Don't get me wrong, I'd jump at the chance to join it. I'd choose it over a routine trip on Starliner, but not for the reason you might be thinking. ... I can't help wondering if Polaris Dawn is both higher risk and reward than a routine trip on Starliner.

[–] llamacoffee@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for sharing the video! I'm always interested in seeing mainstream coverage of this stuff. However, they really don't know what they're talking about. For example, the host says they're going to higher altitudes than the Apollo program, which is just utterly baloney. Really throws a wrench into the credibility of this news outlet, in my view at least.

As for whether this mission is risky, yes it absolutely is. However, all manned space missions are risky and this one doesn't really have anything that makes it fundamentally unsafe.

Look, NASA sets objectives to accomplish its missions to the ISS, and they work with the engineers at SpaceX to figure out how to accomplish them as safely as possible. These Polaris missions are fascinating in that the objectives are set jointly between the SpaceX team and a paying customer.

The customer is interested in a few things, but it probably comes down to fame for doing new things. SpaceX is interested in developing the technologies and raising funds to get to Mars. Where their goals overlap is how we get the Polaris missions. I think that's pretty cool!

[–] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

the host says they’re going to higher altitudes than the Apollo program

Ah, yes, well normally that would be my opportunity to remind people of Gell-Mann amnesia.

But this time it's unfair to the host. Isaacman has made that mistake himself on (I think) multiple occasions. She might have got it from him. (Perhaps indirectly.) Here's one: https://youtu.be/aASZ2rKdS6I?t=1m2s (He meant "since", not "than".)

this one doesn’t really have anything that makes it fundamentally unsafe.

You're probably right, but we'll see. The altitude and the spacewalk are the first big new initiatives for SpaceX's human spaceflight work that haven't been done under close NASA supervision. That's probably a good thing but ... I'm nervous.

Talking of the altitude, this is from the article:

The mission is scheduled to launch between 3:30 and 7 a.m. Eastern Aug. 26 in one of three instantaneous launch windows. Isaacman said the launch times were selected by SpaceX to minimize the micrometeoroid and orbital debris impact risk to the mission given its unconventional orbit.

He said it during the event (which is available to watch here), and I don't think any further explanation was given for why certain launch times are better than others for MMOD. Does anyone understand why? Is it obvious? Any resources I could check out to learn more?

Talking of the article, they still haven't fixed the first sentence!:

spacewalk on a is ready

If Jeff or anyone else from Space News is reading this, hire me as your proofreader!

[–] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

the host says they’re going to higher altitudes than the Apollo program

Ah, yes, well normally that would be my opportunity to remind people of Gell-Mann amnesia.

But this time it’s unfair to the host. Isaacman has made that mistake himself on (I think) multiple occasions. She might have got it from him. (Perhaps indirectly.) Here’s one: https://youtu.be/aASZ2rKdS6I?t=1m2s (He meant “since”, not “than”.)

One source of confusion might be if this crew is planning to be in the highest 'free' orbit of Earth ever occupied by humans. Where I'm using 'free' as a vague way of trying to exclude, for example, the astronauts who were actually on the moon (which is of course orbiting the Earth).

Is that a scientifically/technically legitimate & meaningful distinction? If so, is there a better term for it?