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

Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#51

Post by 6nf »

thegrim33 wrote: post #17
creativeSlumber wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the definition of being stranded. They wouldn't have stayed back if they could have gone with the vehicle.

Nobody is stranded. At no time does NASA not have a plan to evacuate the space station if there's an emergency. There's currently 7 people aboard and 5 space craft docked, all of which can carry multiple people, all of which can be used to get people off the station.

There's 9 people on board the ISS right now. The Dragon can take 4. The Suyoz can take 3. The other capsules are not designed for crew.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#52

Post by 6nf »

idontwantthis wrote: post #25
ed_mercer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an emergency, can they really prep and launch a rocket quickly? Are we talking hours/days/week/months?

There is no emergency that would require launching a rocket. They have craft docked to the space station at all times that they can return to Earth on at a moment’s notice.

No they don't. Dragon takes 4, Soyuz takes 3, 9 people on the ISS, none of the other pods are rated for crewed missions.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#53

Post by ravjo »

jmyeet wrote: post #19
ravjo wrote: post #2

To add some context: the astronauts are not "stranded" in space. They are in the international space station. They were supposed to get back on this capsule after a few days stay, but they are now expected to stay in the ISS and get back only in February on SpaceX capsule/vehicle.

That's not context. It's apologia and Boeing propaganda. An 8 day mission turning into a 6 month mission that can only end because a completely different company brings them home is the definition of "stranded". That's like saying that after 9/11 when all flights were grounded and you, as a New Yorker, weren't "stranded" in London because, hey, you could always row a boat back. It's such a weird and meaningless seman…

Had zero intentions of defending Boeing (or anyone else) here. I made a mistake about the meaning of “stranded” in my comment. What I should have said is “they are not stranded in space like how the two main characters in the film ‘Gravity’ were stranded”. Mistake made, lessons learnt. Apologies.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#54

Post by __m »

TMWNN wrote: post #44
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #8

I'm wondering whether the astronauts in this situation are excited about getting an extended stay in space without the usual competition for launch opportunities, or are unhappy about it (due to the long separation from family, health effects, the lack of comfort that comes with living on the frontier of what humanity can currently reach, etc.). This quote: > “They understand the importance now of moving on and... ge…

The others blithely assuring you that Wilmore and Williams are happy to have more time in space are wrong. Yes, flying in space is cool. No, most people don't want to do this indefinitely. Astronauts retire all the time even when they are 100% guaranteed more flight time if they didn't retire; a whole bunch did that in the 1960s and 1970s (some, like Frank Borman, 100% guaranteed to walk on the moon), and more during…

They literally risk their life to go to space, I’m sure they‘ll be fine with it.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#55

Post by lupusreal »

KyleBerezin wrote: post #26
lupusreal wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Stranded: Left without the means to move from somewhere. If you are stranded on an island, it implies you have no means of return. They have a means, to return on the same capsule. They also could return on another capsule. NASA decided to not take the risk, as there are other less risky options available. If there were no other options, NASA would send the back on Starliner, and it would still likely be much safer t…

Nobody plays these semantic games with the word stranded in any context other than Starliner. If somebody's car breaks down they can fairly claim they were stranded even though they could call an uber or even hitchhike and nobody pisses and moans about them not truly being stranded according to some dictionary definition of the word. Boeing has made you their PR bitch.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#56

Post by verzali »

throwup238 wrote: post #33
bravetraveler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stuff like this is so politically loaded it's hard to say. Defending from at least 12 different angles! Were it me, I'd be conflicted for the obvious reasons. Yay, more time in space. Can do the rare part. Oh no, more time in space - danger. I'm not an astronaut though - they've been selected for certain behavior

> Oh no, more time in space - danger. Has anyone ever died in space (as in above the von Karman line)? The danger is on launch and reentry, which is the risk this delay is trying to mitigate. Even the worst space accident (Apollo 13) ended up returning safely.

Well no, but space is dangerous. Reentry and launch may be more dangerous, but we still go to enormous efforts to keep astronauts in space safe.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#57

Post by verzali »

6nf wrote: post #52
idontwantthis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no emergency that would require launching a rocket. They have craft docked to the space station at all times that they can return to Earth on at a moment’s notice.

No they don't. Dragon takes 4, Soyuz takes 3, 9 people on the ISS, none of the other pods are rated for crewed missions.

Dragon can carry an extra two if necessary in an emergency.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#58

Post by idontwantthis »

hinkley wrote: post #48
idontwantthis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no emergency that would require launching a rocket. They have craft docked to the space station at all times that they can return to Earth on at a moment’s notice.

And they are not using one of those because…

Because more than 2 of them would need to come back to Earth.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#59

Post by hinkley »

idontwantthis wrote: post #58
hinkley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they are not using one of those because…

Because more than 2 of them would need to come back to Earth.

I thought about this overnight and isn’t the real problem that nobody is saying is that NASA never wants less than 1 re-entry module on even an empty ISS, so that if god forbid they had to evacuate everyone for any reason other than a dead station, that the next crew has two ways to get home?

So even though everyone fits in the existing modules there is no spare if they let these two go home.

Re: Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them

#60

Post by idontwantthis »

hinkley wrote: post #59
idontwantthis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because more than 2 of them would need to come back to Earth.

I thought about this overnight and isn’t the real problem that nobody is saying is that NASA never wants less than 1 re-entry module on even an empty ISS, so that if god forbid they had to evacuate everyone for any reason other than a dead station, that the next crew has two ways to get home? So even though everyone fits in the existing modules there is no spare if they let these two go home.

Yes exactly.
Post reply on HN