NASA Unveils the Astronauts Who Will Relaunch Human Space Flights From US Soil (washingtonpost.com)

NASA on Friday announced the crews of the first flights from U.S. soil since the space shuttle retired in 2011, an elite group of astronauts that the agency hopes will help open a new era of space travel. From a report: The crews would fly on spacecraft developed not by NASA but by two corporations, SpaceX and Boeing, which are under contract to provide a taxi-like service to the International Space Station. On the first human test flight of Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, NASA selected astronauts Eric Boe and Nicole Mann will join Boeing executive Chris Ferguson. NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley would fly on the first human test flight of SpaceX's Dragon capsule. On the first operational mission to the International Space Station, Sunita Williams and Josh Cassada would fly for Boeing. NASA astronauts Victor Glover and Michael Hopkins would fly Dragon's first operational mission to the space station.

Comments

Interesting looking spacesuits

[oldgraybeard]

I wonder if they are real or just photo shoot mock ups. Since I thought I read something a while back about the design for new space suits running over budget and years behind.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[Strider-]

The SpaceX ones, at least, have been through the vacuum chamber testing etc... and the one that was flown on the Falcon Heavy Test Flight, sitting in the roadster, was real as well (though I don't know if it was actually pressurized).

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Those are space-suit Snuggies.

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[bobbied]

I wonder if they are real or just photo shoot mock ups. Since I thought I read something a while back about the design for new space suits running over budget and years behind.

Well, there are always the existing stock of space suits to use for now. Shouldn't take too long to build a few more of those if necessary as the specifications blue prints and tooling likely still exist.

Of course they are heavy, bulky and getting old, but they still work.

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't take too long to build a few more of those if necessary as the specifications blue prints and tooling likely still exist.

They do, but the technical know-how has retired, and the tooling doesn't exist anymore; it would need to be rebuilt. Most of the ISS space suits are multi-decade old shuttle ones with regular retrofit to keep them in operational shape and resized for the appropriate astronaut. So don't look to NASA to build new space suits anytime soon.

Fortunately, as pointed out above and below, the commercial companies are also designing their own.

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[Bruce Perens]

The SpaceX suits aren't planetary (or lunar) surface suits. That's what needs development. Although this is not and never would be, a significant blocker for a planetary or lunar mission. It's just an engineering problem.

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[Chelloveck]

Looks like they have Sciences well covered, but where are the suits for Engineering and Command?

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[SpaceDave]

The "Starliner" spacesuit, developed by Boeing. https://www.boeing.com/feature...

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[Kjella]

The SpaceX suits aren't planetary (or lunar) surface suits. That's what needs development. Although this is not and never would be, a significant blocker for a planetary or lunar mission. It's just an engineering problem.

What's the rest? The ISS has proven we can live in a tin can for a very long time in zero-G, with low-G probably a lot longer. Chemical rockets have brought probes throughout the entire solar system and beyond, there's nothing about say a manned Mars mission that seems unfeasible if you throw enough money at it, at least as a $100 billion dollar flag-planting exercise. Don't get me wrong, SpaceX is doing a lot of revolutionary engineering. I'm a lot less sure how much new science there is to it.

Re: Interesting looking spacesuits

[Anonymous Coward]

, there's nothing about say a manned Mars mission that seems unfeasible

Nothing except the fact that you eat a few mSv a day in a "spaceship", and that by the time it gets to Mars, you'll be in a worse shape than those Hiroshima schoolgirls from the movie.

And it isn't, as the ignoramus above wrote, an "engineering" problem, it is a fundamental property if space.

You're as likely to see humans on Mars as you are to see "thorium" reactors or fusion.

Re: Interesting looking spacesuits

[Bruce Perens]

Nothing except the fact that you eat a few mSv a day in a "spaceship"

I have several times walked up to a pile of radioactive material that was actually glowing with Cherenkov radiation bright enough to see in daylight. The reason this wasn't scary? It was in a pool of water perhaps 20 feet deep. Engineering problem solved.

Re:Interesting looking spacesuits

[Bruce Perens]

Their mission is engineering. They don't get infinite capital for a flag-planting exercise, though. So, engineering for economics is a big part. First-stage recovery was low-hanging fruit - nobody had the incentive to do it before SpaceX came along.

Re: Interesting looking spacesuits

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical would be something like 1.3 mSv per day. Increases cancer risk, but not anywhere near enough for acute cancer risk. Good use of shielding and strategy can mitigate that more. Consider that, for example, spacex wants to send a pretty big craft to mars with lots of people. A bigger craft means more shielding. The other astronauts are also shielding.

I don't know guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Starliner sounds like luxury. Champagne, caviar, fine food.....

Dragon Capsule sounds of fire and death.

Maybe it's just me....I've watched too much Game of Thrones.

too bads

[Anonymous Coward]

the us have no human space rocket to send on

only russia and china have that abilities

Re:too bads

[Anonymous Coward]

tell us more comrade, i always knew the moon landing was faked.

We're sendibg the wrong people to space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's send our politicians into space, this is what America needs most.

Re:We're sendibg the wrong people to space.

[Megane]

We did, his name was "Barfin'" Jake Garn

"spaceflights"?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I take the plane I don't call it an "airflight", but that's because I'm going somewhere. Where do these astronauts go during their "spaceflights"? The upper atmosphere? So they can come back to Earth a few weeks later?

Seems kind of useless at this point, more like historical reenactment theater than anything worthwhile.

Re:"spaceflights"?

[sexconker]

I don't know what they have planned because I haven't been paying attention.

But in my book "space" starts well above the ISS. If they're just going up to that height and coming down, they're not going to space. You have to leave the magnetosphere.

Veils

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but why are we putting veils in everything?

So, two Challengers at once?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neat, I'll watch.

"Taxi like"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> under contract to provide a taxi-like service to the International Space Station

So...they charge by the mile? Dodge municipal "rocket for hire" laws? Attach a stupid moustache to the front?

In other words, how exactly is this a "taxi-like"?

Re:"Taxi like"

[CaptainDork]

It's going to be a ride-hail business model.

Be sure to get the app, Space Force iCadet.

ISS is on the move, so mileage may vary.

Re:"Taxi like"

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, how exactly is this a "taxi-like"?

'Cos the astronauts will be waiting ages for one, then 5 come along at once.
Unfortunately the first one they get in will smell of stale urine and vomit, and take them the wrong way.

U.S. ready?

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought that the UFOs's aliens were helping to U.S. to conquer its space from the Earth to another celestial bodies.

What's the purpose of NASA?

[blindseer]

I've heard this joke before...
What's the purpose of the Space Shuttle? To get astronauts to ISS. What's the purpose of ISS? So the Space Shuttle has a place to go.

Well, NASA retired the Space Shuttle program. Good thing too, those were dangerous vehicles that should have been retired long ago. I heard someone point out that with 135 flights and 2 resulting in deaths of the crew that the failure rate was between 1% and 2%, only to have the be corrected by someone else that pointed out with 6 orbiters built there were 2 hull losses with the crew. With 2 hull losses out of 6 that's a failure rate of 33%. Even that's not necessarily correct, since only 5 of the 6 were rated for space operations. The first "orbiter" was Enterprise and it had no engines.

I understand that NASA exists to operate federal space based assets, one example being launching weather satellites. They also do some research in spaceflight for the benefit of commerce and defense for the USA. I'm finding it hard to understand how the ISS, and flights to and from it, add to that mission. Especially now that commercial space flight companies are capable of doing this.

NASA needs to operate more like the FAA, be a regulatory service for keeping everyone safe and managing "air space". (Or, would that be "space space"?) President Trump made an announcement to investigate the creation of a military space force, which if created makes many missions from NASA redundant. This military space force could operate military space launches, manned and unmanned, for the military instead of contracting that out to NASA. If the NOAA or other federal agencies need launches then they can "rent" the military assets, create a small "space force" within these agencies, pare down the space launch capabilities of NASA to match the needs of these agencies, or just have NASA be the agency as a middleman between civilian federal space launch needs and the commercial spaceflight companies that build the vehicles and operate the launches. Given recent developments, such as this announcement, NASA is one small step from just being a middleman already.

NASA took too long to retire the Space Shuttle. Given the state of commercial spaceflight at the time the Space Shuttle was retired I'd think that would have been a good time for NASA to announce they were getting out of human spaceflights to orbit. They could keep doing unmanned flights to orbit and beyond, and plan manned flights beyond orbit.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[bobbied]

To be fair, the shuttle was a bad idea who's time had come. It should have never made it off the drawing board, but it did, under the promise of lower costs, faster to space, reusability.

The problem was that NASA had expended the bulk of their resources on shuttle operations so after the Challenger accident made it clear that rocket science was kind of a hard problem, it was a bit too late. All the eggs where in that basket, we had interdependent programs that required the shuttle (Hubble, ISS and more) or we would have wasted those resources too. So, even though the per-launch costs where literally skyrocketing well above any level foreseen, there wasn't much else we could do, but fly it.

As a system, though, the Shuttle wasn't too bad. It was big, held a lot of stuff, carried many people and could spend long times in orbit. It was hugely flexible and very successful and extremely safe once in orbit. The issue, all of them, where issues with the ascent portion of flight. One where the whole thing explodes and one where the vehicle's re-entry protection was damaged during ascent. Had we properly identified the safety issues, and engineered a better way to launch the thing up front, we'd not be having this debate now.

The Shuttle was/is an engineering marvel, badly designed. It was a great idea, but a bad execution of a design and it turned out that the ascent design compromised too much safety for reduced launch costs. Maybe if we had taken the engines out of the Shuttle and put them in a reusable launch vehicle? But you cannot go back and change history.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[Kjella]

President Trump made an announcement to investigate the creation of a military space force, which if created makes many missions from NASA redundant. This military space force could operate military space launches, manned and unmanned, for the military instead of contracting that out to NASA.

Like the military would do anything like build rockets in-house, they'd outsource it to ULA at 10x the current cost. But then I kinda knew this would be a facepalm when you mentioned Trump...

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

As originally envisioned, the STS wasn't a bad idea. Maybe a bit beyond the technology of the era but I think if they had stayed within the original planned mission requirements it would have been fine. It was supposed to be a fairly small craft with a small crew with the intent to be more like a space truck. Would have likely not been that far from the Dyna-Soar really. Von Braun wanted them for assembling the eventual Mars spacecraft in orbit. He would have used Saturn Vs or maybe the proposed Nova to lift up multiple sections and then the STS would rendezvous and bolt them all together. Not bad and aside from it being a space plane instead of a capsule it isn't really all the different than the Dragon 2 or Starliner in capability.

The problem is things changed. First Mars got canceled. And Nixon didn't give NASA too many options on how to go ahead. So the mission had to change. Then the Air Force got involved and they wanted a satellite launcher. We started with a small and simple reusable orbital spacecraft and ended up with a massive one that had to be a lab, launch other payloads, potentially recover and bring other spacecraft back and still also aide in orbital assembly. So big, heavy, complicated, dangerous and not good any one thing. There we have the Space Shuttle.

Not only did the STS lose its original mission and purpose but it was molested and turned into a monstrosity that over promised and didn't deliver. About the only thing left over from the original STS plans was the mission identifier. They still called Shuttle missions STS-XXX

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[Bruce Perens]

NASA needs to operate more like the FAA, be a regulatory service for keeping everyone safe and managing "air space". (Or, would that be "space space"?)

Do you know who does it now? The FAA. They license launches. They should keep doing so. NASA is a research organization.

President Trump made an announcement to investigate the creation of a military space force, which if created makes many missions from NASA redundant.

Do you know who does military space missions now? The Air Force. Not NASA, NASA is a civilian research organization. Creating a "space wing" takes a department of the Air Force and makes it a separate service. Just as the AAF, the Army Air Force, became the Air Force. Creating a "Space Force" does nothing to or about NASA's mission.

Re: What's the purpose of NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating a "Space Force" does nothing to or about NASA's mission.

But it is so cool and worthwhile because reasons.

Re: What's the purpose of NASA?

[Amiga Trombone]

Look at the bright side. At least a military space program will never be hurting for funding. Compared to the DoDs budget, NASAs is a rounding error.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[blindseer]

Like the military would do anything like build rockets in-house, they'd outsource it to ULA at 10x the current cost.

The military build little in house. There's an Army armory and a Navy shipyard or two, but most of the military equipment is built by contractors. NASA doesn't build a whole lot in house either, they do some final assembly in house but almost every component is built by contractors. How does moving military space missions from NASA to the military change the government getting fleeced by contractors?

The one thing that largely put an end to the high cost of putting satellites in orbit has been NASA ending their monopoly on space vehicle construction and opening the market to private companies competing for business from other private companies that want satellites in orbit, and government agencies wanting satellites in orbit.

But then I kinda knew this would be a facepalm when you mentioned Trump...

Every Republican in the White House since WWII has mentioned the possibility of a military space force, President Trump is only the most recent and most vocal president that has done so. Maybe there has been a Democrat president that made a mention of doing so, I just don't recall any. President Eisenhower, a Democrat, signed into law the bill creating NASA. NASA was specifically designated as separate from military space programs, and this effectively created a military "space force" within the USAF as the military space flights and research did not end. The Space Shuttle may have been built with military missions in mind, and much of the Shuttle crew "on loan" to NASA from the military, but that just means that NASA has been contracted to run some military flights, or the lines between the military space program and the civilian space program has blurred in time. There will come a time when this line needs to be erased or redrawn.

What we see now is a lot of infighting and confusion on where space programs belong in the military. This is a repeat of where command over the airspace belongs in battle. There were competing "air forces" within the Army and Navy. This ended (mostly) with the creation of the Air Force and an agreement (if not on paper but in practice) that while each branch would operate aircraft the primary military branch with "ownership" over the air would be the Air Force. We will continue to see this confusion on ownership of orbital assets until we get a separate military branch to operate in space.

This isn't a new problem, only the problem has gotten bigger and more noticeable with time.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[blindseer]

Do you know who does it now? The FAA. They license launches. They should keep doing so. NASA is a research organization.

Who manages orbital space? I won't disagree that NASA, and the military, gets permission from the FAA to launch and re-enter the atmosphere. Once in orbit though does the FAA license the orbits? I can see that the military and NASA operate facilities that track satellites and debris in orbit, so they must have some authority on who goes where and when in space. If the FAA is in charge of managing orbits then I've been unable to find any reference to it.

I put "air space" in quotes because it's not "air space" once the launch leaves the atmosphere, but it operates in much the same fashion. It seems to me that NASA regulates "space space" like the FAA regulates air space.

Do you know who does military space missions now? The Air Force. Not NASA, NASA is a civilian research organization. Creating a "space wing" takes a department of the Air Force and makes it a separate service. Just as the AAF, the Army Air Force, became the Air Force. Creating a "Space Force" does nothing to or about NASA's mission.

If the "space forces" of the USAF, US Navy, and US Army were split off and combined into one it would have as many people in it as the US Coast Guard. If the Coast Guard is big enough to have as a separate branch of the military then a combined space force would as well.

NASA is a civilian agency, I won't dispute that, but they have operated military missions for the DOD and many of the astronauts NASA has are "on loan" from branches of the military. If NASA is a civilian research agency then why are so many military people working there? There should be a bright line between the military space program and the civilian space program. I doubt that will happen unless or until the military creates it's own space force to support it's needs for the heavy lift space flights that NASA did for the DOD.

The FAA is also a research and regulatory agency like NASA, but the FAA doesn't operate flights for carrying cargo and passengers. I'm arguing that NASA should remove itself from the business of operating spaceflights for civilian and military agencies, or private organizations, and stay in the business of research and regulation.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[R3d M3rcury]

It's a good point. For people who like to pick on the Shuttle, I like to point out that your beautiful Hubble telescope would be crap if it wasn't for the Shuttle repair missions that fixed it. Try to do those repairs with an Apollo capsule and see how far you get.

As has been said, the Shuttle was a jack-of-all-trades but a master of none. It was fantastic for constructing the space station but once it was constructed, there wasn't much for it to do but be an expensive taxi--like taking a dump truck to pick up your groceries.

IRT to NASA, though, it's a tricky call. One thing I'd consider is getting NASA out of the rocket business. Between SpaceX, Boeing, and Orbital ATK, as well as newer companies like Blue Origin (which has yet to create an orbital rocket), there seems to be plenty of research in this area from the private sector.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[Brett Buck]

I agree completely, why does splitting off Space Command from the Air Force into the Space Force cause so much consternation and confusion? NASA is a relatively small player in space. The Air Force and other governmental agencies have been doing far more and spending far more on space than NASA for many decades now. It's perfectly analogous to splitting the Air Force out of the Army after WW II.

      It's a critical function, and the structure as a separate force is mostly in place, just take the current space command structure and make it stand-alone. If I did my sums right, it should come out with a budget larger than the Air Force, and maybe the Navy.

Re:What's the purpose of NASA?

[Bruce Perens]

Because weaponizing space is a really bad idea.

Currently, NORAD collects the data, which means the U.S. and Canadian Air Force. Regulation is by FAA, you don't get to launch if you don't have a de-orbit plan, if you are a danger to a manned mission, or if you're liable to cause the Kessler syndrome. And these days you have to change orbit when directed, too. NOAA regulates imaging systems, you can't image war zones or Israel at high resolution, etc. FCC regulates the civilian radios and won't license them if the other agencies don't approve of the satellite plans. NTIA regulates government radios.

Re: What's the purpose of NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

one Of the original plans for the space shuttle would have featured the shuttle mounted on top of a large, winged first stage booster. It would have launched, then detached from the first stage booster, which would have been flown back for recovery. It did not feature solid rocket boosters. So, there would not have been an o-ring failure and there would not have been an incident with ice damaging a wing. It would have also been more conventionally reusable. Other problems might have come up of course.

All dressed up and no place to go

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the ISS is decommissioned in a few years, they'll be stuck doing orbital repair work for the remainder of their careers.

Not developed by NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The crews would fly on spacecraft developed not by NASA but by... corporations..."

So, it's a lot like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and the Space Shuttle then, huh?

Re:Not developed by NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

The spacecraft you mention were built by corporations but to NASA designs and under close NASA supervision.

Starliner and Crew Dragon were designed by their respective corporations with just a requirements list from NASA.

Nobody's going anywhere

[PopeRatzo]

Pretty soon private corporations will be able to do what NASA's been doing for half a century. Let's all pretend this matters.

Re:Nobody's going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they will be. And they won't be able to do anything else, because nobody will pay.

Re: Nobody's going anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

No, private companies are going to be doing what NASA has not done in half a century.

News for nerds?

[Snufu]

Meatbags in space is not science, its politics and soon to be tourism.

Really?

[argStyopa]

Are they like, 8 years old?
Because it's going to be at least 2 decades for the clusterfuck that is our government funding (with priority-changes in budget at LEAST every 4 years, if not less) to actually get this to happen.

Three guesses...

[Anonymous Coward]

...as to whether NASA prioritized competency or diversity in their selection criteria.

Re:Three guesses...

[Anonymous Coward]

The astronaut corps is fairly diverse. Hard to argue this isn't based on competency, particularly with Chris Ferguson included.

Re: Three guesses...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you fail a job interview again, whitey?

No one speaks about the elephant in the room

[Anonymous Coward]

Why frail old women on such a mission. Wouldn't it be better to have two younger males go. Unfortunately in todays world, human survival instincts and science take a back seat to stupidity.

Re: No one speaks about the elephant in the room

[Anonymous Coward]

The first launches are going to blow up obviously.

They're real spacesuits, but details matter a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither of these are for spacewalks or moonwalks, etc.

These are essentially "launch & entry" suits that are not normally pressurized but are worn for emergencies. They do not need to be like the "pumpkin suits" of of the post-Challenger shuttle flights (which were based on the suits of SR-71 Blackbird pilots). Those pumpkin suits (like the SR-71 suits) needed to be able to protect a person bailing out of a damaged aircraft at high speeds and very high altitudes and included not only air supplies but life rafts, parachutes, emergency radios and survival kits and so forth.

The priority for these "commercial" suits is simply to be a back-up in case the cabin depressurizes. Mobility is a priority on the pad and in normal modes while not pressurized but not while pressurized. While pressurized, the priority is mostly to keep the person alive and let them see the instruments and have the freedom of hand/finger motion to use the controls to get back to Earth in a hurry. The spacesuits most people are used to seeing are suits designed to let people do productive work while in a vacuum and or while bailing out of a vehicle at the bleeding edge of survivability.

[facepalm]

[Anonymous Coward]

"Meatbags in the Western Hemisphere is not science, it's politics and soon to be tourism" - probably uttered by some fool in 1491.

At some point in a century or two, when there are bases on our moon, possibly other moons, and colonies on Mars quotes like yours will sound like the infamous quotes about man never flying, man never exceeding the speed of sound, and of course: “640K ought to be enough for anyone” - Bill Gates

Except of course that since you're not famous enough, your name will not be hooked to the quote thus preserving a tiny scrap of dignity for your descendants.

Oh, and it IS "news for nerds" that the society has reached a point predicted by the likes of Heinlein where private rich guys like Musk and Bezos are building reusable manned rockets that take off and land vertically on pillars of flame, and a commercial airline builder is also making a reusable vehicle for commercial spaceflight AND that all our geeky microcomputer tech is driving all this in both the flight systems and the manufacturing systems. Hell, these companies are all even using 3-D printing to make components.

Are YOU doing anything more nerdy? If not, do YOU belong on Slashdot? (It's a pot-and-kettle thing).