News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by JumpCrisscross on Saturday September 28, 2024 @11:43PM (#41684739)
> if you’re not in danger, you’re not being rescued. You’re just being transported

The ISS isn’t Treasure Island. There is always an elevated degree of peril. Particularly in an emergency condition.

Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by YeahThisIsMe on Sunday September 29, 2024 @03:03AM (#41685450)
But there's no emergency situation at the moment.
Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday September 29, 2024 @04:01AM (#41685677)
> there’s no emergency situation at the moment

It’s space. The ground state is emergency. I am training to be a pilot. Anything going off flight plan is an emergency. If ground control gives me corrective instructions, in the course of a mistake, I hope I will have the humility to not refuse its designation as a rescue.

Like, if you want an Exhibit A for why Boeing doesn’t deserve forward trust, it’s this response.

Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by throwaway290 on Sunday September 29, 2024 @05:01AM (#41685927)
When the ground state is emergency the definition of emergency changes because emergency cannot be the same as ground state...

If we go by technical definition of "emergency" then anything not by the plan is an emergency, but it's not used that way normally and it's not a technical publication.

If you are stuck in space with no lifeboat back then I agree it is an emergency, but they apparently have Starliner and it works. If they or Nasa are more comfortable with another option maybe that makes it an emergency or maybe not.

If it turns out Starliner doesn't work, that's an emergency. If there is radiation event coming then it's an emergency, but it is always an emergency in space regardless.

Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday September 29, 2024 @05:42PM (#41690932)
> they apparently have Starliner and it works

One, had. Starliner went home. Two, they didn’t. Starliner was broken. Its manoeuvring thrusters, a critical reëntry system, were misbehaving. If you’re on a plane and the oxygen system fails, that’s an emergency. You don’t have to wait for cabin pressure to fail for it to qualify, and oxygen systems aren’t even a critical system; this is closer to the flaps or landing gear behaving erratically.

Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by throwaway290 on Monday September 30, 2024 @01:18AM (#41693771)
But the oxygen system is fine, right? Let me check the article again

If it fails then that's an emergency, but that regardless of the presence of the boat.

Noted the absence of Starliner, but not 100% convinced personally

Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by dotancohen on Sunday September 29, 2024 @04:06AM (#41685699)
Actually, NASA protocol requires more than a single layer of safety. The astronauts currently do not have a lifeboat home - that is extraordinarily irregular and I believe that it constitutes a danger to the astronauts. The spacecraft are not only for down transport, they are also shelters for radiation and particle events - which could be declared with days or hours notice. For a month these astronauts have had no viable shelter nor transport in case of emergency.

Danger is not when the last later of safety fails. Danger is when the level of risk exceeds a set threshold - and that level has been exceeded as per NASA protocol.

Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by kedv on Sunday September 29, 2024 @04:32AM (#41685811)
These individuals are professionals who signed up for this and are paid to do the job. This isn’t a rescue; the media is simply sensationalizing the entire story.
Re:SpaceX launches rescue mission for 2 NASA astronauts who ... by JumpCrisscross on Sunday September 29, 2024 @07:03PM (#41691639)
> individuals are professionals who signed up for this and are paid to do the job

Is the thesis only leisure travellers can be rescued? Astronauts do not sign up to fly on faulty ships. They accept the risk of it happening. But that acceptance doesn’t diminish the tragedy of a ship breaking up on reëntry nor, by extension, the emergency status of a reëntry vehicle with misbehaving manoeuvring thrusters.

This discussion reminds me of the reaction among some to the FAA grounding Falcon 9 “after the first stage used in the [August] launch crash-landed and toppled into the Atlantic Ocean while attempting to touch down on a SpaceX droneship” [1]. It doesn’t matter that everyone else tosses their spent stages into the sea. There was a plan and it went abnormally. That calls for a review. If that review can’t be concluded satisfactorily, as it wasn’t in the case of Starliner, you have an emergency. Relieving someone from an emergency is a rescue.

By some of the standards raised in this thread, a test pilot ejected from their plane and stranded in the tundra wouldn’t qualify for rescue because they were paid or weren’t in immediate and obvious mortal peril or because the ejection seat worked.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-falcon-9-grounded-faa-cr...