[HN Gopher] NASA announces unprecedented return of sick ISS astr...
___________________________________________________________________
NASA announces unprecedented return of sick ISS astronaut and crew
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 75 points
Date : 2026-01-10 13:44 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.livescience.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.livescience.com)
| HardwareLust wrote:
| Did NASA say when they're coming back? The article didn't mention
| it.
|
| Should also mention NASA is trying to move up the launch of Crew
| 12 to cover some of the gap.
| dfcab wrote:
| All I know is that SpaceX said dragon and crew-11 would undock
| no earlier than Wednesday, Jan 14.
| daemonologist wrote:
| Current schedule is departure Wednesday, splashdown Thursday
| morning:
| https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/commercialcrew/2026/01/09/nasa-sp...
|
| Reentry should be visible from large parts of the west coast
| (if they stick to this schedule).
| HardwareLust wrote:
| Thanks!
| bookofjoe wrote:
| >NASA has said it will announce a target return date in the
| coming days.
| nubg wrote:
| Why be so secretive? This is not a military mission. These
| missions cost a lot of taxpayer money (money well spend you may
| argue), but we deserve full transparency. You don't get to go to
| space on other people's money and expect privacy. We might want
| to learn from what went wrong here.
| kccqzy wrote:
| People in general expect privacy when it comes to medical
| issues.
| whateverboat wrote:
| May be it would be better to have a full diagnosis after
| splashdown?
| daeken wrote:
| The astronaut in question may choose to disclose that they had
| the medical emergency and possibly its nature, but it seems
| wholly reasonable to not single them out (when it affects the
| whole mission) or disclose their medical status.
| okdood64 wrote:
| Disagree; this is completely taxpayer funded and we deserve
| to know every detail relevant to mission status. In this
| scenario knowing what illness and why it's grounds for a
| return is very relevant. That said, I can see NASA delaying
| information release to figure out a good strategy for it
| while still respecting any wishes of the sick astronaut with
| regards to disclosure.
| pockybum522 wrote:
| What a strange take. Does this also apply to every soldier
| in the armed forces? Seems your criteria is equally
| applicable there.
|
| The relevant people that can do the research and write
| future policies based on the data obviously will have the
| information. Not sure what good you think that you
| personally having it can do.
| okdood64 wrote:
| A single soldier having a medical issue generally doesn't
| cancel a multi-month mission costing some X large sum of
| money, requiring another Y large sum of money to even
| finish cancelling it (returning their unit home).
|
| Therefore it's not relevant and not needed for the public
| to know.
| therealpygon wrote:
| Yes, I'm sure aircrew never get so violently sick as to
| affect millions or billions of dollars in crew and and
| supporting assets due to an emergency, and armed service
| members are never transported by emergency
| transportations for eye-watering costs. Technical
| inequity that ignores facts is the argument of those
| without arguments.
|
| The specifics of "who" has zero relevance to what is
| necessary for an ongoing situation; you don't get to
| dictate your access and timeline to information just
| because you contributed a fraction of a penny to
| something.
| alistairSH wrote:
| It could for anything remotely "special ops" - those are
| small specialized teams.
| RyanCavanaugh wrote:
| What are you going to do with this information? What
| policy would you plausibly advocate for on the basis of
| it?
| awestroke wrote:
| The CIA is also taxpayer funded. Do you have similar
| expectations of transparency into their missions?
| okdood64 wrote:
| I can respect operational security requirements. Even
| though they are abused.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| The school is tax-payer funded, but I don't get to know why
| every teacher called out sick.
|
| Government employees, contractors, etc. don't owe your
| curiousity satiety. We are buying their service, not their
| soul.
| mapmeld wrote:
| Especially since every movement up and down from space is
| expensive and risks the life of the crew, it'd be a bad idea
| for NASA to name the astronaut ahead of time.
| xingped wrote:
| Yes, but at the same time I think NASA has long earned the
| trust to decide these things. Regardless of the issue, nobody
| wants their health issues aired to the entire world. I am
| personally okay just not knowing the intimate details.
| candl wrote:
| The only medical condition I can think of which they would not
| disclose is pregnancy. That would lead to further questions and
| is controversial despite being very simple. Further evidenced
| by the fact that the affected crew member is unknown to the
| public.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| > Further evidenced by the fact that the affected crew member
| is unknown to the public.
|
| Nope. On a previous mission _one_ of the crew members had to
| sped a night in hospital after touchdown. They never said
| who, or what for. This is standard procedure, and for good
| reason.
| qgin wrote:
| That alone is enough reason to have a policy of never
| disclosing medical conditions.
| bryant wrote:
| > Why be so secretive? This is not a military mission. These
| missions cost a lot of taxpayer money (money well spend you may
| argue), but we deserve full transparency.
|
| We deserve as much transparency as we can get on the science we
| as taxpayers paid for, not full de-anonymization of the bodily
| happenings of living crew. There's certainly valuable science
| here, but the crew member doesn't have to be outed for it.
|
| > You don't get to go to space on other people's money and
| expect privacy.
|
| I don't think this is a healthy mindset, and there's a heck of
| a slippery slope with this argument. Would we apply this to
| companies receiving federal grants too? Contractors?
| Universities? Schools? That's a lot of people who'll lose
| medical privacy for something probably unrelated to their job,
| and there'll be a much smaller applicant pool for the jobs
| themselves if applicants are aware that their own internal
| issues might be disclosed when the public clamors for it.
|
| > We might want to learn from what went wrong here.
|
| Agree, NASA certainly will, and new science and engineering
| will come of it that we benefit from. But that doesn't have to
| involve breaching medical privacy and ethics.
| ryanmcgarvey wrote:
| The full on dystopian take would be to require anyone
| receiving welfare or other public funds to fully disclose all
| of their private details.
|
| You want Medicaid? Tell everyone about your hemorrhoids
| first.
| kyleee wrote:
| Might actually be a net benefit and lead to de-stigmatizing
| human health conditions
| Aurornis wrote:
| You go first, then. Let's see your full medical records
| without redaction if you think it's a net benefit.
|
| I think there's value in reducing stigma around health
| conditions, but forcing poor people to reveal their
| medical conditions to the world isn't it.
| quesera wrote:
| This is not honestly engaging with GP's statement.
|
| The benefit only accrues if the sharing is universal.
|
| I am too private a person to agree with GP, but it does
| seem that most health issues that are visible to the
| passerby or casual acquaintence are less stigmatized than
| the ones that can be hidden. There might be something to
| the idea.
|
| Of course you'd have to agree that de-stigmatizing is
| more socially important than privacy. I guess I'm
| privileged enough to have no stigmas, secret or
| otherwise, that I consider more important than my
| privacy. But I know others are less fortunate.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > The benefit only accrues if the sharing is universal.
|
| The GP's statement wasn't for universal sharing. It was
| to force recipients of taxpayer money to share their
| medical records.
|
| It's a gross demand: Force poor and old people to reveal
| their medical conditions to the world.
| quesera wrote:
| GP did not specify that their thought was scoped to the
| same people as GGP's (explicitly dystopian) scenario, so
| I read their comment as working on the kernel of the idea
| and not the horrifying class-based discriminatory
| version.
|
| While I am still confident of that assessment, I'll grant
| you that "obvious" charitable interpretation is not as
| reliable as it should be. :-/
| 7thpower wrote:
| By forcing the poorest to disclose their personal health
| issues?
| dole wrote:
| Exposing STDs and mental conditions is part of what
| HIPAA's for. Putting _everyone_ in glass houses just
| creates a massive panopticon.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Does that include those working for a company that gets tax
| breaks?
| TitaRusell wrote:
| I remember watching a landing and the camera cut away when
| one of the returning astronauts got sick.
|
| These are human beings and employees not Big Brother
| contestants.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| These are free people (who happen to have a job that involves a
| space program). They have the same rights to [try to] keep
| their medical concerns private as you and I do.
|
| It does cost a lot of money to keep their jobs going, but:
| They're not slaves. We do not own these people.
| perihelions wrote:
| Without taking a side, I'll share the interesting detail that
| NASA did not historically grant much medical privacy to
| astronauts. You can read medical reports of the Apollo-Soyuz
| crew here (documenting their poisoning by toxic rocket fuel,
| dinitrogen tetroxide),
|
| https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19770023791 ( _" The Apollo-
| Soyuz Test Project: Medical report"_ (1977))
| bryant wrote:
| Since this is a special publication and since it was
| published in 1977 (after the Privacy Act of 1974), I'm
| wondering if NASA's condition for astronauts on this mission
| was to release mission-related medical science to the public.
|
| Speculating:
|
| If this is a condition of employment as an astronaut, then it
| probably wouldn't include conditions confirmed _not_ to be
| caused by being in space, which means this 'll stay
| confidential until NASA has fully diagnosed the crew member
| and figured out what likely happened.
|
| And if it turns out the crew member's issue was entirely
| unrelated to the mission, it stays under wraps but new
| science or procedures are devised to better manage this and
| related conditions in space.
| Merad wrote:
| Do you seriously believe that you should have the right to
| demand access to the private medical records of every teacher,
| soldier, judge, cop, etc. in the country because their pay
| comes from taxpayers? If yes I'm not quite sure how to respond,
| IMO that's an utterly absurd position. If no, why are
| astronauts being singled out for this treatment?
| Aurornis wrote:
| What difference would this make to you? It would unnecessarily
| violate someone's medical privacy for no actual benefit to the
| public other than satisfying someone's curiosity.
|
| > You don't get to go to space on other people's money and
| expect privacy.
|
| Yes, everyone gets privacy. You don't get to see their private
| communications back home. You don't get their medical records.
|
| They aren't receiving money from taxpayers like a gift. They're
| doing a job. It's ridiculous to demand that they forfeit their
| privacy because tax money was involved.
|
| > We might want to learn from what went wrong here.
|
| NASA will learn what went wrong here because they're in a
| position to act on
|
| You are not in a position to do anything about it. Violating
| their privacy would make no difference.
| nkrisc wrote:
| I think it's possible to be sufficiently transparent while
| simultaneously keeping someone's personal health status
| private.
|
| As a hypothetical example, it's possible to disclose if this
| health issue was known before they were selected for the
| mission, and if it was, what processes were in place to
| determine if they should or should not go, etc, all without
| revealing personal health information.
| mcny wrote:
| When I say I want full transparency, I usually am talking about
| how much pay they received and in the case of elected
| representatives, their net worth at least once a year.
|
| I wouldn't ask for a full health report to be made public by
| law. Maybe a summary for elected officials.
| rtp4me wrote:
| Why do you need to know how much they are paid and their net
| worth? What difference does it make to you? Public official
| pay is already available online. A quick google search will
| tell you how much congress people get paid, and the DoD pay
| scale is available online as well.
| kahrl wrote:
| Perhaps you should chill and wait until they land before you
| start with your ridiculous paranoid thinking and entitlement?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Related question. Have transmittable diseases spread in space?
| What examples do we know of?
| Klathmon wrote:
| There have been a few instances, IIRC there was an Apollo
| mission that had a head cold spread among the whole crew.
|
| But that's unlikely to be the case here because they've been up
| there isolated for over 6 months now
| Zealotux wrote:
| Would it be possible for some food to have been contaminated
| with something? It seems unlikely.
| greazy wrote:
| this is what I'm thinking. GI related issues
| brycewray wrote:
| > IIRC there was an Apollo mission that had a head cold
| spread among the whole crew.
|
| Yep, Apollo 7.
| perihelions wrote:
| This describes NASA's pre-flight quarantines since Apollo 14,
| and makes (very brief) references to in-flight diseases (and
| apparent transmission) prior to Apollo 14 ("upper respiratory
| infection"; "viral gastroenteritis"),
|
| https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ochmo-tb-006...
| ( _" Health Stabilization Program (HSP)"_)
| lostmsu wrote:
| AFAIK no one have died in space from medical issues yet. Only
| accidents.
| ACS_Solver wrote:
| Technically there has only been one fatal accident in space,
| the Soyuz 11 failure which killed the crew of three. That
| occurred above the Karman line, all other spaceflight related
| fatalities were at much lower altitudes or on the ground.
| geor9e wrote:
| Article about how the return capsule works:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52840482
| heyflyguy wrote:
| It's great we can bring them down. What a terrifying experience
| to have a medical issue on the space station. Kidney stone?
| Ruptured appendix? intestinal blockage? How could you keep calm
| so far away!
| wmf wrote:
| _How could you keep calm so far away_
|
| By going through a ten-year process that selects for calm
| people.
| almost_usual wrote:
| I can't imagine any other group who would be as calm as NASA
| astronauts. Maybe SEALs or other special forces.
|
| It looks like there are a few astronauts that were SEALs, one
| returned December 9th from the ISS.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Kim
| drewda wrote:
| In the US, many astronauts start as Air Force pilots.
|
| And for the preternaturally calm and confident who don't
| have the perfect eyesight required to enter the Air Force,
| many of them apparently serve instead on nuclear
| submarines...
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Somewhat related to this topic:
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zo62S0ulqhA
| vpribish wrote:
| it's only 250 miles
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Maximum operating depth of a Nuclear submarine is 3,350 ft.
| rudasn wrote:
| (250 miles is about 400km and 3350 ft is about 1km)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _How could you keep calm so far away!_
|
| That was my thinking as well when Hegseth went after Mark
| Kelly. How could anyone maintain their composure in the face of
| an insulting confrontation like that? I certainly couldn't...
| and I suppose that's one of several good reasons why unlike
| Kelly, I'm not an astronaut, test pilot, or (for that matter) a
| US Senator.
| YVoyiatzis wrote:
| We're expected to believe a single manageable medical issue
| compromised the entire crew (if not the entire mission itself).
| OK. Looks like a tactical retreat masked as a medical crisis.
| But what doesn't appear cynical these days...
| robertoandred wrote:
| It's not that the entire crew is compromised medically, it's
| that logistically if one goes home they all have to.
| spockz wrote:
| Well, yes? The medical issue is apparently severe enough to
| warrant return. Because the crew dragon is the only way for
| those astronauts back, barring sending another one up
| shortly, they also have to come back.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Bruh, you're talking about one of the most protocol laden
| risk averse organizations known to man. That's an absurd
| speculation compared to the thing you would naively expect,
| which is exactly what is happening.
| mrpippy wrote:
| Everyone on the ISS needs to have a seat reserved for them in
| a docked spacecraft, in case they need to evacuate the
| station quickly (or for a medical issue like this). You can't
| bring back just one person from a 4-person crew; the other 3
| would have no way to leave.
| glemion43 wrote:
| This mission doesn't matter to any normal human in any
| relevant way that NASA would need to hide anything.
|
| I'm completely lost on your way of thinking
| dh2022 wrote:
| The reason they are bringing the whole crew back is most
| likely cost related. The whole crew was due back in February
| anyway. They are bringing everyone home a bit early;
| otherwise they would need another flight a few weeks later.
|
| And nobody is retreating: there will be 1 American and 2
| Russians left on ISS. All of this from the article.
| SJC_Hacker wrote:
| Astronauts are of a breed apart. They're strapped onto a
| literally bomb which launches them into a vacuum, and windows
| where there is no chance of a mission abort. They've pretty
| much accepted a risk of death that most would simply not
| tolerate. Ex-military is common for astronauts for a reason.
| yesitcan wrote:
| Going on a spaceship is probably safer than driving a car.
| qgin wrote:
| Being an astronaut is about 50x more risky than riding in a
| car
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| whatever is the cause, it is not immediate - or they would've
| been on the ground couple days ago
|
| so no, not appendix
| bahmboo wrote:
| A heads up: one of the crew is female and certain groups of
| online warriors are convinced she is the one who is sick because
| of the "women are weak and can't do man work" trope. So keep that
| in mind when people are demanding transparency.
| mrpippy wrote:
| How are they explaining away the fact that the Japanese male
| astronaut asked for a consult with the flight surgeon on the
| public loop (a video which NASA has since removed from
| YouTube)?
| Ankaios wrote:
| Since she is a NASA mission commander and they are random
| slackers posting from their parents' basements, I'm guessing
| that she's tougher than they are.
| deepsun wrote:
| This is the first time I hear that. On HN, no less.
|
| Your post seems to be kinda fighting against it, but what it
| does is actually _creates_ the narrative it seems to be
| fighting against. Otherwise I 'd never hear it.
| bahmboo wrote:
| I most certainly am not creating that narrative! I don't see
| where you'd get that from my post. Your personal experience
| is valid but not an actual data point.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| My personal opinion of NASA director has been lowered when he
| failed to pronounce name Oleg correctly...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-10 23:00 UTC)