I'm wondering whether the astronauts in this situation are excited about getting an extended stay in space without the usual competition for launch opportunities, or are unhappy about it (due to the long separation from family, health effects, the lack of comfort that comes with living on the frontier of what humanity can currently reach, etc.).
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.
I can assure you Butch and Sunny are very happy about getting to spend more time in space. This is also likely their last visit to the ISS. They are both around 60. Older astronauts have gone to the ISS, but if I had to guess they are both probably on their last mission.
If I had to guess, the thing they would dislike the most about the situation is that two previously assigned astronauts scheduled to fly are getting bumped from their mission so that Crew Dragon can fly with two empty seats.
The others blithely assuring you that Wilmore and Williams are happy to have more time in space are wrong.
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.
Last time I read about this, the astronauts absolutely love being in space and will be happy about it. Heck even I would be happy, this is a one in a million experience!
Their assignment was to complete a test flight. They're probably disappointed they won't get to finish the job.
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.
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.
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]
Yea, that's a fair point - not many. It's more of a "monkey brain" response than anything. In orbit you're high off the ground but not really falling... at it, you know?
edit: I may trust the vessel but state changes are where the devil works
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.
To add some context: the astronauts are not "stranded" in space. They are in the international space station. They were supposed to get back on this capsule after a few days stay, but they are now expected to stay in the ISS and get back only in February on SpaceX capsule/vehicle.
Nobody is stranded. At no time does NASA not have a plan to evacuate the space station if there's an emergency. There's currently 7 people aboard and 5 space craft docked, all of which can carry multiple people, all of which can be used to get people off the station.
You’re describing a plan for how to deal with stranded astronauts. If I’m on a road trip and my car breaks down at a gas station, I’m stranded. Even if there are other people and other cars at the gas station, and even if I still have access to emergency services, and even if I have a plan for how to deal with being stranded at a gas station.
I think some of us have a different (and perhaps colloquial) definition of stranded. Like, on a deserted island with no practical way home until some random ship happens to come by.
Stranded means you have no means for moving from where you are, or really no practical/acceptable means (you could swim off a deserted island for instance, but that probably wouldn't be considered a practical means of moving off the island).
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.
There is no emergency that would require launching a rocket. They have craft docked to the space station at all times that they can return to Earth on at a moment’s notice.
I thought about this overnight and isn’t the real problem that nobody is saying is that NASA never wants less than 1 re-entry module on even an empty ISS, so that if god forbid they had to evacuate everyone for any reason other than a dead station, that the next crew has two ways to get home?
So even though everyone fits in the existing modules there is no spare if they let these two go home.
That's not context. It's apologia and Boeing propaganda. An 8 day mission turning into a 6 month mission that can only end because a completely different company brings them home is the 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.
Had zero intentions of defending Boeing (or anyone else) here. I made a mistake about the meaning of “stranded” in my comment. What I should have said is “they are not stranded in space like how the two main characters in the film ‘Gravity’ were stranded”.
Mistake made, lessons learnt. Apologies.
As per the article, the SpaceX vehicle due for launch later this month will only carry two of the four astronauts originally planned. The two empty seats will be used by the two delayed-return astronauts when the vehicle returns in February.
That's the intended return vehicle, but "lifeboat" refers to how they will get home if they suddenly need to leave the station due to an emergency now (before the SpaceX vehicle launches).
Stranded: Left without the means to move from somewhere.
If you are stranded on an island, it implies you have no means of return. They have a means, to return on the same capsule. They also could return on another capsule. NASA decided to not take the risk, as there are other less risky options available.
If there were no other options, NASA would send the back on Starliner, and it would still likely be much safer than something like the space shuttle
Nobody plays these semantic games with the word stranded in any context other than Starliner. If somebody's car breaks down they can fairly claim they were stranded even though they could call an uber or even hitchhike and nobody pisses and moans about them not truly being stranded according to some dictionary definition of the word. Boeing has made you their PR bitch.
Sorry to hear your privileged existence never had to rent a car last minute and drive 13 hours, Steve Martin and John Candy style. Because I certainly have.
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.