Stranded astronauts' capsule heads home without them
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
This quote:
> “They understand the importance now of moving on and... getting the vehicle back safely.”
makes me think they aren't too happy about this outcome.
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
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.
edit: I may trust the vessel but state changes are where the devil works
The mission ended in disaster when the crew capsule depressurised during preparations for re-entry, killing the three-person crew.[9] The three crew members of Soyuz 11 are the only humans to have died in space.[b][10]
As astronauts I can't imagine they're too upset over the prospect of more time in space. I'm sure the timing inconveniences medium-term plans they had, and is a pain in the a* from that perspective, but in their line of work you know how to expect the unexpected and roll with new circumstances. I'm sure their loved ones are glad their safety is being considered foremost.
The Starliner crew had to go manual while approaching ISS because the autonomous docking software couldn't handle the five failed thrusters.
Watch the crew entering ISS. Williams is very, very, very happy to have survived the ascent. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsURePrNTx0>
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 the shuttle era.
It's one thing to have a mission extended by a day, as happened to the shuttle routinely because of bad weather at the landing site. Skylab 4's mission I believe got extended by 28 days, but that was a known possibility before launch. To have an eight-day mission be extended to *eight months* is in no way shape or form OK.
Wilmore is going to miss his 30th wedding anniversary and other family events. <https://www.wvlt.tv/2024/08/09/family-reacts-tennessee-astro...> To those who think otherwise, do you really think he is thrilled by that? Really?
I wonder how long before they can diagnose what happened.
It did land where it was supposed to, on a designated landing site in the desert, so the re-entry guidance system did its job. This is an improvement over water landings.
Equally, until Dragon arrives, they have to means of escape, if there's either issues with the station or with their health.
NASA mist have concluded that the latter is a smaller risk than the Starliner, which I guess says something about how high they though the danger is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjiv_Mehta_(British_busine...
The answer is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41470523
So even though everyone fits in the existing modules there is no spare if they let these two go home.
Boeing has stranded these astronauts on the ISS because it has no (acceptable) means of bringing them down, and the astronauts themselves have no personal means for doing so. If they want to become un-stranded then somebody will need to arrange the means for them to come down.
That doesn't mean that it's impossible for somebody else to provide those means, or that the means simply don't exist in any capacity. But they meet both the dictionary and common colloquial 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 semantic defense.
Why are you defending Boeing here?