NASA to launch astronauts from US soil for the first time in nearly a decade with help from SpaceX

[brooklynite]

Source: CNBC

NASA and SpaceX are targeting May 27 for the launch of Demo-2, the first launch of NASA astronauts from the U.S. since 2011 and the first crewed launch for Elon Musk’s space company.

Demo-2 is set to liftoff at 4:32 p.m. EDT from launchpad 39A at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley will be on board, strapped into a SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule sitting on top of a Falcon 9 rocket.

As its name implies, Demo-2 will be the second time SpaceX launches its Crew Dragon capsule to the International Space Station. But, unlike Demo-1 last year, this time two astronauts will be on board.



Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/17/nasa-spacex-target-may-27-for-launching-of-historic-demo-2-astronaut-mission.html

[ffr]

1. Don't tell the tRumpsters. They'll think this is a bad thing.

Go NASA!!!

[LudwigPastorius]

2. So, just over a year from a catastrophic ground test?

For the sake of the crew, I certainly hope these guys aren't rushing things along.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Ugh, seriously?

The SuperDraco engines failed (feed line problem, faulty valve design) it's been redesigned, tested and certified for flight. (And flown to the ISS).

Yes, 'just over a year'.

[Maxheader]

6. Exactly my thoughts...

And the astronauts?...

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Are willing to go. Accept the risk.

[spudspud]

7. My thoughts exactly. /nt

[localroger]

9. Apollo fire 27-Jan-1967 to Apollo 7 manned flight 11-Oct-1968 nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

13. The Apollo program was a masterpiece of engineering

But SpaceX is doing what the old guard "steely-eyed missile men" claimed was impossible: Reusing boosters by landing them in one piece, thus reducing launch costs an order of magnitude. The Dragon capsule has been redesigned several times in the last year. When US astronauts return to space on a US launch vehicle, it will be at a fraction of the cost of a shuttle launch.

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. The point of all this testing was to push the capsule to the limits of ailure

and learn.

In less than two decades SpaceX has revamped the space launch business by doing what they were told was impossible.

[ripcord]

46. The Apollo program was a series of failures, thats how we learn.

14 astronauts died during the course of the Apollo program but it was successful in the end.

[AllaN01Bear]

3. even though this is a private machine , its about time .

[yaesu]

4. The first covid-19 virus in space, the race is on! nt

[SunSeeker]

10. Why? Why is this a federal priority right now? Will this save lives? nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

12. Gven that we are about to embark on a centuries long

fight to save ourselves from extinction by climate change, yeah, it is a priority.

[SunSeeker]

14. How does this help us combat climate change?

[Miguelito Loveless]

15. Try studying climate without good satellite coverage

Also, the ISS with scientists on station is very useful. A base on the moon would be even better.

[SunSeeker]

17. This does nothing to improve climate study science. This is not launching sats.

Besides, we have more than enough science knowledge to know what to do to combat climate change. That is not our problem. We just don't have the will, or money allocated, to do it. Putting humans in space is exponentially more expensive than putting satellites in space.

Nothing in the OP even mentions climate science. The point of this mission is to fulfill Trump's vanity goal of putting a man in space...as if that's never been done before.

[Miguelito Loveless]

19. Reusable launching and supporting the ISS

have everything to do with studying climate science. With bigger (and cheaper) payloads, more satellites get into orbit. Also, scientists in orbit can do a LOT more than a satellite, being, you know, humans, and able to act in ways satellites cannot.

These flights were planned long before Trump. The ISS has been in orbit since 1998, and has needed re-supply and taxi service for over two decades. This has ZERO to do with Trump's boasts.

[SunSeeker]

21. That is just not true. We don't need this to combat global warming.

And that is certainly not the objective of this mission, let alone what it has "everything to do with." The OP does not even mention climate science.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Yeah, see, this is that whole 'stuff you're not aware of' thing.

You sound like Kelly-Anne Conway bloviating about how Covid-19 is some sort of 19th iteration of the virus.

That's how wildly off-base you are on this. You don't know what you're talking about. It doesn't matter if that particular launch contains any climate-related material or tests, the astronauts going to the ISS will be performing whatever tasks they are assigned by ground crews.

We will likely NEVER get another opportunity to gather pollution and GHG-related output data like this. The entire world's GDP is throttled for this event. Worldwide we're pulling down petabytes of raw environmental data that will take years to sift and analyze.

[SunSeeker]

38. No, I don't "sound like Kelly-Anne Conway bloviating." I am stating a fact.

We need test swabs and N95 masks more than we need to put astronauts in the ISS via a US (as opposed to Russian) rocket.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. No, the 'facts' you are bringing up have nothing to do with NASA's budget or launch schedule.

Nothing whatsoever. Not the same ballpark, not the same game, not even the same sport.

These funds were appropriated LONG ago. The flights, scheduled LONG ago. When even ONE launch slips, it can impact other missions. There is a lot here you are either completely unaware of, or simply don't care to find out.

That launch money didn't come out of test swab production or N95 masks. Your position is utter nonsense.

[Steelrolled]

39. I have to agree

If we need a manned space mission to do adequate research for global warming, something is way off. I would not be surprised to see that being used as a selling point, because that is what you do to help get funding.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. This article is a light synopsis of how NASA related work on the ground and in space

continues amid, and impacts Covid-19 studies.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2966/covid-19-nasa-science-keeps-the-lights-on/

It's about a lot more than just budget quibbles and one virus.

[Steelrolled]

44. NASA does great work

and are respected around the world. They are one of our most admired government agencies.

However, if NASA seriously used global warming research as a specific justification for manned spaceflight, then something terribly wrong. Could they give a synopsis of all the things they do, and then say that manned spaceflight supports their mission? Yes, that is marketing, and NASA has been doing that since their start. They need to.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Actually they do.

They have test beds full of sensors and prototypes for components that will be used on future climate-related satellites. Technically they are often not directly involved in gathering the data, but they are part of the R&D chain that produces such technology for deployment to space.

Direct science gathering is probably minimal, compared to what is being done by entire networks of satellites. More human-interest stuff like quickly posting photos they've taken of things like, the waterways in Venice, things like that.

Also important, in a sense, but that R&D work is vital. On top of the regular upkeep and studies the ISS plans out years in advance that still needs to be performed.

[Steelrolled]

47. I'm all for the US having human spaceflight capabilities

and I hope this mission goes well. But I also want NASA to be honest (within the constraints of marketing) about what what it will do for us, and there is plenty to say. They don't need to over-egg the pudding with claims of global warming research.

[diverdownjt]

48. Sunseeker you are wrong on this one...

Did you complain this loudly when american's were being launched to the space station from
russia?

Do we really have to go over all the benefits to furthering scientific advancement that we
already have because of the space program? We don't know where this all will lead...
but we certainly should find out. It just might save the human race from total failure.

[SunSeeker]

49. I supported our space program in the 60s. It wasn't during a global pandemic.

Nor was it during a global pandemic-induced global depression. And it was before we all knew about the existential threat of global warming.

It's a matter of obvious priorities.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. A number of medical technologies are actually side-products of the space program.

Some of which will be used to save lives in this very pandemic.

It's actually too much stuff to list here.

[SunSeeker]

18. The money is WAY better spent on medical research here on earth.

On earth, medical advancements are the product, not an accidental side product. The billions spent on the risky complex Trump vanity goal of getting a US man in space again are much better spent on medical research here.

[Miguelito Loveless]

20. US astronuats have been "in space"

non-stop for over two decades. All that changed is until recently, the only way to get there was aboard Soviet-era Soyuz rockets. SpaceX's plans for flights outside Earth orbit are planned to be financed by SpaceX and its investors. NASA is the beneficiary of cheaper launch services. If you have complaints about behind schedule, over budget, launch systems for deep psace exploration, your beef is with the SLS, not SpaceX's.

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

[SunSeeker]

22. I have no issue with SpaceX. I just think our tax money should be spent on more pressing matters.

Like dealing with Covid-19.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. The budgets are not connected nor competing.

It's not now government works. Those pre-approved (and sometimes pre-spent) dollars can't be moved in some cases. And SpaceX is shouldering the R&D costs directly. NASA is paying for flights.


As a followup to some of my comments earlier, ULA has a more suitable rocket than NASA's SLS, in the Atlas V, but it's also around 100 million per flight. SpaceX is cheaper, and all in-house. ULA is relying on the Russian RD-180 engines. Fantastic engine, but not ours.

[SunSeeker]

26. As you note, NASA is paying for flights. That tax money could be better spent. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

27. This money was appropriated and some of it spent more than a year in advance.

And there are laws and rules against re-directing it. Or creatures like Trump would use it to build his idiotic fucking wall.

[SunSeeker]

30. That might be true, but let's not pretend this is the best use of our tax money. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Right now, today, we have unprecedented access to gather data on the climactic effects of our

entire world-wide industrial output. It's ALL throttled. Even 9/11 didn't produce that.

This is a good use of our tax money regardless or even in light of Covid-19.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. This has nothing to do with Trump and the current missions are not even Mars or Moon related.

This current effort will lead to that, but at the moment it's about US rockets putting US astronauts into orbit (ISS) without having to rely upon Russia or pay Russia.

And to do so FAR cheaper than NASA's own solutions in the past. SLS launches will cost upwards of 3 to 4 billion per flight. Falcon does it for around 80 million.

Russia charges us 86 million PER ASTRONAUT.

[Baclava]

25. yeah, we shouldn't be begging rides to space from Russia

but until we start strip mining the asteroids we won't be doing much up there

Space Force!


TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER ENCOURAGING MOON, ASTEROID MINING

“Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space"

https://www.space.com/trump-moon-mining-space-resources-executive-order.html

[AtheistCrusader]

29. The crew of the ISS is working every day on science packages that have

government, science, and commercial value.

[Baclava]

36. That's nice, but sitting in a tin can in low earth orbit? Time to spread our seed to the stars!

[AtheistCrusader]

37. That's coming.

Hopefully sooner than later. I'm excited about Dragon Crew, because the alternative is.... Boeing.

[SunSeeker]

28. There is no pressing reason to send US astronauts into space right now.

That $80 million per astronaut could be better spent building a test swab or N95 mssk factory here in the US, instead of relying on China.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. OR, we could be also using it to show climate impacts from dialing down the economy that

represent a longer-term environmental issue that threatens our existence as a species.

There's a lot of 'big picture' stuff related to this that you are clearly not aware of.

[SunSeeker]

33. Please don't insult my intelligence. The "big picture" here is nurses are dying.

Because we can't get fucking enough long q-tips and N95 masks out of China.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. And NASA's budget has nothing to do with that inability to acquire that material.

Not a damn thing. Let alone SpaceX's own internal R&D and Manufacturing budget.

[SunSeeker]

40. Of course it does. How we allocate our budget determines everything we do. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

42. And the rocket is already BUILT. The capsule is already BUILT.

The money for the launch doesn't change hands on launch day. Budget outlays and guarantees do not get signed after the fact.

It doesn't matter how *you* value, or don't value the space program. There have been people like you forever. NASA does just fine anyway. SpaceX will too, even though technologies come out of both that you use every day, that save your own life in ways you never even see, and will continue to do so for decades to come.