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

271–280 of 372 posts

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

#271

Post by wongarsu »

elif wrote: post #261
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…

On an island you can call for a boat or a helicopter. You can relax and eat all your food knowing those options exist. On a space station your options are considerably more limited.

With SpaceX's launch cadence they could easily shift some flights. Of course you'd need a Crew Dragon that has completed refurbishment, and need to integrate it with a rocket. A month sounds like a reasonable timeline to get an unexpected rescue mission to the ISS. Which isn't great if you need a medevac, but that's why they have enough space craft docked

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

#272

Post by mab122 »

chainingsolid wrote: post #246
jbkkd wrote: post #188

What's the suit situation here? Did SpaceX make two new suits for them to use on the way back, or are they using their Boeing suits to fly back? I'd imagine the former, but genuinely curious this time.

I believe new suits where made/available somehow. The SpaceX and Boeing suits are not compatible with the others space craft.

They should be! Have we not learned anything from Apollo? :D Or atleast provision an adapter or something.

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

#273

Post by sobellian »

jamesjyu wrote: post #175
lanewinfield wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salary is set by the year, and with the calculated 6.7 milliseconds of time dilation in the reverse direction (i.e. they will be 6.7ms younger when they arrive), sounds like they should be docked a cent or so.

This brings up an interesting question of salary for near-lightspeed travel. Is it Earth's frame of reference, or the astronauts?

Naturally, a firm located in the local frame of reference has a comparative advantage when it comes to employment. Remote work just isn't viable when you can't even agree on simultaneity.

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

#274

Post by eru »

brianshaler wrote: post #234
mannyv wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hmm. NASA decided Starliner wasn't safe enough to use for the return journey, so the astronauts stayed on the ISS until the next ride became available. Originally the astronauts were supposed to go back on Starliner. Now they're taking another ride back. Is that considered a rescue? Well, it depends. If you get left behind on an island because your ride wasn't safe and another boat picks you up, is that a rescue…

> If there wasn't another ride from the ISS available, would the astronauts be stranded? Yes. Seems like the answer to this would be no. Starliner's risk was elevated, not guaranteed to fail. The presence of a flight-proven option was the limiting factor.

> Starliner's risk was elevated, not guaranteed to fail.

That's a pretty weird bar to set?

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

#276

Post by freedomben »

yarg wrote: post #38
neverrroot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda is, and it’s all Elon’s fault.

Or perhaps blame Boeing and NASA, rather than the single competent organisation that's managing to hold the whole damned thing together.

Why not both?

I think it's both the incompetence of the incumbents, and the impressive work of SpaceX that got us to where we are. With the vast majority of companies, especially tech companies, I think the leadership gets far too much credit. In most organizations I have been a part of, they succeed in spite of the leadership, not because of it.

In the case of SpaceX though, I am less sure. Reading the Walter Isaacson biography on Elon Musk was quite fascinating and illuminating about his leadership style. I would never work for him myself, but he does have some really fascinating philosophies.

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

#277

Post by rvnx »

perihelions wrote: post #232

There was an anomaly in the second stage deorbit burn (which did not impact the payload). Falcon is apparently grounded. https://www.space.com/spacex-pause-launches-crew-9-falcon-9-... ( "SpaceX pausing launches to study Falcon 9 issue on Crew-9 astronaut mission" ) - "After today’s successful launch of Crew-9, Falcon 9's second stage was disposed in the ocean as planned, but experienced an off-nominal deorbit burn.…

"the second stage safely landed in the ocean, but outside of the targeted area. We will resume launching after we better understand root cause"

reality: "It crashed somewhere in the ocean, we don't know why but we pretend it was safe, though we just got lucky"

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

#278

Post by eth0up »

samatman wrote: post #49
eth0up wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I cannot upvote comments on HN, I'll clutter the thread by thanking both you and the other fellow who gave pretty good explanations.

It appears you're referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30742539 The most likely explanation of the effect you're observing is that the server, having done a database fetch to get you the profile once, is not interested in doing it over and over again. It's cached. You do not have a uniquely broken upvote button.

No. Definitely no.

I've tested this many times by up-voting predictably stable comments, noting the karma number before and hours later. No effect. No exceptions. Additionally, there was a time where this limitation didn't exist. I am pretty sure I triggered a flag for my tendency to up-vote controversial and underdog content.

I don't think dang is right about everything, but I get the impression that he's honest and expect he'd confirm this limitation on my username. Ask. But I'm not grovelling for equal rights on HN and will make no inquiries to insiders.

Also, if your interpretation was correct, there's this really big parallel contrary reality where the upvote system works and entries are accepted and processed, hence the ever changing karma number of each active user. Perhaps it's the ad blocker, but it's not normal

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

#279

Post by pixl97 »

sobellian wrote: post #273
jamesjyu wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This brings up an interesting question of salary for near-lightspeed travel. Is it Earth's frame of reference, or the astronauts?

Naturally, a firm located in the local frame of reference has a comparative advantage when it comes to employment. Remote work just isn't viable when you can't even agree on simultaneity.

Dear sir

Your packets are too blueshifted for my receiver to decode, please slow down.

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

#280

Post by schiffern »

rvnx wrote: post #277
perihelions wrote: post #232

There was an anomaly in the second stage deorbit burn (which did not impact the payload). Falcon is apparently grounded. https://www.space.com/spacex-pause-launches-crew-9-falcon-9-... ( "SpaceX pausing launches to study Falcon 9 issue on Crew-9 astronaut mission" ) - "After today’s successful launch of Crew-9, Falcon 9's second stage was disposed in the ocean as planned, but experienced an off-nominal deorbit burn.…

"the second stage safely landed in the ocean, but outside of the targeted area. We will resume launching after we better understand root cause" reality: "It crashed somewhere in the ocean, we don't know why but we pretend it was safe, though we just got lucky"

Is it "luck" if you intentionally chose a place smack in the middle of nowhere, such that even an off-nominal reentry will overwhelmingly occur in an extremely sparsely populated area (ie the middle of the ocean)?

Sounds like planning, not luck.

Post reply on HN