Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

SpaceX Announces First-Ever All-Civilian Space Flight Crew (cnn.com) 61

Posted by BeauHD from the dangers-of-AI dept.
Jared Isaacman, an entrepreneur behind a payment processing startup, is funding a multimillion trip to space aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, which could be the first-ever orbital flight crewed entirely by non-astronauts. CNN reports: Isaacman, 37, said he will command the mission, which is slated for late-2021 and will see the spacecraft make a "multi-day" trip into Earth's orbit, according to a press release. Isaacman has purchased three additional seats aboard the mission. The seats will be donated to a St. Jude Children's Research Hospital "ambassador," and a member of the public who enters for a chance to join the trip.

The St. Jude ambassador has already been selected, Isaacman said. He did not disclose any details of their identity beyond saying it would be a woman and a front-line healthcare worker who's "committed to helping kids beat cancer." The fourth seat is reserved for a winner of a contest, limited to customers of Isaacman's eCommerce platform, Shift4Shop. Eligible competitors will have to launch an online store on the platform and tweet a video about their "entrepreneurial story," which will then be reviewed by "a panel of celebrity judges, " according to the company. The names of the judges were not yet disclosed. It's not clear when the winners will be chosen, though Isaacman told reporters on a conference call Monday that the crew members could all begin training within 30 days.

Isaacman added that this mission, dubbed Inspiration4, with the "4" referencing the number of crew members, "is the realization of a lifelong dream and a step towards a future in which anyone can venture out and explore the stars." Isaacman said he wanted the mission to also mark a "historic moment to inspire humanity while helping to tackle childhood cancer," and he pledged to also donate $100 million to the hospital as part of a push to raise $200 million more dollars for the organization's research. It's not clear exaclty how long the trip will be or where in orbit it will fly. [SpaceX CEO Elon Musk] told Isaacman on Monday, "wherever you want to go, we'll take you there."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Announces First-Ever All-Civilian Space Flight Crew More

SpaceX Announces First-Ever All-Civilian Space Flight Crew

Comments Filter:
  • Thunderfoot ended a recent video with examples of how shuttle astronauts weren't fully aware of the danger they faced:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    I hope the nurse/doctor/whatever (chosen for PR purposes?) and the contest winner are given an honest explanation of the risks. The phrase "Teacher in Space" still gives some of us chills.

    • The dangers are not comparable. The Shuttle was an inherently unsafe design.

      The original vision of a reusable "shuttle" was approved by the political system. Then, as it was designed, it became clear that it wouldn't work. But politically, there was no way to shift the funding to a different design. So instead, they strapped solid rocket boosters onto the side. Both the o-rings and the tiles, which destroyed Challenger and Columbia respectively, were known to be flawed. But they flew with them anyway

      • I always wondered why they fly planes dozens if not hundreds of times before certification and yet rockets which are many times less safe, somehow only need a few times according to you.

        • Commercial aviation has 0.27 fatal accidents per million flights.

          The Shuttle flew 135 times and had 2 catastrophic failures. That is a rate of 14815 failures per million flights, or 55000 times worse than an airliner.

          SpaceX is not as safe as an airliner, but there are many reasons to believe it is safer than the Shuttle.

          • Thats exactly my point, the safer option (planes) requires far more tests and the significantly more deadly form (rockets/space) require significant less.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by steveha ( 103154 )

              the safer option (planes) requires far more tests and the significantly more deadly form (rockets/space) require significant less.

              This is because airplanes are reusable, and are a mature technology. Because they are reusable, they can be tested before they are used; because they are a mature technology, best practice has been worked out.

              Before SpaceX, rockets were single-use. (The Space Shuttle was, just barely, sort of reusable. It took massive amounts of work to prepare a shuttle for another flight; th

              • Not discussing the attributes, just questioning the double standards that something less safe requires far less to be judged safe than something far more safe as proven by history. Remember the max ?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by steveha ( 103154 )

                  just questioning the double standards that something less safe requires far less to be judged safe than something far more safe as proven by history.

                  I pointed out that the way we regulate airplanes could not be applied to rockets so they had to be regulated differently.

                  I look forward to the day when we require spacecraft that will carry humans to be reusable craft that have had test flights.

                  • Reusability is irrelevant to whether an item should be tested more or not. No idea why reusability should make something require more testing. A rocket and plane both have many attributes, the colours or this or that is irrelevant, whether something is going to be reused or not, doesnt make something more or less safe.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by steveha ( 103154 )

                      Reusability is irrelevant to whether an item should be tested more or not.

                      I'm only going to explain this one more time.

                      Single-use rockets cannot have a test flight because the test flight would destroy the rocket. A single-use rocket can only fly once, so it flies one time to space (or is destroyed while trying). The people who build single-use rockets try not to make any mistakes, and individual parts can be tested (for example, rocket motors can be test-fired on a test stand) but it is literally impossi

                  • Not discussing reusability no idea why resuability is an issue or affects safety requirements.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by imidan ( 559239 )

              There was a time when we hadn't flown a thousand manned flights with airplanes. Aviation disasters were more common when aviation was young. Should we have stopped developing airplanes because people died in plane crashes? Since around the year 2000, we've flown more than 20 million commercial flights per year. How would we have gotten to this point if we had been unwilling to take risks to develop aviation? How many aviators died, knowing they were risking their lives, but believing there was value in doin

              • Im not discussing the 1950s for example, the requirements for significant testing have been around over 50 years. You completely skipped the thought behind the question, of why something unsafe like space travel has such light requirements for testing. Cars are tested more than. rocket and thats far safer.
            • It's simply a matter of costs and benefits. There's nowhere nearly as many people dying in spaceflight as you'd need to convince the people in charge to do something about the percentages.
              • And yet they do stupid tests for rockets like the abort system, which has never been used and probably never will. After all who is going to have be fast enuff to decide to push the button, answer nobody just like what happened when Challenger exploded. Shit to explosion is way to quick, its moments and of course the person with the button had no way of knowing and no time to press.
                • What do you mean by "has never been used"? Also, nobody needs to push buttons these days.
                  • Irrelevant how the abort system is triggered, my statement does not make that qualification. The abort system with its rockets has never been used to "save" the pax.
                    • So the "who is going to have be fast enuff to decide to push the button" part was there for...what reason? And what is "the pax"? Are you referring to the Latin word for "peace" for some reason?
                    • pax = passenger
                      I made the assumption that a person would be in charge of the button, and you mentioned it could be automated, thats fine. Either way the system has never been used because its simply too hard to program just the right conditions or react in real time.
                    • *What* system has never been used? A launch escape system has definitely been used on Soyuz T-10a.
                    • The Soyuz escape system was not use in flight, it was used on the ground where for lack of a better term the people who activated it had 60ish seconds to realise something was going wrong. My understanding is two people had the magic buttons on the Soyuz and given the time period would they had time to speak to each and agree to press the button. My point is that disasters happen in a blink of an eye, like Challenger, even if it was one person they didnt really have a chance to press the button and given l
      • All rockets are known to be flawed, tehres always a chance, even Soyuz with 100s of flights sometimes fails today because it only takes a single mistake anywhere in the process for a failure.
        • Do you have a point, besides the obvious?
          • You sure your replying to the right person and not the original poster who was making a statement after stating the obvious. Their statement had no evidence for their qualified statement, just stated the obvious and then made something up.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        The problem with being strapped to a rocket or entering space or reentering Earth's atmosphere is there is nothing inherently safe about it whatsoever.

        It may be that there is comparatively less risk sitting in a capsule compared to the shuttle but that doesn't mean it couldn't go kaboom for some random and hitertoo unrecognised issue prior to it happening. Just like the shuttle in fact, which enjoyed a very good safety record up until the point it didn't.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by quenda ( 644621 )

        SpaceX is not facing the same pressures. Their designs are inherently much safer.

        If you are talking about the commercial crew program and Dragon, the pressure comes from NASA to be extremely safe. NASA is far more safety-paranoid now.
        If you are talking about the Starship, where SpaceX has had free-reign to design, I'm yet to be convinced of the lack of need for an escape system on launch, let alone the sanity of being in that thing when it lands from orbital velocity.
        I reckon it might be flying for a long time unmanned, with humans descending in NASA-authorised capsules.

        • If you are talking about the Starship, where SpaceX has had free-reign to design,

          Free rein. No dash. No g.

      • But they flew with them anyway because there was political pressure to make it work.

        Political pressure of this nature always exists. It simply means "optics" in the eyes of a bored, apathetic, judgmental, and generally critical (deflecting possible blame from themselves) Crowd.

        You don't escape that until you have a true absolute ruler.

      • Bill, have you no life?? Bet you read Richard Feynman's autobiography... ;)

      • NASA used the o-rings in a manned flight when they had never been tested in such cold conditions.

        Not only that, but when the known specifications for the O-Rings said that they would not work in such cold conditions. They knew they wouldn't work and flew anyway.

      • The Space Shuttle was safe right up until it wasn't. There have been 2 manned Dragon flights so far. Until 2020 there were over 30 million airline flights per year.

        While it is fairly sure that SpaceX is more safe than the Shuttle ever was, there just isn't the data to say "SpaceX is safe."

        • While it is fairly sure that SpaceX is more safe than the Shuttle ever was, there just isn't the data to say "SpaceX is safe."

          Nothing is "safe". You could be sitting at home downloading some porn and have a plane crash into your house. Or a meteor.

          Hell, you can die of a newly discovered virus that just happens to sweep the world....

    • I hope the nurse/doctor/whatever (chosen for PR purposes?) and the contest winner are given an honest explanation of the risks.

      Don't worry. When the cosmic rays hit, all will come out alive, except with some side effects, as Mr. CEO will discover he can stretch his body and brain connectome, Mrs. Healthcare will learn she can turn invisible and make energy shields, Mr. Prizewinner will become able to turn into fire and flying, and Mr. Mysteriousguy will become superhumanly strong and develop PTSD from having his flesh converted into orange stone.

  • Hairdressers and telephone sanitizers. (Score:4, Funny)

    by zawarski ( 1381571 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @04:35AM (#61018224)
    Don't worry, the other ships will be right behind you. Relax, take a bath.
    • That's one way of looking at it.

      Another one is that once in a while you have a Voskhod 2 and you land in the middle of forest with some hungry wolves and bears: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      That is ne of the reasons why the crews flying up on the Soyuz undergo mandatory survival training to this day. Including tourists.

  • What Musk isn't telling them (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @04:58AM (#61018256)

    Privately, Musk is referring to this as Operation Laika [wikipedia.org].

  • Well he has the right stuff (Score:3)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @05:38AM (#61018314)
    I think everyone would agree that a "payment processing startup entrepreneur" is exactly the sort of person who you'd want in command of a rocket - a guy with absolutely zero relevant training, not even of piloting aircraft, and a temperament for taking risks.

    But don't worry! If he loses his shit in space then at least we can count on the calm and collective nerves of hospital ambassador or prize winning dude or mysterious 4th person to save the situation from absolute catastrophe.

    • Havent you been paying attention to media releases, if you are CEO you are perfect and a god and everyone must listen obey and worship.
    • You are not aware of how Dragon 2 operates. There is pretty much nothing that can be done by the crew during ascent and re-entry. The computer works alone and merely shows stuff on the control panel. While in orbit, Mission Control can ask the computer to do few things. The payload inside the capsule can be considered pretty much "inert" (same for the ISS missions).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by quenda ( 644621 )

      the sort of person who you'd want in command of a rocket - a guy with absolutely zero relevant training, not even of piloting aircraft,

      Well, he does have a physics degree. That does not make him a rocket scientist, but he does seem to understand the basics very well.
      When his engineers talk, he can follow the maths. That's more than you could say about Jim Bridenstine.

    • And thus you have finally tacitly accepted the fact that running a billion dollar business has very little to do with understanding their products.

    • I think everyone would agree that a "payment processing startup entrepreneur" is exactly the sort of person who you'd want in command of a rocket - a guy with absolutely zero relevant training, not even of piloting aircraft, and a temperament for taking risks.

      But don't worry! If he loses his shit in space then at least we can count on the calm and collective nerves of hospital ambassador or prize winning dude or mysterious 4th person to save the situation from absolute catastrophe.

      FTFA: "SpaceX will train Isaacman, who has previous experience piloting various aircraft, and his fellow crew members for the mission at SpaceX facilities."

      And if you bothered to do any further research [wikipedia.org] instead of just broadcasting your ignorance across the world:
      "In 2004, Isaacman began taking flying lessons. By 2009, he had set a world record for circumnavigating the globe in a light jet, making the flight in just over 62 hours, nearly 20 hours faster than the previous record.[4][5] He is flight qualified

    • He IS a pilot, a jet pilot. He owns and flies military jet fighters and trainers. This article from six years ago (https://www.fastcompany.com/3044942/meet-the-fighter-jet-flying-32-year-old-on-top-of-the-payments-industry) says he owns the largest fleet of of privately owned former military tactical jets in the world via a company he founded, Draken International. So he is a "tactical jet services startup entrepreneur", too.

  • Is that a codename for Isaac Clarke? A former ship systems engineer who worked for the Concordance Extraction Corporation? If so, I think we're screwed.

  • Challenger 2.0

  • ...it's not rocket-science anymore.

  • Non-astronauts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tx ( 96709 ) on Tuesday February 02, 2021 @08:14AM (#61018534) Journal

    Jared Isaacman, an entrepreneur behind a payment processing startup, is funding a multimillion trip to space aboard a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule, which could be the first-ever orbital flight crewed entirely by non-astronauts.

    Technically they will be astronauts. Anyone who participates as crew on a space mission having received some training to do so is classed as an astronaut. Even future passengers on Blue Origin/Virgin Galactic sub-orbital hops are going to get to call themselves astronauts, like it or not. I guess we now have to distinguish between professional and non-professional astronauts.

    • The phrase "all-civilian" is also used, and isn't tautological, so it actually is a significant step towards commercial (as opposed to govt) space flight.

    • NASA has pulled a dirty trick: they hijacked the general term "astronaut" which describes anyone who's been in space, and use "astronaut" as a job title. They differentiate between astronauts and space flight participants [wikipedia.org] (i.e. people who go to space but haven't built their career on it).

      This is why you read sentences like "The crew consists of one American astronaut and two Russian cosmonauts" when the Russians could easily be called astronauts as well.

    • "Hobby astronauts" is not a combination of words I expected to enter the common vernacular this decade, but it appears it's on the way.

  • What a Fantastic adventure for those 4 people!

  • When this was announced, somewhere Jim Bridenstine was hugging himself with glee. He's been saying for years, to anyone who will listen, that this is exactly what he wanted, for NASA to be one customer among many. Maybe as an anchor tenant, in the old mall vernacular, but still only one of several, to spread out the expense of rocket development and maintenance of launch capability. SpaceX is up to two purely private human space flight bookings, including the Dear Moon project. NASA paid a couple of bil

  • Or is this more of a "cross your fingers" kind of venture?

Slashdot Top Deals

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire

Close