Slashdot Mirror
NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission To International Space Station (nasa.gov)
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."
I've always wanted to go to space using the lowest bidder AND the winner of a race. Must be The New NASA.
dead or alive?
It'll be at least a decade before anyone catches up with Russia.
Why did we give up? Was is the Kardashians?
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
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
if it floats, flies or f*cks ... rent.
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.
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.
Beats your usual track record.
Hello from Sputnik 2. I am receiving you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Besides, seven isn't exactly a lucky number for NASA
Boeing was news back in May.
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.
Sure. And where is the overpriced white elephant now?
Yeah, don't put all eggs in one basket.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Being made by SpaceX.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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?
The fact that the only customer is the government, using taxpayer money.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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".
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?
Oh? Is Dragon going to cost a billion dollars to launch?