Space tourism resurgence and manifest

[Robotbeat]

…They won't be able to pull this crap in the future. Enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.

Congress added a provision to the recent NASA bill that NASA can ONLY use government astronauts for Artemis missions. So…

[Zed_Noir]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1554446208629891073

NASA will require private missions to the ISS to be commanded by former NASA astronauts, something Axiom Space was already doing for its initial missions (but had talked about flying customers only in later missions.)

https://spacenews.com/nasa-revises-requirements-for-iss-private-astronaut-missions/

NASA details are here:

https://sam.gov/opp/23b1521f8c154f1caa2f3b2b0e551f28/view

They are just making sure Jared Issacman don't get any ideas of buying a command ride to the ISS.

Somewhat amusing that Issacman with 2 flights as Crew Dragon commander after the first Polaris Dawn mission isn't allowed to command a commercial mission to the ISS.

All this new NASA requirement does is to remove one commercial vehicle seat available to paying customers per flight.

 

[whitelancer64]

They likely will, at some point, revisit the requirement for the mission commander from a NASA astronaut, down to just someone who has previously had spaceflight experience on the ISS. It's not a huge burden for the first few missions, but NASA should be able to relax that requirement, in particular when Axiom has its own module(s) on the ISS and doesn't need to continually rely on use of the main USOS.

[butters]

All this new NASA requirement does is to remove one commercial vehicle seat available to paying customers per flight.

NASA sold companies like Nanoracks and Axiom on a commercial business model for the ISS, drawing a considerable amount of private investment in things like the Bishop airlock, but just as soon as these ventures came online, they dramatically jacked up the pricing structure for ISS resources and claimed 25% of the passenger capacity for alumni emeritus. Excellent business partners, these NASA folks. Makes you just want to put more skin in the game and bid more aggressively on Commercial LEO Destinations, dunnit.

[Zed_Noir]

They likely will, at some point, revisit the requirement for the mission commander from a NASA astronaut, down to just someone who has previously had spaceflight experience on the ISS. It's not a huge burden for the first few missions, but NASA should be able to relax that requirement, in particular when Axiom has its own module(s) on the ISS and doesn't need to continually rely on use of the main USOS.

Hopefully they will. But somehow I doubt they will relaxed the requirement for a former flown NASA Astronaut as commercial vehicle commander before the ISS goes away.

[Zed_Noir]

All this new NASA requirement does is to remove one commercial vehicle seat available to paying customers per flight.

NASA sold companies like Nanoracks and Axiom on a commercial business model for the ISS, drawing a considerable amount of private investment in things like the Bishop airlock, but just as soon as these ventures came online, they dramatically jacked up the pricing structure for ISS resources and claimed 25% of the passenger capacity for alumni emeritus. Excellent business partners, these NASA folks. Makes you just want to put more skin in the game and bid more aggressively on Commercial LEO Destinations, dunnit.

Why put more skin in the game? Time to consider non-NASA LEO destinations that isn't subject to arbitrarily whims of NASA/Congress to pull a Darth Vader like contract revision.

[butters]

Requiring retired NASA astronauts on private missions is also not the best way to affect a shift toward a more proportional representation of humanity in space. They're not *all* white guys with AARP cards, but if you ask an AI for a picture of a retired NASA astronaut, that's what you're gonna get. And unfortunately, that's also what will appear in an AI depiction of a private space tourist. Both of these cohorts are less diverse than NASA's active flown astronauts, who are less diverse than NASA's freshest crop of unflown astronauts.

So I have a modest proposal: NASA should put their rookie astronauts in command of short-duration private missions to the ISS, and compensate the commercial providers for giving their younger astronauts valuable spaceflight and command experience, preparing them for more complex NASA missions later on, and making the NASA astronaut corps more attractive amid the rise of alternatives. Let the fantastic young astronauts that NASA has recruited get their space legs looking after some fund managers. Everybody wins.

[AmigaClone]

NASA will require private missions to the ISS to be commanded by former NASA astronauts, something Axiom Space was already doing for its initial missions (but had talked about flying customers only in later missions.)

https://spacenews.com/nasa-revises-requirements-for-iss-private-astronaut-missions/

NASA details are here:

https://sam.gov/opp/23b1521f8c154f1caa2f3b2b0e551f28/view

They are just making sure Jared Issacman don't get any ideas of buying a command ride to the ISS.

Somewhat amusing that Issacman with 2 flights as Crew Dragon commander after the first Polaris Dawn mission isn't allowed to command a commercial mission to the ISS.

All this new NASA requirement does is to remove one commercial vehicle seat available to paying customers per flight.

I can imagine the companies who manage to put up a commercial station giving NASA a requirement to use one of their personnel on every flight.

For those complaining about that decision a few things of note:

Since 1977, there has been a rule in the Soviet Union, and later adopted by Russia that stated something along the lines of 'every crew had to have at least one person aboard who had previously flown in space.'

As far as I'm aware, neither China nor NASA has that rule, although that appears to be their de facto current policy.

China only has had three missions entirely comprised of rookies. The last NASA mission comprised entirely of astronauts who had not been on a previous orbital mission was STS-2.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

From SpaceX press conference post Inspiration 4 splashdown:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1439386793326092290

Benji Reed says, in the wake of Inspiration4, the number of people approaching SpaceX about orbital flights is increasing significantly. I know they're already negotiating for missions three years from now. I'd expect demand greatly exceeds supply.

Interesting that ‘only’ the Polaris program has been announced in the 11 months since. I don’t think Polaris & Axiom are using all SpaceX’s capacity:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1518683076091592704

Benji Reed says he thinks SpaceX can support about six Crew Dragon flights a year; so 50 percent more than it currently does. Likely breakdown:

• Two NASA flights (until Starliner becomes operational)
• Two Axiom/ISS private astronaut missions
• Two free-flyers (Polaris, etc)

But with the next (non-Polaris, non-Axiom) private flight opportunity probably Q2 2023(?), perhaps no announcements of other flights until nearer their launch?

[su27k]

JAXA, Mitsui Sumitomo to sell insurance for civilian space travelers

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance will jointly develop insurance products for space travelers as they expect more civilians will venture beyond the Earth in the future.

The new products will likely cover travelers against damage to possessions — like existing travel insurance — as well as bodily damage before and after the adventure, the two organizations said last month.

JAXA will provide information such as the causes of accidents observed during its space missions or related training, while Mitsui Sumitomo will offer insurance-related expertise such as risk assessment.

[Asteroza]

NASA will require private missions to the ISS to be commanded by former NASA astronauts, something Axiom Space was already doing for its initial missions (but had talked about flying customers only in later missions.)

https://spacenews.com/nasa-revises-requirements-for-iss-private-astronaut-missions/

NASA details are here:

https://sam.gov/opp/23b1521f8c154f1caa2f3b2b0e551f28/view

They are just making sure Jared Issacman don't get any ideas of buying a command ride to the ISS.

Somewhat amusing that Issacman with 2 flights as Crew Dragon commander after the first Polaris Dawn mission isn't allowed to command a commercial mission to the ISS.

All this new NASA requirement does is to remove one commercial vehicle seat available to paying customers per flight.

I can imagine the companies who manage to put up a commercial station giving NASA a requirement to use one of their personnel on every flight.

For those complaining about that decision a few things of note:

Since 1977, there has been a rule in the Soviet Union, and later adopted by Russia that stated something along the lines of 'every crew had to have at least one person aboard who had previously flown in space.'

As far as I'm aware, neither China nor NASA has that rule, although that appears to be their de facto current policy.

China only has had three missions entirely comprised of rookies. The last NASA mission comprised entirely of astronauts who had not been on a previous orbital mission was STS-2.

Seasoned commanders only being a defacto rule, would suggest that's only a boostrap problem for an early civilian astronaut corps. Buildout of facilities will bring the necessary rookie->seasoned conversion numbers who then later take on the role of tour guides and safety personnel for paying customers, right?

If anything, doesn't it imply a poaching problem, as ASCAN's who have trained on NASA's dime but are way back in the queue, along with "retired" seasoned astronauts, seem like likely early private crew candidates to fill out the civilian astronaut corps. Same with chinese and russian astronauts after a certain point too perhaps? Roscosmos' new leader was saying they don't want an experience gap (getting rusty) when ISS shuts down but ROSS is not yet available, which implies they may consider going up to commercial followon stations, which leads to an additional private astronaut corps cohort.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

From last month:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/a-year-after-sir-richards-historic-flight-were-still-waiting-for-an-encore/

Richard Branson won the space tourism battle, but his company lost the war
"Blue Origin already won the suborbital space tourism race on July 20, 2021."

ERIC BERGER - 7/11/2022, 8:25 PM

It has been 12 months to the day since Sir Richard Branson briefly departed this world, only to make a feathery return back to Earth, landing on a hot, dusty runway in rural New Mexico.

The flight marked a triumphant moment for Branson, who, just a week before turning 71 years old, fulfilled a childhood dream of going to space. In doing so, Branson beat fellow space-obsessed billionaire Jeff Bezos to the punch.

[Vultur]

Its not really about Blue Origin beating them though.

At current New Shepard flight rates it would take ages to fly everyone who signed up for SpaceShipTwo, so I don't think Blue Origin has stolen the whole market.

SpaceshipTwo just didn't prove reliable enough. That's a problem unrelated to any contest with BO.

[TrevorMonty]

Its not really about Blue Origin beating them though.

At current New Shepard flight rates it would take ages to fly everyone who signed up for SpaceShipTwo, so I don't think Blue Origin has stolen the whole market.

SpaceshipTwo just didn't prove reliable enough. That's a problem unrelated to any contest with BO.

The market needs dozens of launches a year to meet current demand. At present it's 1 launch every few months for NS.

[Vultur]

Yeah.

I don't get why NS flight rate is so low. Difficulties with hydrogen? Not really trying to operate it as a moneymaking business (vs PR value) in fear of a fatal accident?

[anof]

Yeah.

I don't get why NS flight rate is so low. Difficulties with hydrogen? Not really trying to operate it as a moneymaking business (vs PR value) in fear of a fatal accident?

They are having a pretty consistent flight rate with humans in the same vehicle every 2 months. I believe they are building a second human rated capsule. That should allow for monthly flights.

[TrevorMonty]

Yeah.

I don't get why NS flight rate is so low. Difficulties with hydrogen? Not really trying to operate it as a moneymaking business (vs PR value) in fear of a fatal accident?

Their flightrate will build over time as they gain experience. Look at how long its take SpaceX to build up F9 Starlink launch rate.

[daedalus1]

Yeah.

I don't get why NS flight rate is so low. Difficulties with hydrogen? Not really trying to operate it as a moneymaking business (vs PR value) in fear of a fatal accident?

Their flightrate will build over time as they gain experience. Look at how long its take SpaceX to build up F9 Starlink launch rate.

Falcon 9 has only a five year head start and the difference is huge, even more remarkable considering it is an order of magnitude more difficult to get to orbit.

[yg1968]

I am not crazy about this but it seems that the Biden Administration is thinking of lifting the moratorium on adding new regulations to human spaceflight transportation.

Harris assigned three tasks to Council members regarding human spaceflight:

-NASA is to develop a plan for a new microgravity National Lab as part of the transition from the ISS to commercial space stations;
-NASA is to finalize a plan for an initial lunar surface architecture within 150 days including consideration for commercial and international partnerships; and
-the Department of Transportation (DOT) is to identify interim steps within the next year to use existing authorities to ensure the safety of humans in spaceflight.

DOT regulates commercial human spaceflight through the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. By law, companies flying private passengers to space are required only to obtain the customer’s “informed consent” and the FAA is prohibited from promulgating additional regulations for a certain period of time. That period has been extended several times and currently expires next year.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/space-council-discusses-stem-human-spaceflight-and-commercial-space-regulation/

[Zed_Noir]

I am not crazy about this but it seems that the Biden Administration is thinking of lifting the moratorium on adding new regulations to human spaceflight transportation.

Harris assigned three tasks to Council members regarding human spaceflight:

-NASA is to develop a plan for a new microgravity National Lab as part of the transition from the ISS to commercial space stations;
-NASA is to finalize a plan for an initial lunar surface architecture within 150 days including consideration for commercial and international partnerships; and
-the Department of Transportation (DOT) is to identify interim steps within the next year to use existing authorities to ensure the safety of humans in spaceflight.

DOT regulates commercial human spaceflight through the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. By law, companies flying private passengers to space are required only to obtain the customer’s “informed consent” and the FAA is prohibited from promulgating additional regulations for a certain period of time. That period has been extended several times and currently expires next year.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/space-council-discusses-stem-human-spaceflight-and-commercial-space-regulation/

I interpreted it as not prolonging the moratorium indefinitely and to see which existing laws and regulations is applicable for regulating commercial human spaceflight. However the Congress will likely extended the moratorium a few more time, IMO.