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

Crew-9 Returns to Earth

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 712 posts

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#341

Post by abecedarius »

weberer wrote: post #183
pavlov wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berger is an excellent journalist. He’s very knowledgeable about space topics, has good sources, and has been extremely fair to Musk in the past. When he says it’s a “throne of lies”, a line has been crossed.

>"We're going to stand by for splashdown located in the Gulf of America," she said. >Ah, yes. The Gulf of America. >This is why we can't have nice things. That doesn't sound like an "excellent journalist". It sounds like a Redditor.

Berger wrote two books on SpaceX in a very positive light generally, portraying Musk as extraordinarily driven and capable though not passing over less admirable traits. Berger is not a hater.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#342

Post by avmich »

rdtsc wrote: post #306
overfeed wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the design? What's it made of? Where were the materials sourced? Why? Where was it made? Why? Was it supposed to be marked as potentially containing carcinogenics?

What's the design? -Don't know, it's a simple chair. What's it made of? -Wood and fiber. Where were the materials sourced? -No idea Why? -Why what? Where was it made? -Factory in a town over Why? -Is it the first "why" or a different one? Was it supposed to be marked as potentially containing carcinogenics? -Sorry don't follow this one. It's chair to sit on. I guess you were trying to show that this chair is about ju…

Space can be political or it can be political. Response to Spootnik-level event is political. Gaming with expectable difficulties in space exploration, pointing fingers to the previous administration, is political. But those are different kinds of "political".

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#343

Post by kcplate »

somenameforme wrote: post #302
kcplate wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a hugely complex problem but it basically boils down to a few key things. - could ISS support docking an additional crew dragon for the time it would take to return the starliner crew without adversely disrupting other scheduled spacecraft flow? - could spacex have delivered an additional crew dragon to the ISS and departed before any other without downstream impact to future crew dragon missions? - was…

I think the only question that might be a no is 'was someone willing to pay for all of this.' But I think even that being a 'no' is suggestive of a political motivation, given that the alternative (that "we" ended up going with) was borderline ridiculous in the chaos that it caused. We ended up, for the first time ever, with a Russian cosmonaut was in control of an American spacecraft, and a rookie cosmonaut with onl…

There are stories that Musk was willing to foot the bill. Of course thats easy to say after the other decisions have been made, but my guess is my second point was probably the real no—at least not in a timely or safe enough manner to make the overall future mission disruptions worth it from NASA’s POV.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#344

Post by hysan »

Honest question - when I compare the comments here to other threads that have been presumably flagged for political reasons, the discussions don’t look all that dissimilar. There’s no technical discussion and everything devolves into political chatter. Why are other posts flagged but this one not?

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#345

Post by pavon »

someperson wrote: post #120
pavlov wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Berger is an excellent journalist. He’s very knowledgeable about space topics, has good sources, and has been extremely fair to Musk in the past. When he says it’s a “throne of lies”, a line has been crossed.

Just noting 'throne of lies' is a subheading and not in the body of the article. I don't know how Ars Technica does things, but in some news outlets a separate editor have control over titles and subheading rather than the author of the article.

IIRC Ars has stated that the story author is the ones that writes the headers/subheaders, but they write multiple and A/B testing picks the one to show.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#346

Post by ergocoder »

jasonlotito wrote: post #286

It's important to remember that before Jan 20, 2025, the astronauts had a way home and had not been stranded by anyone. This is known and is a fact. Then, sometime after that date, Musk stranded them. Considering his working relationship with Trump, one can assume that Trump decided that this was acceptable. So, President Trump and Musk stranded them. We know this is true because President Trump and Musk said they we…

Just curious. Why didn't they come back earlier?

Turning 8 days into 9 months seems bad. Really really bad.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#347

Post by seanw444 »

pavlov wrote: post #262
weberer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"We're going to stand by for splashdown located in the Gulf of America," she said. >Ah, yes. The Gulf of America. >This is why we can't have nice things. That doesn't sound like an "excellent journalist". It sounds like a Redditor.

Yeah, instead of evaluating a journalist by looking at over a decade of high-quality work he has done writing about this space, let’s pull up a joke from one article and judge that. Do you realize that you’re the one behaving like a low-quality Redditor here.

> That doesn't sound like an "excellent journalist". It sounds like a Redditor.

We're not talking about their >decade of work. We're talking about this work, and this work sounds like a Redditor.

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#348

Post by [deleted] »

somenameforme wrote: post #330
kenjackson wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the linked article he stated: “For what it is worth, all of the reporting done by Ars over the last nine months suggests the decision to return Wilmore and Williams this spring was driven by technical reasons and NASA's needs on board the International Space Station, rather than because of politics.”

Read the article I linked above, also written by Eric Berger! Butch confirmed Elon's claim that he made an offer to bring them home last year was accurate. So we know that that offer was made, and must have been rejected. What we don't know is why. But the real thing here is that Eric Berger has written extensively about the political games NASA plays or (depending on one's perspective) is compelled to play. They sup…

[deleted]

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#349

Post by concordDance »

esskay wrote: post #267
concordDance wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really fascinating case of words having a venacular meaning that become fuzzy out of their normal domain. Could the astronauts have gone back to Earth in an emergency? Yes. Did they have the freedom to leave earlier? Sortof but not really. Could NASA have paid SpaceX another $200 million for an extra mission to pick up in December/January? Probably. If your car breaks down a couple of miles from home and yo…

This has the same flaw as the other person who replied to me. Using the car anology only works if you also say you've got another car following you at all times, fully fuled and capable of getting you home, in which case, no, you are not stranded. Stranded implies they cant get home. Not that it costs more, or is inconvenient. The litteral definition is "left without the means to move from somewhere".

I'm afraid you'll find far more non-literal uses of "stranded" than you will find literal ones if you looked at how humans actually use words.

In fact, I'd be surprised if even 1 in 100 actual uses of the word in, say, 2023 matched the definition you've given.

"Left by your friends in an empty car park? Well, there's technically an unlocked bicycle over there..."

Re: Crew-9 Returns to Earth

#350

Post by bheadmaster »

walls wrote: post #281
bheadmaster wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? The fact that they didn't return the astronauts implies the last administration's integrity?

Yes, it shows they weren't manipulating NASA for political points.

That does not make sense.

Did they care more about "not manipulating NASA for political points" than about astronauts who were stuck in space for 9 months, with all the harmful effects that it entails?

Post reply on HN