Imagine going to space for what you think is 8 days and Boeing messes up so bad you get stuck there for like 8 months instead. Maybe really cool, but maybe a nightmare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Krikalev
He later became the 1st cosmonaut to fly on the US Space Shuttle:
https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/p...
Bear in mind that your statement is very "Hold my beer..." and we're talking about Boeing here. ;)
So it's possible, though unlikely, some chain of events could occur so the Starliner astronauts beat Sergei Krikalev's record.
Part of the reason NASA selected him is because he worked on the Soviet Buran project for a while.
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2024/0...
The schedule is always fluid with rocket launches. Awaiting confirmation.
To be completely honest, the news cycle this summer has been so wild; I kind of forgot they were up there until today. That is something that it seems like they might not have trained the astronauts for, and that's really scary. That and there might be some sort of business politics involved in the plan to get home.
We're all sort of engineers here, given the choice, suppose Boeing thought they could land you next week or you would wait until 2025 and ride a Dragon down. Which would you pick?
This said, yeah, I wouldn’t want to come back on Boeing hardware with Dragon available.
(Of course, I assume the astronauts are allowed to request a change to their schedule if it's for a good reason.)
Common tasks include running tests and maintenance on the station itself and monitoring/performing various science experiments. Perhaps doing a few NASA PR bits, media interviews and short chats with school children over the radio.
I once read an article that said the vast majority of the actual work NASA does is "contingency" work that is never actually ends up being used. The problem is that while a mission is under development (or even well underway), you don't always know how things are going to shake out. So you hedge your bets by doing as much preparation and exploration of alternatives as you can, and try to pick the right one at the right time, or as the situation evolves.
I guarantee there are entire teams on the ground working _right this second_ on a draft schedule for keeping the two "extra" astronauts gainfully contributing to ISS activities, even though it's not certain that they will be there.
This gets said a lot, so I'll bite. Are they really? Many are just people able to go through the years of soul crushing things like being in the military. There are some straight up scientists on board, sure, I'll give that to them. But a lot are science people that are also fine doing things like flying bombing missions over the middle east. Killing tons of people isn't really a thing I respect.
I don't agree with the fetishizing of the service that goes on in some circles, but taking the opposite extreme is not any better. People should be judged on their individual actions.
Yes, but there's no way to change that; it's human nature. Without a military, other countries with strong militaries will happily impose themselves on you: Nazi Germany, Russia/SU, etc. History is full of accounts of what happens when people don't have enough military power to resist invasion by a country of evildoers with their own powerful military.
Similarly, police frequently suck, but the alternative is even worse. There's no shortage of people who would be happy to ignore laws and prey on others if they didn't have to worry about police enforcement.
I think this is a dangerous idea, that humans are just violent and abusive by nature and it's impossible to change. It's something that is learned and taught and passed down, like anything else, which means it can be changed. I'll just quote Thay because he does it so well:
"We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come." Thich Nhat Hanh from Living Buddha, Living Christ
All evidence points to this being the case. We have many millennia of history showing it to be true, over and over.
>It's something that is learned and taught and passed down, like anything else, which means it can be changed.
How and what to eat is also something that is learned and taught and passed down, but it's not something that can be changed without radically changing human physiology.
>and sooner or later we will make new bombs.
Of course, because if you don't, someone else will. Just look at Russia and North Korea.
>To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women.
Good luck with that. As long as people enjoy dominating and exploiting others, it can't change.
We don't even need to look back, Ukraine can tell us all about that today.
Honestly non-physical violence is sometimes overlooked.
Economic decisions cause way more violence is mpre subtle ways.
A new policy in banking or from insurance companies can lead to more deaths than a what an entire branch of the military.
Hell, i think high decisions from Google can cause deaths in prioritizing certain arguments over others.
So i don't think that just begin a part of the system makes you bad, making the decisions does.
The difference with the military is you can be put in prison for behaving this way.
>>Refuse to work for organizations that do unethical things
Is a easy way to ensure that said organizzation won't ever change.
About 3% of American astronauts have died in space, and about 4.5% have died during missions (which includes takeoffs).
"Only" 15% of smokers get lung cancer.
These numbers don't work for me. Yet plenty of smart people are willing to take those odds. I can only conclude that if people smarter than I am are good to go with those stats, then it means they have some kind of built-in optimism that I lack.
Your notion of the military being "soul crushing" is not shared by all people in the military. Starting around the sergeant level there are tons of very interesting problems to solve. Some find it super fulfilling, and certainly many dudes who have been in combat felt it was the only time in their experience to feel really alive.
So for different reasons I come to the same conclusion as you. They aren't really heroes, just people doing something they find compelling. And they measure risk and reward very differently from me.
> Killing tons of people isn't really a thing I respect.
Well, context matters, doesn't it? Sometimes violence is required to solve problems. The US had to kill 700,000 of its own to eliminate slavery. And while Europe lost tens of millions, the US sacrificed over 400,000 helping them out in WWII. Once the Germans attacked Poland and the Japanese attacked us, how would you have solve these problems without violence? Ask Neville Chamberlain how that worked out.
To be fair to Neville, there's an argument that he did the best he could, and was really just buying time because the UK was in no position to go to war with Germany at that point in time.
In part because it didn't bother arming. A decision Berlin likely took note of.
That being said, he wasn't single minded either (e.g. he also mostly followed Chinese principles of not being overly interventionist, unlike the US), and his views did seem to gradually change over time.
But he also said things like: "We have a very large territory and a big population. Atomic bombs could not kill all of us."
Repeatedly.
===
Nazi Germany and Japan weren't deterred at all by military strength either, I don't think? Again ideology overrode every other consideration with WW2? So I'm not sure if "deterrence" really helps prevent major conflicts at all...
Oh, yes they were! Hitler thought the Soviet Army was rotten from top to bottom, thought the British were weak and could be defeated by the Luftwaffe, and thought the US would never fight.
He was right on all three counts, but the Soviets, British, and the US turned themselves into powerhouses.
The Japanese were afraid of the US, and thought they could get the US to stay on the sidelines by knockout out the carriers in Pearl. How wrong they were.
History is littered with these examples. We're seeing it happen in Israel/Palestine as we speak. It's not like the US spent all our money on the military and became a chill, benevolent international partner.
Remember that the war started in 2014, not 2022.
I know that there were relatively minor attacks on Ukraine before.
"It was published on Kremlin.ru shortly after the end of the first of two buildups of Russian forces preceding the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022."
If you think Biden's behavior encourages Putin's aggression, then surely you think Trump's is worse?
"You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?” Trump recounted saying. “No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus...
We had no wars under Trump. Plenty of wars under Biden.
As for Trump's quote, expecting allies to pay the share they agreed to is not weakness, it's strength. And they paid.
If you and I were buddies in combat, that doesn't mean I carry you on my back. It means we watch each other's back. And if either of us didn't, we wouldn't be buddies anymore.
Remember Gaddafi and Reagan? Gadaffi FAFO. Reagan fixed his wagon and there was lasting peace with Gaddafi after that.
The B-17 aircrews in WW2 knew they had only a 20% chance of surviving their mission count intact. (not killed, crippled, or POW'd)
Neil Armstrong figured he only had a 50% chance of surviving Apollo 11. Personally, I think he was optimistic.
And I found a few cases where instructors were assigned to B-17 as a punishment.
Sucks for their families though.
Eight months is well within studied ranges for astronauts.
Nothing permanent or serious [1][2]. (On the other hand, astronauts' telomeres lengthen during spaceflight [3]. We have no idea why.)
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01496-9
I wonder if this is partially the reason (along with great healthcare benefits) why so many Apollo astronauts have live passed the average life expectancy in the US.
The effect reverses within days of return to Earth. The reason astronauts live longer is their physical training more than compensates for the damage done to their bodies in space.
Their physical training as astronauts was likely irrelevant to their lifespan.
...a three hour tour...