Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 372 posts

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#251

Post by [deleted] »

mlyle wrote: post #207
make3 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they changed it to match the title of the article itself from AP, not to tamp it down necessarily. This is what they actually usually do.

> they changed it to match the title of the article itself from AP No-- AP: SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck in space until next year Original HN title: SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS Current HN title: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#252

Post by throwaway290 »

mc32 wrote: post #248
throwaway290 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the spaceship that took you somewhere wasn’t able to get you back as planned and cannot get you back as planned and someone else has to go get those people, that’s a rescue. If you were on cruise then yes, if you are a professional team who trained for years to stay in dangerous conditions and the only thing out of ordinary is delayed transport back then not. If politics were not involved no one would call it a…

Seems like similar things in the past were called rescues: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/science/russia-launches-res...

Good point. If this situation is equivalent then why not I guess. But note the PBS one says "urgent need for the capsule". Unclear why. Is it urgent in this case?

In case of Russians there was a coolant leak

If you are working in Antarctica and need to wait for another transport home it sounds okay. If you urgently need treatment and must perform a surgery on yourself then that's an emergency

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#253

Post by ethbr1 »

rdtsc wrote: post #214
ethbr1 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starliner stranded two astronauts in space. It didn't, because it wasn't simply broken -- it had unexpected behavior. It ended up landing fine. I'm uncomfortable heaping pejoratives on what we should expect NASA to do: make engineering decisions to minimize risk and maximize chance of mission success. Increasing the reputational or financial penalties to suppliers incentivizes exactly the sort of decisions that ble…

> it wasn't simply broken -- it had unexpected behavior. Unexpected behavior for NASA was broken enough to send it back empty. That was not the plan to start with. The mission was supposed to be a few days only not this long. > what we should expect NASA to do: make engineering decisions to minimize risk and maximize chance of mission success. The criticism is of both NASA and Boeing on what they should have done pri…

> Unexpected behavior for NASA was broken enough to send it back empty.

It's not a question of broken / not-broken. It's a question of known-risk / unknown-risk. The return mission had too much of the latter.

I'm as much of a Boeing skeptic as anyone here, but the knee-jerk-ism to vilify them over this is unreasonable.

NASA manages risk.

SpaceX blows up rockets, so they can move fast, until they get it right.

Boeing is trying to operate as a legacy space company (read: endlessly trying to reduce risk) while also competing with SpaceX.

I'm glad they launched Starliner for a crewed mission!

No one died, because it was safe enough.

No one would have died, had they returned on it, because it was safe enough.

And why should NASA have delayed a manned test flight further when there was an acceptable Plan B?

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#254

Post by ethbr1 »

thfuran wrote: post #182
ethbr1 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starliner stranded two astronauts in space. It didn't, because it wasn't simply broken -- it had unexpected behavior. It ended up landing fine. I'm uncomfortable heaping pejoratives on what we should expect NASA to do: make engineering decisions to minimize risk and maximize chance of mission success. Increasing the reputational or financial penalties to suppliers incentivizes exactly the sort of decisions that ble…

>It ended up landing fine. Were the astronauts in it when it landed?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41684804

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#255

Post by ethbr1 »

charles_f wrote: post #168
ethbr1 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "If we'd have had a crew on board the spacecraft, we would have followed the same back away sequence from the space station, the same deorbit burn and executed the same entry. And so it would have been a safe, successful landing with the crew on board," said Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/astronauts-would-h...

They didn't come back, though. It's still a success in the sense that it was a test mission and determining there was a problem is valuable, but Starliner is not ready

Considering both recent US vehicle losses have been on re-entry, I feel NASA is vindicated on being ultra-conservative around that stage.

So anomalies that might be acceptable during ascent would be unacceptable during decent.

Personally? I'm glad Boeing launched.

I wish they were perfect technically, but I also realize that an infinite amount of time and money doesn't protect against unknown-unknowns.

IMHO, they should be operating more like SpaceX (and the earlier days of the US space program) -- using calculated risk and engineering to decide when it's reasonable to do an inherently risky thing, when doing so is needed to move the entire program forward.

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#256

Post by elif »

dotnet00 wrote: post #3

Man the reporting on this ordeal has been so awful and so representative of how media misleads the public into thinking things are worse than they actually are. It isn't a rescue mission, it's a regular crew rotation mission with modifications to account for the extra crew left on the station, and those crew are 'stuck' only in the sense that they're expected to stay there as part of their duties and it would be unne…

When you have extremely limited supplies, are as isolated from humanity as possible, and there are only 2 vehicles capable of transporting you, and one of them is reigniting a cold war with you, you are considered imperiled. I'm sorry. If dragon did not exist, the rescue mission would still be embroiled in diplomacy and not in orbit already.

You only get the luxury of your non-rescue position due to hindsight.

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#257

Post by mgfist »

bnralt wrote: post #156
iterance wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following the analogy... you're on an island. A ferry has showed up at the island every six months or so for the last 40 years. The last ferry that showed up broke before it could leave the harbor. No need to worry, though. Another ferry's coming in six months and there are plenty of supplies on the island. Is it rescue? Maybe in the sense that you can't leave when you wanted to and now you have to wait. But not in t…

Maybe this is better: Cruise line A and cruise line B drop their passengers off at a remote island for 5 days, and then come to pick them up and take them home. After cruise line B drops theirs off, the cruise ships breaks down, and the passengers can't be picked up after 5 days, so they're stuck on the island with no immediate way to get off. Cruise line A says "OK, the next cruise ship we send will be at half capac…

It's slightly more nuanced than that, in that starliner didn't actually break down. It had some issues which presented increased risk for the astronauts, but it was still operational. If there was a true emergency on ISS, they would've gone on starliner. But because there was no danger of them staying longer till the next ride, they opted out of using starliner given the increased risk.

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#259

Post by adamsb6 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #119
colordrops wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like everyone in this thread is in complete agreement about the complex parameters and details and yet we are arguing on the scope of the label.

> yet we are arguing on the scope of the label It’s Saturday, can’t we have a semantic punt?

I’m on the other side of the international date line, you insensitive clod.

Re: SpaceX launches mission for 2 NASA astronauts who are stuck on the ISS

#260

Post by ericpauley »

elif wrote: post #256
dotnet00 wrote: post #3

Man the reporting on this ordeal has been so awful and so representative of how media misleads the public into thinking things are worse than they actually are. It isn't a rescue mission, it's a regular crew rotation mission with modifications to account for the extra crew left on the station, and those crew are 'stuck' only in the sense that they're expected to stay there as part of their duties and it would be unne…

When you have extremely limited supplies, are as isolated from humanity as possible, and there are only 2 vehicles capable of transporting you, and one of them is reigniting a cold war with you, you are considered imperiled. I'm sorry. If dragon did not exist, the rescue mission would still be embroiled in diplomacy and not in orbit already. You only get the luxury of your non-rescue position due to hindsight.

But dragon does exist. This is like saying you’re stranded when you’re car camping in the woods.
Post reply on HN