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

[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.

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.

"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.

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?

[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?

[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: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.

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.

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

[Megane]

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