Hacker News Reader

Comment by jp_nc | Hacker News Reader

[dead]

They’re still figuring out what happened. When they know, we’ll know. NASA does not have authority to unilaterally release medical information of its astronauts, so there’s nothing to say until the problem is identified.

- "NASA does not have authority to unilaterally release medical information of its astronauts"

Just to clarify—and I'm not denying her right to choose to do that—the person quoted in the article as citing "medical privacy" is one of the astronauts who was hospitalized.

You’re honestly telling me, an astronaut who’s been on nasa tv talking about bodily functions in space with school kids for 6 months, suddenly clams up and doesn’t want anyone to know they got hurt when the SpaceX seatbelt failed?

Yes, especially when the possible injury may mean the end of thier career as a flying astronaut, which could be an issue here.

you're right. no use making statements that only raise more quesitons

Where does he say they don’t know what happened? He said they’re piecing things together, i.e. they’re still working on their story.

That's not what those words mean.

Sorry, but there's nothing about the NASA space program which has a "deal" to be transparent with the tax payer.

From being involved with high altitude spy planes and stealth planes during the Cold war through to thinking about the many satellites that are put into space that relates to national security and even the clandestine space plane, we have no idea what it's for...

There is simply no precedent to be upset about a lack of transparency from NASA. Some of that is national security. Some of that is to protect IP. Some of it is just because of the way governments work.

Factor in that actually it may relate to a private company's operational issue (SpaceX) there's even less reason for transparency.

I don't think we will ever know

Yes there is. It is called a social contract.

Maybe it’s simply none of your damn business.

"Social contract" is a term people use to try and bully people into things they never agreed to. Non-imaginary contracts require acceptance.

The essential elements of a social contract:

- I want it to be true real bad

- Other people are forced to comply with it

- I dictate the terms unilaterally

What do you mean? It is literally the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

That's not how people use it, such as the person I replied to. There was no consent, explicit or otherwise. They use it to mean "I want things to be this way, so people should be obligated to a rule I made up because 'society'".

Ironic because you just made up your own definition yourself

Reply on news.ycombinator.com