space is dangerous! But SpaceX is still new to the game and learning.

    1. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I hope it goes better than the last SpaceX launch.

      It's funny isn't it, that NASA's been shuttling people to and from space stations for more than 40 years, but it's supposed to be a big deal because now it's going to be done by "the private sector". And even after almost half a century, the private sector hasn't been able to get it right, and the only reason they're doing it is because government's going to pay for it.

      I guess John Galt is kind of a putz after all.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      Innovation is so much easier when one has decades of tax-payer funded research to draw upon.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    3. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Innovation is so much easier when one has decades of tax-payer funded research to draw upon.

      Um, SpaceX has the same "decades of tax-payer funded research to draw upon". And they still haven't been able to do what NASA was doing for over half a century.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by tsotha · · Score: 1

      What did NASA build? Rockwell built the space shuttle. So they've been operating an overpriced white elephant for forty years? Meh.

      SpaceX really is different, because SpaceX put its own money into the development of the rocket instead of building it on a can't-lose cost plus contract.

    5. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      SpaceX really is different, because SpaceX put its own money into the development of the rocket instead of

      Half a century later.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Having the government buy something from your company is not a "subsidy". Im the case of spaceflights, it's buying a service it can no longer provide for itself.

    7. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Sure. And where is the overpriced white elephant now?

    8. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innovation is so much easier when one has decades of tax-payer funded research to draw upon.

      Um, SpaceX has the same "decades of tax-payer funded research to draw upon". And they still haven't been able to do what NASA was doing for over half a century.

      Um, and they still haven't been allowed to do what NASA was doing for over half a century until now. There, FTFY.

      Now that the government has permitted a private market costs will come down precipitously, and innovation and capability will go way up.

    9. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And where is the overpriced white elephant now?

      Being made by SpaceX.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by khallow · · Score: 1

      And where is the overpriced white elephant now?

      Being made by SpaceX.

      What makes the Dragon capsule an overpriced white elephant? What should NASA pay for it?

    11. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What makes the Dragon capsule an overpriced white elephant?

      The fact that the only customer is the government, using taxpayer money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by khallow · · Score: 1

      The fact that the only customer is the government

      Why won't anyone else use the Dragon? Will the US government make it illegal to use a Dragon capsule for private purposes?

      using taxpayer money.

      Who's money should the US government be using to buy goods and services? Are you volunteering?

    13. Re:I hope that goes better than last time by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Oh? Is Dragon going to cost a billion dollars to launch?

  3. I can wait. by NMBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've always wanted to go to space using the lowest bidder AND the winner of a race. Must be The New NASA.

    1. Re:I can wait. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to go to space using the lowest bidder AND the winner of a race. Must be The New NASA.

      It's also The Old NASA.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:I can wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol you are a stupid cock with no sense of history.

    3. Re:I can wait. by NMBob · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's right! I forgot he said that. OK, I guess then it's the more things change the more they stay the same.

  4. deliver astronauts by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    dead or alive?

    1. Re:deliver astronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but not both.

    2. Re:deliver astronauts by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't tell until you open the spacecraft hatch.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:deliver astronauts by Talderas · · Score: 1

      +1 Sad But True

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    4. Re:deliver astronauts by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of the Salyut tragedy. I was going for a Schroedinger joke.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  5. Russia by sexconker · · Score: 1

    It'll be at least a decade before anyone catches up with Russia.
    Why did we give up? Was is the Kardashians?

    1. Re:Russia by WrongMonkey · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because putting people into space is pretty useless. It certainly doesn't accomplish any economic purpose. The only scientific purposes are related to answering "what happens when you put people in space?" which is a circular justification for the program.

    2. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense.

    3. Re:Russia by tsotha · · Score: 1

      We took a wrong turn and were too proud to admit it. The shuttle was a terrible mistake.

    4. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Catches up with Russia doing what? -- Using the same vehicle for the last 40 years to get a few people into low earth orbit? There really isn't much catching up to do. On the first crewed flight by SpaceX Dragon or the Boeing CST-100, the US will have "caught up". The Space Shuttle, overpriced mistake that it was, was a considerable leap ahead of Russian capabilities. Just as the Saturn V in 1973 was far ahead of Russian capabilities then or now. And the SLS with Orion (overpriced pork that it is) will be a considerable leap ahead of anything anyone else has. Even now, the Delta IV Heavy which launched the first Orion in 2014 can lift more weight (admittedly, not a lot more, but still more) into orbit than anything the Russians have.

    5. Re: Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what he said.

      But thanks for agreeing with him, even if you didn't add much to the discussion.

    6. Re:Russia by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      "Why did we give up? "

      Because manned missions into space are inherently risky for crews, and will be for a long time to come. Though NASA engineers, contractors and crewpeople understand this risk and are willing to accept it, NASA administration knows that any loss of life means a firestorm of criticism from anti-science activists and imposes a delay of years on the program wherein it occurs. Private companies, not as subject to anti-science politics, can pick up and try again.

  6. First Flight? by BarryHaworth · · Score: 1

    NASA awarded a contract to Boeing first, but what are the odds that SpaceX will fly first?

    --
    I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
    1. Re:First Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Either way, Republican-ruled corporations win with this disgusting corporate welfare.

    2. Re: First Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      For Repukuans it's all about taking food from babies.

    3. Re: First Flight? by greenwow · · Score: -1, Troll

      This. They always support whatever kills the most children. Always. Like with their attacks on orphan refugees. They want them to die. They want to take money from orphans to give to Boeing.

    4. Re: First Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      And killing babies is something all Republucans agree on.

    5. Re: First Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      They starved my little sister to death.

    6. Re: First Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These nicknames people use just make them sound stupid. The word is Republicans. Democrats. Obama. Hillary. Say it with me. Don't you feel smarter?

    7. Re: First Flight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would GOP win on this? So far, it is the dems that have been solidly behind new private space launching humans. The GOP is desperate to kill off spacex.

  7. The advice still holds true: by dasgoober · · Score: 4, Funny

    if it floats, flies or f*cks ... rent.

    1. Re:The advice still holds true: by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      if it floats, flies or f*cks ... rent.

      Yet you still bought your pet pig. Hmm.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. SpaceX's Certification Documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    I was on the USAF's SpaceX Certification program. We were basically directed by congress to certify their rocket, regardless of what may be in or missing from their documentation, design process, production process and QA. I'd give my left nut to go tot he ISS, but won't fly on a SpaceX rocket until they get a rigorous design process.

    1. Re:SpaceX's Certification Documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in your opinion, was the failure of CRS directly due to an organizational process failure of SpaceX as a company?

    2. Re:SpaceX's Certification Documentation by Rei · · Score: 1

      Beats your usual track record.

      --
      Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
    3. Re:SpaceX's Certification Documentation by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So, in your opinion, was the failure of CRS directly due to an organizational process failure of SpaceX as a company?

      Of course not. No corporation is every responsible for any mess they make.

      How can it possibly be anything BUT the result of an organizational process failure of SpaceX as a company?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:SpaceX's Certification Documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an interesting question. I'm not involved with spacex, but am with others. And I'm not familiar with (much) of the specifics of sx's problem, but I would guess as a company by not paying enough attention to the process. But it's not all bad as too much process hinders progress and can even cause things to go backward. The trick is to find the optimal point.
      Is it less expensive to cut corners and pay for mistakes or to pay to ensure mistakes don't happen? The world has changed a lot in the past 50 years.

    5. Re: SpaceX's Certification Documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't win, sue ... The Lockmart way.

    6. Re: SpaceX's Certification Documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one that blew up? I cant say. I reviewed design process docentation. However, given that their business model is to avoid the cost of rigor, it seems so.

    7. Re:SpaceX's Certification Documentation by khallow · · Score: 1

      I was on the USAF's SpaceX Certification program. We were basically directed by congress to certify their rocket, regardless of what may be in or missing from their documentation, design process, production process and QA. I'd give my left nut to go tot he ISS, but won't fly on a SpaceX rocket until they get a rigorous design process.

      And I wouldn't trust a US government-derived "rigorous design process". The US orbital launch industry is chock full of failed "rigorous design processes" which add cost and do nothing to make the design of launch vehicles or the handling of launch failures even slightly better. We didn't need two years to figure out Shuttle launch failures. We didn't need the NASA and Congressional imposed stagnation of the US launch industry (1975-2005).

      Instead, real world launch records are far better than any such process. If they have launch failures to a sufficiently low fraction of total launches, then they have solved the problem whether or not they have a "rigorous design process".

  9. Why only 4 passengers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe the ISS' current compliment is 6.

    1. Re:Why only 4 passengers by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Dragon 2 can hold 7 passengers, or 4 passengers with pressurized cargo to go to the ISS. NASA wants the latter.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:Why only 4 passengers by PopeRatzo · · Score: -1

      Dragon 2 can hold 7 passengers

      But we need them delivered alive.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Why only 4 passengers by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Dragon 2 can hold 7 passengers

      But we need them delivered alive.

      I'll go out on a limb and speculate that SpaceX can pressurize the cabin with 7 passengers, at no extra charge.

      Silly wabbit.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Why only 4 passengers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Depends on who they are.

      Seriously, Dragon 2 can hold 7 passengers and get them there alive. But if it's carrying seven people, there's no space for cargo. NASA would rather send fewer astronauts and some cargo.

      One interesting aside is the "emergency lifeboat" thing. Since Dragon can carry 7 people, does this mean that one Dragon could be used to rescue everybody? Will there be 7 seats stowed in the cargo hold in the event that they need to take everybody off?

    5. Re:Why only 4 passengers by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Seriously, Dragon 2 can hold 7 passengers and get them there alive.

      We'll see. They haven't been able to get anyone anywhere alive yet.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Why only 4 passengers by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Besides, seven isn't exactly a lucky number for NASA

    7. Re:Why only 4 passengers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many people has SpaceX killed?

    8. Re:Why only 4 passengers by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, don't put all eggs in one basket.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    9. Re: Why only 4 passengers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it has nothing to do with NASA wanting to carry extra cargo. It is simply that NASA only needs 3 + 1 spots. Keep in mind that NASA will be running 2 crafts at the same time.

  10. SpaceX is for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOO! MOOO! Moo cows MOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU SPACE COWS!!

  11. crew dragon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope Boeing wins. Starliner sounds so much better. "Crew Dragon"? What the fuck? Was it designed by a teenager?

  12. trolL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Slashdot's Very sick And its that *BSD is