SpaceX launch: Tourists just launched to the ISS. Here's everything you need to know - CNN
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
New York(CNN Business) A SpaceX rocket carrying three paying customers and a former NASA astronaut took off from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Friday morning, kicking off a first-of-its-kind mission that will take the group on a 10-day mission to the International Space Station.
The spacecraft, which separated from the rocket after reaching orbit, is now free flying through orbit and will spend all day Friday slowly maneuvering closer to the ISS, where it's slated to dock Saturday around 7:45 am ET.
The trip was brokered by the Houston, Texas-based startup Axiom Space, which seeks to book rocket rides, provide all the necessary training, and coordinate flights to the ISS for anyone who can afford it. It's all in line with the US government's and the private sector's goal to boost commercial activity on the ISS and beyond.
On board this mission, called AX-1, are Michael Lopez-Alegria, a former NASA astronaut turned Axiom employee who is commanding the mission; Israeli businessman Eytan Stibbe; Canadian investor Mark Pathy; and Ohio-based real estate magnate Larry Connor.
These are the four people launching on SpaceX's first ISS space tourism mission
It's not the first time paying customers or otherwise non-astronauts have visited the ISS, as Russia has sold seats on its Soyuz spacecraft for various wealthy thrill seekersin years past. But this is the first mission that includes a crew entirely comprised of private citizens with no active members of a government astronaut corps. It's also the first time private citizens have traveled to the ISS on a US-made spacecraft.
Here's everything you need to know.
How much did this all cost?
Axiom previously disclosed a price of $55 million per seat for a 10-day trip to the ISS, but the company declined to comment on the financial terms for this specific mission — beyond saying in a press conference last year that the price is in the "tens of millions."
The mission is made possible by very close coordination among Axiom, SpaceX and NASA, since the ISS is government-funded and operated.
And the space agency has revealed some details on how much it'll charge for use of its 20-year-old orbiting laboratory.
Food alone costs $2,000 per day, per person, in space. Getting provisions to and from the space station for a commercial crew is another $88,000 to $164,000 per person, per day. For each mission, bringing on the necessary support from NASA astronauts will cost commercial customers another $5.2 million, and all the mission support and planning that NASA lends is another $4.8 million.
Who is flying?
Lopez-Alegria, a veteran of four trips to space between 1995 and 2007 during his time with NASA, is commanding this mission as an Axiom employee.
Ax-1 Crew (left to right) Larry Connor, Mark Pathy, Michael Lopez-Alegria, and Eytan Stibbe.
For more about the three paying customers he's flying alongside, check out our coverage here.
Is it safe to go to the ISS, given the Russia conflict?
Russia is the United States' primary partner on the ISS, and the space station has long been hailed as a symbol of post-Cold War cooperation.
US-Russian relations on the ground, however, have hit a fever pitch amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The United States and its allies have slapped hefty sanctions on Russia, and the country has retaliated in numerous ways, including by refusing to sell Russian rocket engines to US companies. The head of Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, has even taken to social media to threaten to pull out of the ISS agreement.
Despite all the bluster, NASA has repeatedly sought to reassure that, behind the scenes, NASA and its Russian counterparts are working together seamlessly.
"NASA is aware of recent comments regarding the International Space Station. US sanctions and export control measures continue to allow US-Russia civil space cooperation on the space station," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said in a recent statement. "The professional relationship between our international partners, astronauts and cosmonauts continues for the safety and mission of all on board the ISS."
Are they astronauts or tourists?
This is a question stewing in the spaceflight community right now.
The US government has traditionally awarded astronaut wings to anyone who travels more than 50 miles above the Earth's surface. But commercial astronaut wings — a relatively new designation handed out by the Federal Aviation Administration — might not be handed out quite so liberally.
Last year, the FAA decided to end the entire Commercial Space Astronaut Wings program on January 1, 2022. Now, the FAA plans to simply list the names of everyone who flies above the 50-mile threshold on a website.
First on CNN: The US gives Bezos, Branson and Shatner their astronaut wings
Whether it's fair to still refer to people who pay their way to space as "astronauts" is an open question, and countless observers — including NASA astronauts — have weighed in.
Not everyone is too concerned about mincing words.
"If you're strapping your butt to a rocket, I think that's worth something," former NASA astronaut Terry Virts told National Geographic when asked about the issue. "When I was an F-16 pilot, I didn't feel jealous about Cessna pilots being called pilots. I think everybody's going to know if you paid to be a passenger on a five-minute suborbital flight or if you're the commander of an interplanetary space vehicle. Those are two different things."
If you ask the AX-1 crew, they don't love being referred to as "tourists."
"This mission is very different from what you may have heard of in some of the recent — especially suborbital — missions. We are not space tourists," Lopez-Alegria told reporters earlier this month, referring to the brief supersonic flights put on by Jeff Bezos' company Blue Origin. "I think there's an important role for space tourism, but it is not what Axiom is about."
The crew did undergo extensive training for this mission, taking on much of the same tasks as professional astronauts-in-training. But the fact is that the three paying customers on this flight — Stibbe, Pathy, and Connor — weren't selected from a pool of thousands of applicants and aren't dedicating much of their lives to the endeavor.
Axiom itself has been more flippant about word usage in the past.
"Commercial human spaceflight. Space Tourism. Whatever you call it — it's happening. And soon," the company wrote on its website.
What will they do while they're in space?
Each of the crew members has a list of research projects they plan to work on.
Connor will be doing some research on how spaceflight affects senescent cells, which are cells that have ceased the normal replication process and are "linked to multiple age-related diseases," according to Axiom. That research will be done in partnership with the Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.
Among the items on Pathy's to-do list is some additional medical research, focused more on children's health, that he'll conduct in partnership with several Canadian hospitals, and some conservation-awareness initiatives.
Stibbe will also do some research and focus on "educational and artistic activities to connect the younger generation in Israel and around the globe," according to Axiom. Stibbe is flying on behalf of the Ramon Foundation — a space education non-profit named for Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon, who died in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. Stibbe's Axiom bio says he and Ramon shared a "close" friendship.
During downtime, the crew will also get a chance to enjoy sweeping views of Earth. And, at some point, they'll share a meal with the other astronauts on board. Their food was prepared in partnership with celebrity chef and philanthropist Jose Andres. Their meals "lean on flavors and traditional dishes of Commander Lopez-Alegria's native Spain," according to Axiom.
Tags
Who is online
417 visitors
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration came into being on October 1, 1958. NASA announced the seven Project Mercury Astronauts on April 9, 1959, only six months later. They are: (front, l to r) Walter H. Schirra, Jr., Donald K. Slayton, John H. Glenn, Jr., and Scott Carpenter; (back, l to r) Alan B. Shepard, Jr., Virgil I. Gus Grissom, and L. Gordon Cooper. (Image credit: NASA)
The Mercury program represented NASA's first human spaceflight program, with the aim to see if humans could function effectively in space for a few minutes or hours at a time. NASA's first seven astronauts, the Mercury 7, were chosen in 1959.
||
These ASTRONAUTS only orbited the Earth on their first flight "Project Mercury" (1959) and returned to ground. They were officially astronauts. So why change the term for astronauts who orbit now?
If you're being paid to go, you're an astronaut. If you're paying to go, you're a tourist.
Now. Now. I have a question: Due to the training involved, the equipment, the emergency scenarios prepping, 'flight' time, and orbitals, is the individual qualified to be an astronaut? Or, is an astronaut more of a professional (performance) designator?
Not in the sense we've generally considered to be "qualified", IMO. They might be "doing research", but they're not trained scientists. They'll likely be following instructions put together for them, but they're not likely to be designing experiments and interpreting results. They probably trained physically, but likely not nearly as intensively as an actual astronaut. They can probably help to operate the Spacex craft if all goes as expected, but likely won't know much about troubleshooting if anything goes wrong.
They're not who I'd want next to me if an Apollo 13 sort of thing happened. Nor am I who anybody else would want next to them.
Let me play Devil's Advocate. @ 1
these men all seven are designated as "astronauts" and they only orbited the Earth in 1959 give or take two or three 'cycles' and then came back down. Are you saying the designator, "astronaut" was conferred on them because of a job description or the act of being out of this world? Moreover, "scientist: is a separate designator/description signifying formal training in a field of study (I know you know this). Finally, still in my role as 'advocate': Are you being CONSERVATIVE by reserving the descriptor astronaut because of what it signifies in history?
(Remember, I am advocating for the "Devil" right now. So, go easy on me!) Smile!
To be clear, you do have a point that 90 plus year old William Shatner might be 'strained' to troubleshoot a spacecraft on superficial 'education' of space mechanics and tech literacy, but why bar him or those others from the designator - astronaut (he has already been given his 'wings.' What would be the reason?
Agreed, the first astronauts weren't scientists per se. However, they did have a pretty good grasp of engineering, especially as it regarded their mission. They had to. Their crafts weren't nearly as automated as those today.
As far as research - well, they were hardly in space long enough to carry out much research, except for the short term effects of space travel on human physiology, which aren't especially profound.
Today, most professional astronauts are trained scientists or engineers. Some are both. I can't read Russian, but check out the credentials of the American and German astronauts currently crewing the ISS.
These folks don't dabble in science, and they know how to fix things. Pretty important on a space station.
I have no problem with space tourism. The funding from tourists may make further space exploration possible, and I'm all for that. But tourists are tourists.
In the future, we will have commercial travel into space similar to our airlines. The spacecraft will have a crew and will carry passengers (and cargo).
Will we call the passengers 'astronauts'?
Hard to say, but I suspect we will keep 'astronaut' (if it survives as the operative word) as a designation for a professional crewmember.
There is 'information' fit for discussion up there
. Apparently, we will have whole class traveler distinctions in space upcoming . A regular 'Star Trek' ground academy can't be far off now!
I love it. Good on 'us'!!!
In both of Virts' examples, the pilot was a pilot - actually controlling the plane, in charge and responsible for the safety of it and its passengers.
The passengers were flying, but weren't pilots. They were passengers; tourists.
These guys are there because they're rich, not because they're extraordinarily skilled. If they weren't rich, they wouldn't be there. IMO, we should reserve "astronaut" for people who go to space based on merit rather than money.
Hi Sandy, sorry I did not get back to your comment. But, I lost internet services last night until over in the night when I was, of course, sleeping.
I want you to know that I understand your hesitation to be handing out designations to dual-function participants in a deep-seated experience. I had to do some mental 'shifting' around myself (and for the tiniest of time my mind wanted to balk at the doing).
Still, there is something about the 'doing' that speaks to the definition of the word, astronaut, from its beginning that leaves me open to the idea of everyone who goes up should have that sense of accomplishment. Even if an additional ("astronaut-") designator is added for clarity and distinction. In my opinion. (Smile.)
As the astronaut in my above comment specifies, being called an astronaut does not grant all the boni fides, accolades, or certificates that comes from formal, superior, training in the field. That is perhaps something we have been 'led' to believe, because of NASA's selection process.
Bingo.