8 ms·

Well hmm. NASA decided Starliner wasn't safe enough to use for the return journey, so the astronauts stayed on the ISS until the next ride became available. Or

• gwbas1c 2y ago
  > Is that a rescue? Well, was there an accident? It seems like the astronauts staying extra long is to avoid an accident. Does their need to be an accident to call it a rescue?
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    There was not, considering Starliner landed safely about a month ago. NASA was uncomfortable with the amount of risk in a new vehicle exhibiting anomalous behavior, for its first crewed re-entry. The headline here should be: "US glad to have two separate suppliers for crewed transport"
    • nick3443 2y ago
      Three, if you are willing to count Soyuz. Are we still using Soyuz?
      • philwelch 2y ago
        Yeah, we have an active seat-trading arrangement with the Russians where they send cosmonauts to ride Dragon and we send astronauts to ride Soyuz.
      • dotancohen 2y ago
        Soyuz could not be used to take Jeb and Val back down. Riding a Soyuz requires a custom fitted suit, and though these astronauts had both riden Soyuz in the past, those old measurements are not good enough for a current flight.
• iterance 2y ago
  Following the analogy... you're on an island. A ferry has showed up at the island every six months or so for the last 40 years. The last ferry that showed up broke before it could leave the harbor. No need to worry, though. Another ferry's coming in six months and there are plenty of supplies on the island. Is it rescue? Maybe in the sense that you can't leave when you wanted to and now you have to wait. But not in the sense that you were ever in any real danger. (Admittedly, maybe there is a bit more danger for these astronauts because a malfunctioning spacecraft is inherently a bit of a safety hazard. And the SpaceX operation is certainly not as routine as a ferry showing up at a dock, though it's still safe.) It seems that it is both a bit subjective whether one calls it "rescue," and also a bit sensationalized to put in a headline too.
  • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not in the sense that you were ever in any real danger The analogy breaks down because an island isn’t space. Your default state on an island tends towards remaining alive. Your default state in space is dead. A closer analogy is a plane in flight. It takes energy and effort to keep everyone alive. Externally-assisted recovery from peril, in that situation, is a rescue. Even if it’s convenient.
    • panick21_ 2y ago
      No astronaut has died on ISS in 30 years. Claiming they are in significant danger simply isn't accurate. Saying 'the default state in space is dead' when historically basically nobody has died in space.
      • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > No astronaut has died on ISS in 30 years. Claiming they are in significant danger simply isn't accurate Nobody claimed as much. A jet liner is safer than the ISS. The analogy is conservative. > Saying 'the default state in space is dead' when historically basically nobody has died in space Our default state at cruising altitude is dead. Note: I’m not suggesting anyone would have died. Just that they were in a perilous place where things were going wrong. Being relieved from that position is a rescue.
• hindsightbias 2y ago
  What if NASAs decision was largely influenced by social media hysteria and not objective engineering? Of course NASA would never give into outside pressures - cough, Challenger, cough. And what I read on the internets is so massively factual.
  • anonylizard 2y ago
    Well, that was probably Boeing's line for the MAX disasters, until the second one occurred. Boeing is clearly undergoing systemic collapse in engineering ability, so anything Boeing has to be treated with extreme suspicion. Its like hiring a 3-time-felon to babysit, like you can do it, but there will be 0 tolerance for any deviance.
    • hindsightbias 2y ago
      They build a plane with 15M parts every single day. Their worst engineer is better than 99% of those on HN.
      • fastball 2y ago
        Their worst engineers are the ones responsible for shipping planes + systems that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people. I don't think I'm a fantastic engineer, but I'm certainly doing better than those people when considering the metric of "how many people has my software killed".
        • pferde 2y ago
          You need to add a metric of "how many people can my software kill if it misbehaves", otherwise your point is moot.
          • fastball 2y ago
            Fair point, but I don't think that makes it moot. If you work on software that can kill people, the responsibility is on you to make sure that it doesn't. If you can't, you should self-select out of working on that type of software.
• hinkley 2y ago
  Sells ads I guess. If your friend bails and you get someone else to give you a ride home, they’re getting you or retrieving you. You only call it “rescue” if you’re trying to add some drama to connect with the person who comes to get you. Like a relative, or someone you’re trying to flirt with.
  • beau_g 2y ago
    Agreed, but only in the circumstance that the flirty someone else picks you up from the International Space Station after your other friend bails, otherwise seems like a poor analogy
• manuelmoreale 2y ago
  From the Cambridge dictionary: > Rescue: to help someone or something out of a dangerous, harmful, or unpleasant situation. These are professional, paid astronaut. They both have decades of experience and both have experience being up in space. If I were to bet they’re probably happy to spend more time on the ISS because I doubt they have many more missions left to do in their careers. They’re in no danger. There’s no harm done to them.
  • IshKebab 2y ago
    Of course there is danger. They're in space! Even when things are going to plan it's dangerous.
    • manuelmoreale 2y ago
      If that is your reasoning then they might as well “rescue” all the other astronaut on board the ISS and shut the entire thing down. You’re not rescuing someone from a danger that was already there and part of the mission. Them being “stuck” for a few more months doesn’t make them “in danger” If they weren’t up there now two different astronauts would be up instead of them. And it would be part of a regular mission. Those would not need to be “rescued”
      • kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
        They were in danger because the Crew-8 escape plan exposed them to elevated risk on descent without proper seating or suits that could be connected to the capsule. A loss of pressure would kill them.
• brianshaler 2y ago
  > If there wasn't another ride from the ISS available, would the astronauts be stranded? Yes. Seems like the answer to this would be no. Starliner's risk was elevated, not guaranteed to fail. The presence of a flight-proven option was the limiting factor.
  • eru 2y ago
    > Starliner's risk was elevated, not guaranteed to fail. That's a pretty weird bar to set?
• maxerickson 2y ago
  The thing is that rescue implies they were imperiled by not using Starliner to return. That isn't the case, there has been a way to get them back without Starliner since they got there. Sending this SpaceX capsule up with seats reserved for their return fixes the overall operating tempo, but it doesn't make the 2 astronauts any more or less safe.
  • philipwhiuk 2y ago
    > That isn't the case, there has been a way to get them back without Starliner since they got there. That is pushing it until Crew 9 arrives. It's a set of straps attached to cargo pallets in the luggage compartment of the Crew 8 capsule. It's like jamming a kid in your trunk when you're out of seats. They've never had to use this reserve plan and it was only first dreamt of when Soyuz had issues recently.