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

151–160 of 166 posts

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

#151

Post by meowster »

FireBeyond wrote: post #149
try_the_bass wrote: post #133

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. Gawker fucked up, and had a history of fucking up in this exact way, without being held accountable. I think they absolutely deserved to get shut down. Did Thiel take advantage of the situation for the purposes of revenge? Most likely! But at the end of the day, Ga…

> 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".

Is your issue with the people themselves, or is your issue people getting justice when they otherwise could not afford it? If your issue is with the people themselves, is it your opinion that justice should only be reserved for people that you like?

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

#153

Post by rbanffy »

PorterBHall wrote: post #129
sombragris wrote: post #121

Apply Occam's Razor. It could have been something as trivial (?) and embarrassing as a STD.

Plot twist: STDs are endemic in the space station. Turns out low earth orbit is a powerful aphrodisiac, and space agencies have hid this from the general public for years. Now we know more about why billionaires are racing so urgently to get to Mars.

> space agencies have hid this from the general public for years

Nonsense. If that were the case, they'd be shouting it to everyone and NASA would never again be underfunded.

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

#154

Post by TimTheTinker »

trogdor wrote: post #150
TimTheTinker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk is frustrated with government inefficiency, especially with regulatory processes. He has complained multiple times about the approval process for launches and returns. One government agency, he said, at one point required them to do a study that estimated the chances of a re-entering rocket body impacting a gray whale in the event that it splashed down hard -- personally I agree, that is kind of ridiculous.

>One government agency, he said, at one point required them to do a study that estimated the chances of a re-entering rocket body impacting a gray whale in the event that it splashed down hard -- personally I agree, that is kind of ridiculous. Except that’s not actually what happened. See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57423/did-the-u... If you read the relevant portions of SpaceX’s submission to the FA…

This definitely wasn't the FAA.

I think it may have been the NOAA(?) - sorry, I don't remember exactly which agency.

The FAA has required environmental studies, but it's not the only one that has. The answer you linked to didn't look into or take into account requirements from other agencies.

For example: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-author...

But that's not the specific interaction I'm thinking of.

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

#155

Post by FireBeyond »

meowster wrote: post #151
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".

Is your issue with the people themselves, or is your issue people getting justice when they otherwise could not afford it? If your issue is with the people themselves, is it your opinion that justice should only be reserved for people that you like?

Seemed to me like Hogan both could afford it -and- had a possible result in his favor: part ownership of Gawker, revenue sharing, and damages.

Thiel's lawyers seem to have talked him out of it, and in the process, talked him into withdrawing the only claim that would have gotten him the damages he sought.

Either Hogan was paid "under the table" by Thiel, which goes to my point of "facing your accuser", because you're "throwing away" a positive result for someone else's idea of a positive result, or...

Thiel and his lawyers screwed over Hogan, promoting an outcome that was more what Thiel wanted than Hogan.

But for clarity: Fuck Gawker - the world is not poorer for their loss. I just think there's several ethical questions without answers in this instance.

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

#156

Post by trogdor »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #154
trogdor wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One government agency, he said, at one point required them to do a study that estimated the chances of a re-entering rocket body impacting a gray whale in the event that it splashed down hard -- personally I agree, that is kind of ridiculous. Except that’s not actually what happened. See https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/57423/did-the-u... If you read the relevant portions of SpaceX’s submission to the FA…

This definitely wasn't the FAA. I think it may have been the NOAA(?) - sorry, I don't remember exactly which agency. The FAA has required environmental studies, but it's not the only one that has. The answer you linked to didn't look into or take into account requirements from other agencies. For example: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-author... But that's not the specific interaction I'm think…

Without question, it was the FAA. Click the link and read the document.

“At the request of the FAA, SpaceX conducted a literature review of ESA-listed endangered and threatened species with known or presumed distributions in the study area that may be affected by the proposed March 2024 13 FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship Indian Ocean Landings activities.”

It goes on to explicitly reference the (essentially zero) risk of impacting and killing and endangered-species-listed marine mammal on splashdown. It is the interaction described above.

The Endangered Species Act is not a requirement from another agency. It’s the law. Everyone has to follow it.

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

#157

Post by TimTheTinker »

trogdor wrote: post #156
TimTheTinker wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definitely wasn't the FAA. I think it may have been the NOAA(?) - sorry, I don't remember exactly which agency. The FAA has required environmental studies, but it's not the only one that has. The answer you linked to didn't look into or take into account requirements from other agencies. For example: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-author... But that's not the specific interaction I'm think…

Without question, it was the FAA. Click the link and read the document. “At the request of the FAA, SpaceX conducted a literature review of ESA-listed endangered and threatened species with known or presumed distributions in the study area that may be affected by the proposed March 2024 13 FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship Indian Ocean Landings activitie…

I didn't mean the linked thing wasn't the FAA (I did read it). I meant that the incident I'm thinking of wasn't.

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

#158

Post by try_the_bass »

peutetre wrote: post #145
try_the_bass wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming intent that has never been reflected in action. Are you sure you're not just projecting your own assumptions about him? The ones you need to have to justify your apparent hatred of him?

You're confusing hatred with objectivity. Oligarchs aren't subtle or even interesting. It's remarkable how blind people are to the obvious.

No, I'm really not. Your comments are pretty far from being objective. I would suggest you reflect on your last sentence, but perhaps more introspectively.

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

#159

Post by natroniks »

kelnos wrote: post #140
natroniks wrote: post #135

Does anyone know: If deep sea divers need to come back to the surface slowly so their bodies can reacclimate to standard pressure, do astronauts undergo a similar reacclimation process as it pertains to gravity?

The issue with divers is that the extra pressure forces nitrogen bubbles deep into their tissues. If they then come up to surface pressure too quickly, the nitrogen bubbles will essentially "explode" out of their tissues and damage them. So no, this is an entirely different problem.

I can see how it has nothing to do with nitrogen bubbles exploding. But why are you so quick to dismiss the concept? If gravity affects how liquids flow, bone density, and various aspects of human physiology, it stands to reason that a sudden return to earth's gravity could cause internal issues. No?

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

#160

Post by try_the_bass »

FireBeyond wrote: post #149
try_the_bass wrote: post #133

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. Gawker fucked up, and had a history of fucking up in this exact way, without being held accountable. I think they absolutely deserved to get shut down. Did Thiel take advantage of the situation for the purposes of revenge? Most likely! But at the end of the day, Ga…

> 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?

Post reply on HN