3 ms·

> at some point, one needs to say "yes" and take risks I'm wondering how the two astronauts on the ISS feel about that while Boeing decides if/when it is safe

> at some point, one needs to say "yes" and take risks I'm wondering how the two astronauts on the ISS feel about that while Boeing decides if/when it is safe to return then to Earth. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/18/science/boeing-starliner-astronaut-mission-return-delay-scn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/18/science/boeing-starliner-astr...

recursive 2y ago
Presumably about the same as they did prior to their first launch. Space travel is not like commercial air travel. This is part of the deal.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  Hard disagree. The idea that the machinery your life will depend on might be made with half-assed safety in mind is definitely not part of the deal. Astronauts (and anyone intelligent who intentionally puts themselves in a life-threatening situation) have a more nuanced understanding of risk than can be represented by a single % risk of death number. "I'm going to space with the best technology humanity has to offer keeping me safe" is a very different risk proposition from "I'm going to space in a ship with known high-risk safety issues".
  - iamthirsty 2y ago
    > Hard disagree. The idea that the machinery your life will depend on might be made with half-assed safety in mind is definitely not part of the deal. It's definitely built in. The Apollo LM was .15mm thick aluminum, meaning almost any tiny object could've killed them. The Space Shuttle flew with SSRB's that were solid-fuel and unstoppable when lit. Columbia had 2 ejection seats, which were eventually taken out and not installed on any other shuttle. Huge risk is inherently the deal with space travel, at least from its inception until now.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      Without links to more information on these engineering decisions, I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate whether these are serious risks, and I don't believe you are either. I tend to listen to engineers.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > the best technology humanity has to offer keeping me safe Nobody can afford the best technology humanity has to offer. As one adds more 9's to the odds of success, the cost increases exponentially. There is no end to it.
    - Timwi 2y ago
      If nobody can afford it, then it's not on offer.
      - recursive 2y ago
        How about this. Humanity can only offer the best once. Because we will have spent the sum total of human output delivering the first one.
        kerkeslager 2y ago
        How about we make an effort to understand each others' intent instead of pedantically nitpicking each other's wording.
        recursive 2y ago
        I'm in favor. "The best humanity has to offer" seems like a slippery concept. If something goes wrong in retrospect, you can always find a reason that it wasn't the "best". How would you determine if a thing X is the best? How do you know the best is a very different thing from a "high risk" scenario?
        kerkeslager 2y ago
        That phrasing wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's an American expression. "The best humanity has to offer" just means that people put in a good faith effort to obtain the best that they were capable of obtaining given the resources they had. It's a fuzzy concept because there aren't necessarily objective measures of good, but I think we can agree that, for example, Boeing isn't creating the best products humanity has to offer at the moment, because they have a recent history of obvious problems being ignored. > How do you know the best is a very different thing from a "high risk" scenario? Going to space is inherently a high risk scenario. As for whether what you have is the best you can have: you hire subject experts and listen to them. In the case of Challenger, the subject experts said that the launch should be delayed for warmer temperatures--the best humanity had to offer in that case was delaying the launch for warmer temperatures.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

recursive 2y ago

Presumably about the same as they did prior to their first launch. Space travel is not like commercial air travel. This is part of the deal.

kerkeslager 2y ago
Hard disagree. The idea that the machinery your life will depend on might be made with half-assed safety in mind is definitely not part of the deal. Astronauts (and anyone intelligent who intentionally puts themselves in a life-threatening situation) have a more nuanced understanding of risk than can be represented by a single % risk of death number. "I'm going to space with the best technology humanity has to offer keeping me safe" is a very different risk proposition from "I'm going to space in a ship with known high-risk safety issues".
- iamthirsty 2y ago
  > Hard disagree. The idea that the machinery your life will depend on might be made with half-assed safety in mind is definitely not part of the deal. It's definitely built in. The Apollo LM was .15mm thick aluminum, meaning almost any tiny object could've killed them. The Space Shuttle flew with SSRB's that were solid-fuel and unstoppable when lit. Columbia had 2 ejection seats, which were eventually taken out and not installed on any other shuttle. Huge risk is inherently the deal with space travel, at least from its inception until now.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    Without links to more information on these engineering decisions, I don't think I'm qualified to evaluate whether these are serious risks, and I don't believe you are either. I tend to listen to engineers.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > the best technology humanity has to offer keeping me safe Nobody can afford the best technology humanity has to offer. As one adds more 9's to the odds of success, the cost increases exponentially. There is no end to it.
  - Timwi 2y ago
    If nobody can afford it, then it's not on offer.
    - recursive 2y ago
      How about this. Humanity can only offer the best once. Because we will have spent the sum total of human output delivering the first one.
      - kerkeslager 2y ago
        How about we make an effort to understand each others' intent instead of pedantically nitpicking each other's wording.
        recursive 2y ago
        I'm in favor. "The best humanity has to offer" seems like a slippery concept. If something goes wrong in retrospect, you can always find a reason that it wasn't the "best". How would you determine if a thing X is the best? How do you know the best is a very different thing from a "high risk" scenario?
        kerkeslager 2y ago
        That phrasing wasn't meant to be taken literally. It's an American expression. "The best humanity has to offer" just means that people put in a good faith effort to obtain the best that they were capable of obtaining given the resources they had. It's a fuzzy concept because there aren't necessarily objective measures of good, but I think we can agree that, for example, Boeing isn't creating the best products humanity has to offer at the moment, because they have a recent history of obvious problems being ignored. > How do you know the best is a very different thing from a "high risk" scenario? Going to space is inherently a high risk scenario. As for whether what you have is the best you can have: you hire subject experts and listen to them. In the case of Challenger, the subject experts said that the launch should be delayed for warmer temperatures--the best humanity had to offer in that case was delaying the launch for warmer temperatures.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]