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

NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–166 of 166 posts

Re: NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

#161

Post by FireBeyond »

try_the_bass wrote: post #160
FireBeyond wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason Hogan won the lawsuit against Gawker is because they shared a video and story that was not newsworthy, and unfairly invaded a person's privacy. I have no issue with Hogan winning: "I have many issues, not with Hogan's lawsuit, but Thiel's bankrolling of it".

Generally, when someone with money (Thiel) provides it to help someone with less money (Hogan) achieve a victory over those with more (Gawker), we celebrate it as a positive example of philanthropy. What makes this case different?

Hogan had a deal that was part-ownership of Gawker, entitlements to a share of revenue, and damages, prior to Thiel and his lawyers coming along.

How is that not a victory compared to after? "A fraction of the damages, in bankruptcy" doesn't seem quite comparable.

Re: NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

#162

Post by try_the_bass »

FireBeyond wrote: post #161
try_the_bass wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally, when someone with money (Thiel) provides it to help someone with less money (Hogan) achieve a victory over those with more (Gawker), we celebrate it as a positive example of philanthropy. What makes this case different?

Hogan had a deal that was part-ownership of Gawker, entitlements to a share of revenue, and damages, prior to Thiel and his lawyers coming along. How is that not a victory compared to after? "A fraction of the damages, in bankruptcy" doesn't seem quite comparable.

Depends on what Hogan values, I guess?

[E] Put differently: if I were in Hogan's shoes, and was offered the choice between destroying a shitty publication that went out of their way to expose my personal life in an extremely embarrassing and entirely _not_ newsworthy way; or profiting off that same publication's continued existence? I would absolutely choose the former, because the publication's business model is the problem. Making money off the publication would be _morally_ wrong for me, once given the option of pursuing the destruction of the publication.

Re: NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

#163

Post by NoahKAndrews »

perihelions wrote: post #127
NoahKAndrews wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only one astronaut had a medical issue, the others were taken to the hospital just in case: https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/10/astronaut-hospitalized...

I respectfully disagree. If you are taken to a hospital for medical evaluation, speakers would normally call that a medical issue, in plain English. None of this was routine or normal precaution—a point the article you linked emphasizes: - "Normally, once medical personnel complete their preliminary assessment, crews are flown to shore on a helicopter, then board a NASA airplane for the flight back to Houston. Instea…

I'm saying that one person had a genuine medical issue, and the others appear to have not.

Re: NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

#164

Post by yencabulator »

moffkalast wrote: post #115
throwanem wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A constant-acceleration flight profile would also be a lot faster for interplanetary travel, but is impractical for any known or currently plausible reaction engine: the rocket equation strikes again. Ion or Hall-effect thrusters require only electrical power and so can more or less continuously accelerate, but they produce far too little thrust to provide meaningful pseudogravity. Classically, the way to mitigate th…

It's really interesting/odd that spin gravity stations have not been tested out in practice yet. Everyone just wants to do zero G experiments on their station and nothing else. I think the dual spacecraft with a long cable is really the only practical option, since you get far too much coriolis for it to be bearable otherwise. Remains to be seen if they can make it work with two spacex starships though.

New scifi story idea: two space ships tethered to spin together, Mars-bound on a multi-month trajectory, both carrying crew[1], and one of them has the cliched space horror encounter with nasty alien life -- tell the story mostly from the point of view of the other crew. What to do?

[1]: Cargo can fly cheaper & slower, not worry about radiation exposure.

Re: NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

#165

Post by usea »

leoh wrote: post #146
usea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Social contract" is a term people use to try and bully people into things they never agreed to. Non-imaginary contracts require acceptance. The essential elements of a social contract: - I want it to be true real bad - Other people are forced to comply with it - I dictate the terms unilaterally

What do you mean? It is literally the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

That's not how people use it, such as the person I replied to. There was no consent, explicit or otherwise. They use it to mean "I want things to be this way, so people should be obligated to a rule I made up because 'society'".

Re: NASA remains silent on why crew went to hospital after dragon splashdown

#166

Post by leoh »

usea wrote: post #165
leoh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? It is literally the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

That's not how people use it, such as the person I replied to. There was no consent, explicit or otherwise. They use it to mean "I want things to be this way, so people should be obligated to a rule I made up because 'society'".

Ironic because you just made up your own definition yourself
Post reply on HN