Tying it to a donation of USD 100mm to charity is a very good PR move. It's much harder to be upset about private space being a billionaire's club when society stands to gain from the ride.
Well, Blue Origin donated to Blue Origins' Club for the Future [1]. This was probably for the first flight only though.
I haven't found a public financial or integrated report about it though, so I can't vouch how these funds are spent and if this is a charity as in what most of us consider a charity.
> a three-day journey around the Earth that will benefit St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
I might be too cynical but I actually get turned down by the tentative of diversion. When I read that, I struggled to see how the St Jude hospital is in fact benefiting from that flight. They benefit from the donation that is artificially coupled to. I read this as - that person is trying to divert the impact on his image away from burning Ms of $ in fossile fuel.
The one redeeming factor I see from that claim are these 12M raised from sweepstake, but even then I don't think it covers the costs of launch.
I think the point here is, this is the first "private" space mission that wasn't using government/military hardware or staff.
It is a rocket designed by a commercial company, flying people who just made a few calls and then paid to do it.
It is pretty wild when you think about it - not so long ago (10 years maybe?) this sort of thing would have been unthinkable.
Say what you will about Elon Musk, but you've got to give the guy credit for SpaceX and Tesla for that matter - I suspect history will look back on SpaceX and Tesla as being quite significant inflection points. It feels like we are at the Model-T or early commercial jet flight stage here but for spaceflight and EVs. What was once only for the super rich and gov/mil is now becoming available to more people, with rapid iteration/improvements and lower prices. More of it please!
Hayley Arceneaux will become the first individual with a prosthesis to go to space. In the 60 year history of crewed spaceflight, we have never put a human with titanium bones in orbit. Nor, have we sent anyone up who has met any of the requirements to be otherwise classified as "disabled". Until now.
It is the indicator of a profound tipping point.
The very first astronauts were required to be "perfect physical specimens" (cis-male specimens at that) that had no abnormal readings in all of their medical tests. Jim Lovell was eliminated from consideration during the Mercury program because of his elevated bilirubin levels, which turned out to be a fairly normal variation of human physiology.
The requirements loosened to the point where Jim Lovell could go to the moon. But most people, including women, were still excluded by NASA's and the Air Force's Flight Surgeons.
Then came the Shuttle program that opened the field wider to more bright minds who wouldn't have met the "perfect male physical specimen" standard, including Eileen Collins and Sally Ride. By the end of the program, the shuttle had launched multiple cancer survivors into space.
However, so far, people who are considered "disabled" or "unfit" by the Flight Surgeon's office are still excluded. These terms cut a wide swath and include treatable conditions such as, Type-I diabetes, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis and - yes- prosthetics. Other than a call by ESA for the first disabled state-sponsored astronauts, no other astronaut corps has admitted someone like Hayley into their ranks. Yet.
With this flight, Hayley will set a new milestone in space medicine. A big one. She will become a test case that can be used to demonstrate that people with disabilities can function and operate in the spaceflight environment. It will break the cycle of disabled people being "flight proven", from a flight surgeon's perspective.
We're now at the dawn of a new age, where anyone physically fit can go to space, provided they have the mental aptitude. It's incredible.
This flight means that I can be an astronaut. And so can you.
Hayley represents a huge milestone. And we owe it to commercial spaceflight. Thank you, Elon and Jared Isaacman (and Axiom Space).
edit: This comment is one of my more downvoted comments. I'm not sure why.
Aren't you overhyping it a little bit? Crossing the Rubicon (Rubicon is a river)?
Civilians were being already sent in 1986 (unsuccessfully...) and in 1990 (successfully). What's a difference between a civilian that has or has not a prosthesis? It is not like they are going to be doing some kind of superhuman feats.
They could have sent a disabled person just as well in 1986 if they decided so. If I remember there were even discussions to choose who to send to space to show how routine and safe it is and disabled person was discussed. But in the end they decided to choose woman teacher as better publicity stunt.
The real important differences here are:
1. Falling costs of sending anything to orbit.
2. A business model and a technical plan to keep the costs falling for the foreseeable future.
3. Competition supported by free market.
4. A leader with power, means, plan, drive and ability to execute to achieve great things.
Is this something SpaceX eventually plan to commercialise, like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing?
Seems to me that orbital spaceflight as a proposition is an order of magnitude more enticing than scratching the Kármán line. And for the people who could afford it, they'd surely pay an order of magnitude more.
I don't know whether it's truly that appealing to the "masses". Keep in mind that unlike with quick suborbital hops, orbital flights are preceded by week-long training, medical exams and preparations.
You can't just show up in the morning an hour before launch, get some final instructions, strap in and be back home in time for lunch.
It's much more of an investment in terms of time and effort, too besides just the money. The stress on both body and mind is also significantly higher - if you do panic, you can just close your eyes for a hot minute and be safely back on the ground (in the case of Blue Origin), whereas with an orbital flight you're stuck in space for at least an hour no matter what with the worst (e.g. re-entry) yet to come.
Going to orbit on a rocket isn't the quite the carnival ride that suborbital hops are.
I don't think they intend to commercialize it from a tourism perspective, they very much intend to do point-to-point terrestrial transportation via rockets though and that will be a commercial endeavor that carries people and cargo.
I don't know if it will happen in practice, or if it will be successful when they try it but it would be damn cool.
> Is this something SpaceX eventually plan to commercialise, like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic are doing?
This IS commercialized. Jared Isaacman contacted SpaceX and expressed interest in buying a flight. SpaceX put him in touch with people and then he bought the flight. Other missions have already been bought as well and likely several more that haven't been mentioned.
My main thought since they first announced this trip was, what are they going to do for 3 entire days? That's a lot of time for people who haven't been trained up the way astronauts have to potentially experience some extreme mental states.
Being stuck in a tiny, tiny space with strangers and absolutely no way out seems like it could potentially cause issues even for people who have been psychologically screened. Hopefully these "experiments" they're supposed to be running will help keep them occupied & distracted.
He had to wave his, had he not. Having said that, anybody got data on the pollution footprint of spaceflight. Since we are rapidly making the planet unlivable. Now the people in Louisiana want to move north unable to bear the heat.
Maybe this is just me, but I think we need a new word for people who pay to take a ride on a spacecraft but have nothing to do with the operation or mission of that spacecraft. "Payload" seems rude, perhaps "passengers"?
They have everything to do with the operation and mission of the spacecraft.
They will do as much as NASA astronauts do on dragon spacecraft.
I understand the point that the word astronaut is reserved for highly trained individuals working for NASA, but the rants about it I keep seeing online on various forums are just so mean spirited for some reason. Calling them payload, seriously?
[+] [-] perlgeek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m3kw9|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sebazzz|4 years ago|reply
I haven't found a public financial or integrated report about it though, so I can't vouch how these funds are spent and if this is a charity as in what most of us consider a charity.
[1]: https://www.blueorigin.com/news/club-for-the-future-selects-...
[+] [-] charles_f|4 years ago|reply
> a three-day journey around the Earth that will benefit St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital.
I might be too cynical but I actually get turned down by the tentative of diversion. When I read that, I struggled to see how the St Jude hospital is in fact benefiting from that flight. They benefit from the donation that is artificially coupled to. I read this as - that person is trying to divert the impact on his image away from burning Ms of $ in fossile fuel.
The one redeeming factor I see from that claim are these 12M raised from sweepstake, but even then I don't think it covers the costs of launch.
[+] [-] tpmx|4 years ago|reply
I guess not to be confused with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NASA_civilian_astrona...
[+] [-] mattlondon|4 years ago|reply
It is a rocket designed by a commercial company, flying people who just made a few calls and then paid to do it.
It is pretty wild when you think about it - not so long ago (10 years maybe?) this sort of thing would have been unthinkable.
Say what you will about Elon Musk, but you've got to give the guy credit for SpaceX and Tesla for that matter - I suspect history will look back on SpaceX and Tesla as being quite significant inflection points. It feels like we are at the Model-T or early commercial jet flight stage here but for spaceflight and EVs. What was once only for the super rich and gov/mil is now becoming available to more people, with rapid iteration/improvements and lower prices. More of it please!
[+] [-] mlindner|4 years ago|reply
In this case it's in the sense of meaning 2b.
[+] [-] areoform|4 years ago|reply
Hayley Arceneaux will become the first individual with a prosthesis to go to space. In the 60 year history of crewed spaceflight, we have never put a human with titanium bones in orbit. Nor, have we sent anyone up who has met any of the requirements to be otherwise classified as "disabled". Until now.
It is the indicator of a profound tipping point.
The very first astronauts were required to be "perfect physical specimens" (cis-male specimens at that) that had no abnormal readings in all of their medical tests. Jim Lovell was eliminated from consideration during the Mercury program because of his elevated bilirubin levels, which turned out to be a fairly normal variation of human physiology.
The requirements loosened to the point where Jim Lovell could go to the moon. But most people, including women, were still excluded by NASA's and the Air Force's Flight Surgeons.
Then came the Shuttle program that opened the field wider to more bright minds who wouldn't have met the "perfect male physical specimen" standard, including Eileen Collins and Sally Ride. By the end of the program, the shuttle had launched multiple cancer survivors into space.
However, so far, people who are considered "disabled" or "unfit" by the Flight Surgeon's office are still excluded. These terms cut a wide swath and include treatable conditions such as, Type-I diabetes, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis and - yes- prosthetics. Other than a call by ESA for the first disabled state-sponsored astronauts, no other astronaut corps has admitted someone like Hayley into their ranks. Yet.
With this flight, Hayley will set a new milestone in space medicine. A big one. She will become a test case that can be used to demonstrate that people with disabilities can function and operate in the spaceflight environment. It will break the cycle of disabled people being "flight proven", from a flight surgeon's perspective.
We're now at the dawn of a new age, where anyone physically fit can go to space, provided they have the mental aptitude. It's incredible.
This flight means that I can be an astronaut. And so can you.
Hayley represents a huge milestone. And we owe it to commercial spaceflight. Thank you, Elon and Jared Isaacman (and Axiom Space).
edit: This comment is one of my more downvoted comments. I'm not sure why.
[+] [-] lmilcin|4 years ago|reply
Civilians were being already sent in 1986 (unsuccessfully...) and in 1990 (successfully). What's a difference between a civilian that has or has not a prosthesis? It is not like they are going to be doing some kind of superhuman feats.
They could have sent a disabled person just as well in 1986 if they decided so. If I remember there were even discussions to choose who to send to space to show how routine and safe it is and disabled person was discussed. But in the end they decided to choose woman teacher as better publicity stunt.
The real important differences here are:
1. Falling costs of sending anything to orbit.
2. A business model and a technical plan to keep the costs falling for the foreseeable future.
3. Competition supported by free market.
4. A leader with power, means, plan, drive and ability to execute to achieve great things.
[+] [-] babesh|4 years ago|reply
In 1998, John Glenn went to space when he was 77 years old. Don't tell me that he was physically fit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glenn
There is also a big difference between commercial flights and the ISS where astronauts have to perform spacewalks.
EDIT: NASA may have been messed up but the Soviet Union sent a woman into space way before in 1963.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Tereshkova
EDIT2: There is also a history of space tourism that preceded this era by about 20 years. There was a woman in there as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism
[+] [-] Galaxity|4 years ago|reply
For clarification. This flight is not operated by Axiom Space. The commander, Jason Isaacman, purchased the flight directly from SpaceX.
Axiom Space's first mission will be in January 2022.
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fumblebee|4 years ago|reply
Seems to me that orbital spaceflight as a proposition is an order of magnitude more enticing than scratching the Kármán line. And for the people who could afford it, they'd surely pay an order of magnitude more.
[+] [-] postingawayonhn|4 years ago|reply
The biggest difference is the price and that they only sell full flights rather than individual seats.
[+] [-] qayxc|4 years ago|reply
You can't just show up in the morning an hour before launch, get some final instructions, strap in and be back home in time for lunch.
It's much more of an investment in terms of time and effort, too besides just the money. The stress on both body and mind is also significantly higher - if you do panic, you can just close your eyes for a hot minute and be safely back on the ground (in the case of Blue Origin), whereas with an orbital flight you're stuck in space for at least an hour no matter what with the worst (e.g. re-entry) yet to come.
Going to orbit on a rocket isn't the quite the carnival ride that suborbital hops are.
[+] [-] jpgvm|4 years ago|reply
I don't know if it will happen in practice, or if it will be successful when they try it but it would be damn cool.
[+] [-] mlindner|4 years ago|reply
This IS commercialized. Jared Isaacman contacted SpaceX and expressed interest in buying a flight. SpaceX put him in touch with people and then he bought the flight. Other missions have already been bought as well and likely several more that haven't been mentioned.
[+] [-] SideburnsOfDoom|4 years ago|reply
Are these detailed anywhere?
[+] [-] mkl|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slfnflctd|4 years ago|reply
Being stuck in a tiny, tiny space with strangers and absolutely no way out seems like it could potentially cause issues even for people who have been psychologically screened. Hopefully these "experiments" they're supposed to be running will help keep them occupied & distracted.
[+] [-] Razengan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlindner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grecy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheJoeMan|4 years ago|reply
Any idea what Proctor’s business is? I find it odd the article went with “educator”
[+] [-] moberley|4 years ago|reply
https://myspace2inspire.com/
[+] [-] chinathrow|4 years ago|reply
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/c...
[+] [-] consumer451|4 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/inspiration4x/status/1433192632457564160
[+] [-] karlkloss|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vivferrari|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cipater|4 years ago|reply
How Much Do Rockets Pollute? Are They Bad For Our Air? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4&t=3s
[+] [-] ForHackernews|4 years ago|reply
Maybe this is just me, but I think we need a new word for people who pay to take a ride on a spacecraft but have nothing to do with the operation or mission of that spacecraft. "Payload" seems rude, perhaps "passengers"?
Whatever they are, they're not astronauts.
[+] [-] sebazzz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] detritus|4 years ago|reply
Fundamentally, these guys have about as much control over their experience as your 'real' astronauts do.
[+] [-] Galaxity|4 years ago|reply
They will do as much as NASA astronauts do on dragon spacecraft.
I understand the point that the word astronaut is reserved for highly trained individuals working for NASA, but the rants about it I keep seeing online on various forums are just so mean spirited for some reason. Calling them payload, seriously?