[HN Gopher] Astronaut Thomas Stafford has died
___________________________________________________________________
Astronaut Thomas Stafford has died
Author : jnord
Score : 151 points
Date : 2024-03-19 13:00 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P._Stafford
| I-M-S wrote:
| That leaves seven Apollo astronauts still alive, the youngest of
| whom are 88. I'm not sure how likely it is that any of them will
| see humans walk the Moon again.
| jjice wrote:
| I guess I shouldn't be surprised since they were picked
| partially for health, but seven with the youngest being 88 is a
| great lifespan for them.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| There were once 24 of them, and by definition they were old
| enough to be astronauts 52 years ago. [0] suggests that for a
| 36 year old now the median age of death is 76; I don't see a
| spread but it shouldn't be surprising to see 1/3 outlast that
| by 12 years.
|
| [0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
| Retric wrote:
| There's a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on the
| moon reasonably soon.
|
| Artemus 3 is scheduled for September 2026, that can clearly
| slip but a 2.5 year deadline suggests it is unlikely to slip
| that far or get canceled.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_3 IMO 80% chance it
| happens within 6 years and 95% chance they actually land on the
| moon successfully.
|
| Without a firm date it's hard to have a specific plan, but it
| may be worth actually going and seeing that launch.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Artemus 3 is scheduled for September 2026, that can clearly
| slip but a 2.5 year deadline suggests it is unlikely to slip
| that far or get canceled.
|
| Artemis has failed to meet a single deadline since its
| inception, and has cost more than all public and private
| investment into SpaceX for the last 20 years combined. We are
| paying more for a single (disposable) SLS engine than the
| cost of an entire Falcon 9 launch. The whole thing is a
| farce.
| glimshe wrote:
| Cost overruns are a staple of government-led programs.
| Also, the government has very deep pockets (and plenty of
| credit) and should be able to deal with the costs as long
| as it remains a priority in our image competition with
| China.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Cost and schedule overruns are a staple of developing new
| technology and complex systems. It's very difficult to
| estimate time and budget for those things.
| nordsieck wrote:
| >Cost and schedule overruns are a staple of developing
| new technology and complex systems. It's very difficult
| to estimate time and budget for those things.
|
| I'd be more sympathetic if SLS had more new technology.
|
| They're using actual engines that previously flew on
| Shuttles.
|
| And sure - there's a few changes - the SRBs have 5
| segments, there's new insulation, etc. But nothing that
| should have caused the expense and delay that we're
| seeing.
|
| Heck - the cost overruns and delays with the mobile
| launch platforms ML-1 and ML-2 are absurd and there's
| absolutely nothing new there - they're just steel towers
| with piping.
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| My initial response is of course to agree with you. But
| then I reflect on how impossible it would have been for
| SpaceX to succeed without the support of NASA (and other
| agencies). NASA is a political organization consisting of
| its headquarters in Washington, D.C. together with 10 field
| centers [1]. While this unnecessary scattering and
| distribution of effort is itself a reflection of pork
| barrel spending, it has been what has been necessary to
| galvanize the support of constituent American
| representatives to approve the relatively meager NASA
| budget.
|
| Similarly the Artemis program is the very compromise those
| ever-changing representatives and administrations can agree
| on, together with its cost plus method of budgeting, to
| keep jobs in districts and re-election coffers full. I
| remind myself I need to embrace that rather than be cynical
| about it. Democracy is hard.
|
| I'm at a point now where I realize how essential the
| Artemis program is to the ongoing support for SpaceX by
| NASA. The program will change a LOT more based on both
| every success SpaceX has with Starship and any further
| ongoing failure of Boeing (please no!). IMO I feel we need
| to wish NASA, SpaceX (and Blue Origin) and yes even Boeing
| the very best or something even better. I am awed at the
| political deftness with which NASA is transitioning away
| from cost plus and has engaged the private sector.
|
| [1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/hq/nasa-
| center-a...
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Artemis has a higher risk of being cancelled or fundamentally
| restructured than delays.
| mhaberl wrote:
| >> I'm not sure how likely it is that any of them will see
| humans walk the Moon again.
|
| > There's a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on
| the moon
|
| Chance that a 88 year old male will live 6 more years is
| about 27% according to the tables [1]
|
| So, a chance that at least one of those 7 lives 6 more years
| is about 89% (a bit less because some are older than 88), but
| that is the ballpark figure
|
| I would call that more than a good chance :)
|
| [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
| vijayr02 wrote:
| Now adjust for the fact that these are all ex astronauts,
| so will probably be fitter than the average 88 year old? Is
| there data for life expectancy given astronaut?
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| Top comment says there's 7 astronauts still alive the
| youngest being 88? That's all already way beyond the norm
| I think.
| keybored wrote:
| Literal survivorship bias. There were 24 originally and
| this was more than 50 years ago.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Astronauts in the 1960s were required to be perfectly
| healthy before their mission, not even minor anomalies in
| bloodwork etc. were tolerated. No surprise that a third
| of the moonwalkers is still alive at approximately 90.
|
| Nowadays the tolerance is somewhat bigger.
| keybored wrote:
| Fine point which has nothing to do with my comment.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Not to mention when you understand so much about the
| bodies physiology, its probably hard to allow yourself to
| fall out of shape considering you know better than most
| what that means.
| keybored wrote:
| There are doctors who smoke... it is known. ;)
|
| EDIT: And then an anecdote: a nurse student told me that
| almost all of her co-students consume tobacco. Hmm.
| ownlife wrote:
| 7 out of 24 - just under 1/3 - making it to or past 88 is
| probably higher than average. More also made it past 88
| but are dead now.
| keybored wrote:
| And only considering the survivors is still survivorship
| bias.
| seanhunter wrote:
| No it's not.
|
| We have no interest in the question of whether the apollo
| astronauts who have already died will be alive when a
| human next walks on the moon.
|
| The question is of the apollo astronauts who are still
| alive, what is the probability that they will still be
| alive when a human next walks on the moon.
|
| The population under consideration is only astronauts who
| are alive now.
|
| Survivorship bias would only be involved if you were
| considering some question that involved all apollo
| astronauts eg for example if we used the population who
| are alive now to make a prediction as of the completion
| of the programme.
| Retric wrote:
| This isn't survivorship bias, just imperfect information
| being sufficient. Will anyone be alive at X date can
| ignore the dead from the population as irrelevant.
|
| The second question if they are an unusually healthy or
| sick group doesn't need to look at the dead either. Only
| ~20 percent of 35 year old men live to 88. Having at
| least 7 men out of 24 reaching that age is already an
| long lived group, though not necessarily statistically
| significant.
|
| Looking at the full numbers gives a more precise number,
| but 12 of 24 vs 7(+) making it to 88 doesn't change the
| result. Further, even if it was exactly 7 of 24 again the
| answer doesn't change.
| hoorayimhelping wrote:
| Also, it's worth noting that Apollo astronauts are not
| average-health men. They were selected for their extreme
| outlier health attributes, which is why so many of them
| live so long.
| embedded_hiker wrote:
| Jim Irwin, who walked ( and rode a car ) on the moon on
| Apollo 15, and had some heart problems while on the moon.
| He was obviously healthy before. He ended up having
| several heart attacks, and died at age 61. He is an
| outlier in this regard, and there will always be
| speculation as to whether the strain of walking on the
| moon damaged his heart.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Irwin
| somenameforme wrote:
| We're taking Boeing's ability to screw things up, NASA's
| extreme risk aversion, and then mixing them up together in
| a blender that includes untested technology, the first
| humans out of low orbit in more than half a century, and
| NASA's desire to make a huge spectacle out of it all -
| including identity politics.
|
| IMO there's a high probability that a human landing via
| Artemis ultimately never happens. This isn't the NASA of
| the 60s that's happy to send a few guys up to the Moon
| while simultaneously also already having a memorial speech
| commemorating their deaths written and on standby. They're
| going to want to be near to 100% assured that the mission
| will be safely executed, and I simply don't think you can
| get anywhere near to that in practice.
|
| For the exact same reasons, it's also unlikely that Artemis
| 2 will go ahead. And that launch is scheduled for as early
| as the end of next year. So it should be an early indicator
| of things to come, or not to come.
| dotancohen wrote:
| As a huge fan of the Apollo program for decades, and the
| Artemis program now, it pained me to upvote your comment.
| But you are 100% correct on every point you mention.
| Retric wrote:
| It's wildly pessimistic, Artemis 1 went just fine.
| Suggesting Artemis 2 is going to be canceled at this
| point with nothing to back it up is just pessimism
| without justification.
| Eliezer wrote:
| Prediction markets seem to think 2028.
| https://manifold.markets/plsdelete/when-will-humans-set-
| foot...
| dagoodnews wrote:
| > There's a good chance some or all 7 will see people walk on
| the moon reasonably soon.
|
| Yes. And SpaceX was supposed to fly the japanese entrepreneur
| around the moon in 2023.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-moon-announcement-
| elon-m...
|
| Considering that just a fly-by to the moon is being delayed,
| I'd imagine that actually landing men on the moon is going to
| be delayed as well.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| PRC's planning on 2030: https://spacenews.com/china-sets-
| sights-on-crewed-lunar-land...
| nkoren wrote:
| The requisite XKCD: https://xkcd.com/893/
| londons_explore wrote:
| So if I'm reading that right, we're well above the 95th
| percentile...
| InitialLastName wrote:
| There are only 4 alive who have walked on the moon, so
| right about at the 95th percentile.
| samstave wrote:
| Do these things just come to him in his dreams? Maybe his
| Fiance who passed is sending him info beyond the grave...
|
| Never fails to impress...
|
| However, would you think the term "another world" == the
| Moon? Isnt the Moon intrinsically a part of _this_ world?
|
| Another Globe would be more accurate.
| natebc wrote:
| FWIW his fiancee was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer,
| they married a few months later and AFAICT is still on a
| Lane(1) going forward.
|
| 1) https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/931:_Lanes
| saalweachter wrote:
| At the very least, we have https://www.explainxkcd.com/wi
| ki/index.php/2386:_Ten_Years
| cgriswald wrote:
| I don't believe I have seen anyone use "world" to also
| include the Moon. Do you have an example?
|
| Generally moons are not considered part of the same "world"
| as their planets:
|
| "All these worlds are yours except Europa."
| japhyr wrote:
| For anyone interested in the story of the astronauts who went
| to the moon, Moondust is a great read. In the early 2000s (if I
| remember right), the author traveled around the world to visit
| each of the living men who had set foot on the moon. He asks
| them about their experiences, both on the moon and in the time
| since the moon missions ended. Some of them treat him like any
| interviewer, but toward the end as they realize he has actually
| connected all of their stories once again, they share a bit
| more than what comes out in typical interviews.
|
| It's a wonderful blending of life in the world at that time,
| the story of our collective quest to reach the moon, and the
| individual stories of humans who actually went there.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Moondust-Search-Men-Fell-Earth/dp/006...
| philomath_mn wrote:
| Great recommendation!
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I read that one and it was excellent.
|
| The author talks also about the times, the era of the moon
| landings -- and he had an interesting aside in the book that
| stuck with me about Elvis Presley (of all people):
|
| ---- snip ----
|
| Always Elvis-sceptic, I once asked the photographer Alfred
| Wertheimer, one of the last to be allowed real access to the
| singer, why the girls in the crowd were crying--whether the
| tears were part of an act. He told me:
|
| "Well, I think it was the fact that we'd been through this
| rigid Eisenhower era. Everything was cutsie-pie crinoline
| skirts and 'How Much Is That Doggy in the Window?'; the girls
| knew their place and they weren't women's libbers yet;
| everything was very tightly organized. Then along comes a guy
| like Elvis ... he'd go onstage into a darkened auditorium,
| where there would be maybe 4,000 people -- mostly young
| ladies, a few boys and then a few police, who were there just
| to make sure nothing 'dirty' was happening. From the very
| start, Elvis is focused on the girls and they're in love with
| his hair and the way he curls his lip. And he talks to them
| and then he begins to sing and he lets it all hang out. His
| hair, which was immaculate, starts coming down and the sweat
| comes down--and do you think he stops to mop his brow or
| sweep his hair back up? No. He gets down on his knees, then
| gets back up: he is so revealing, so unconscious of his own
| body movements that all of a sudden the girls look at each
| other, after all the years of holding everything in, and they
| cry.
|
| "They're not putting it on the way you'd see girls doing in
| later years: they're not screaming or jumping up and down,
| just holding each other and crying."
|
| ---- snip ----
| TMWNN wrote:
| Stafford had an interesting career. Having flown twice on Gemini
| then commanding Apollo 10, he would have had first pick for
| commanding a lunar landing (probably Apollo 16, which his 10
| crewmate Young commanded) had he wanted it. But Stafford was very
| much a test pilot, so it's understandable that he would be more
| interested in the novelty of Apollo-Soyuz and its androgynous
| docking mechanism, as opposed to doing something he'd already
| done 80% of and others had done 100% of.
|
| I think he's also the first general officer from the NASA
| astronaut corps.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > I think he's also the first general officer from the NASA
| astronaut corps.
|
| Apparently he was made a 1* (Brigadier General) to have similar
| rank with Alexei Leonov, the Soviet commander of the Apollo-
| Soyuz mission. After that mission he continued to be promoted
| up through the ranks.
| TMWNN wrote:
| Stafford's first star might have been a little early because
| of Apollo-Soyuz, but given that he was the first in his Naval
| Academy class to receive first, second, and third stars, I am
| sure he would have made general officer regardless.
|
| Making flag rank pulled Stafford away from NASA. Not that he
| would not have wanted to make flag rank, but becoming a
| general meant that he had to accept command
| responsibilities.[1] After Apollo-Soyuz Stafford went from
| NASA to being in charge of the entire USAF air test program,
| including his former test pilot school, so very much in his
| wheelhouse. But that also meant that he would not fly the
| space shuttle. I think Young made the opposite decision:
| Retire from the Navy as captain, stay with NASA as civilian
| astronaut, and fly the shuttle (the first mission, STS-1, and
| a later one).
|
| There was a severe shortage of experienced astronauts in the
| late 1970s and early 1980s, <https://np.reddit.com/r/nasa/com
| ments/nx4hh4/who_would_have_...> and NASA would have loved to
| have Stafford still in the astronaut corps. I bet Stafford in
| turn envied both Young and Joe Engle; the latter flew the
| shuttle on the pre-launch ALT tests, then used his X-15
| experience to hand fly a hypersonic reentry on STS-2. Really,
| the _ne plus ultra_ of test piloting.
|
| [1] Another example of this is Bob Stewart.
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Stewart>
| usr1106 wrote:
| Is this the reason HN has a darker background today?
|
| (Well, haven't used this phone for while to read HN but I am
| pretty sure something looks different.)
| SpaceFarmer wrote:
| When I was a sophomore in college and working an internship, I
| met a guy down the street who said he used to work for NASA. I
| was very interested in what he had done at NASA, and space in
| general. The next time I ran into him he gave me two photos,
| autographed to me by Thomas Stafford! One is him standing in
| front of the Saturn V, and the other is the picture of earth he
| took while flying around the moon. I was so blown away! They are
| hanging on my wall right now. Really meant a lot to me. The guy
| that gave me the photos and now Tom aren't alive anymore, but
| I'll treasure these photos and pass them to my kids.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| May his legacy be long remembered...
|
| There are relatively very few Astronauts living among us, and we
| celebrate them (rightly so, they're the best of the best). But
| with the closely followed developments in the commercial space
| sector, how many astronauts will we need in the coming decades?
| Will there be 10x, or 100x astronauts? Are there estimates?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I think its still not well described how much commercial
| activity nasa is planning for on the moon. I think its a little
| bit abhorrent because now we will have a precedent to exploit
| newly explored planets or moons for private profits. Hopefully
| we won't be able to see the strip mines from earth.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| That gives a whole new meaning to NIMBY.
|
| I guess if the strip mines are on the dark side, it would be
| acceptable?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Not in my solar system I guess! To me it just seems a bit
| backwards to what these scientific efforts are supposed to
| be about. Are we trying to understand more about the
| universe in a publicly available manner, or are we simply
| trying to create a revenue stream for private stakeholders?
| I am continually disappointed how policy writers in recent
| years seem to hold for profit stakeholders at even parity
| or even a superior consideration than the public
| stakeholders when it comes time to make plans on natural
| resources that really shouldn't be unilaterally exploited
| by anyone.
| _xerces_ wrote:
| It seems a lot of astronauts, at least the early ones live long
| lives. I wonder if it was because the selection process weeded
| out anyone with any sort of health condition and anyone who was
| not at peak physical fitness.
| 93po wrote:
| It's people with very good baseline health, a lot of discipline
| in general to help maintain their health, decent enough
| privilege to lead easy/comfortable/healthy lives and
| retirements, and probably really good social lives. All things
| that help ensure long, healthy lives
| ricksunny wrote:
| From the article:
|
| 'Stafford's Air Force duties not only had him run the military's
| top flight school and experimental plane testing base, but he was
| commanding general of Area 51. A biography from his museum said,
| that while Stafford was in charge of Area 51 and later as the
| development and acquisition chief at the Pentagon he "wrote the
| specs and established the program that led to the development of
| the F-117 Stealth Fighter, and later, the B-2 Stealth Bomber." '
|
| Ah.
| digger495 wrote:
| His namesake museum is the best attraction in Oklahoma. Get up
| close and personal with a real Apollo control panel.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-19 23:01 UTC)