Again, they're not stuck, neither indefinitely nor definitely. The return was on hold to give NASA time to study the equipment before it was jettisoned to burn up in atmosphere. They still have resources (power, water, food, air, etc.) in reserve to last a while longer before they have to leave. (And I'm pretty sure that NASA could resupply them anyway.)
I know I'm arguing semantics here and the rest of your post is probably right but if they unexpectedly don't have a way to get home right now I think that qualifies as stuck. If there's no set date where that's scheduled to change yet they are stuck indefinitely.
They do have a way to get home right now, safely. Their mission was simply changed to staying up longer.
That's good to hear, in that case I was wrong and I withdraw my objection.
The part of the spacecraft that has the issue they're researching is the part that has already done its job (getting to the space station). That part isn't needed for the flight home, and in fact, gets jettisoned not long after departure from the station. Thats the reason they haven't left yet. If they leave, the part of the spacecraft with the problem gets thrown away and they can't learn anything more from it.
Is that correct? I thought the simulations being run were to determine if the leaks posed any potential risk during separation, and triple checked multiple times to ensure safety. I didn't consider it was for data collection
Sustained 👨⚖️
if you say "sorry i'm stuck at work" it doesn't mean that your boss has literally chained you in place
Indefinitely implies never being able to go back which is much more similar to your analogy though. Either way, it's clearly a click bait headline.
No, indefinitely implies you don't know when you'll be able to go back. It does not mean you're never going back.
You are correct; thank you for bringing rationality to something that the media continues to sensationalize.
They're having a blast too. It's even possible this will be the last trip both of them take to ISS.
Again, they're not stuck, neither indefinitely nor definitely. The return was on hold to give NASA time to study the equipment before it was jettisoned to burn up in atmosphere. They still have resources (power, water, food, air, etc.) in reserve to last a while longer before they have to leave. (And I'm pretty sure that NASA could resupply them anyway.)
I know I'm arguing semantics here and the rest of your post is probably right but if they unexpectedly don't have a way to get home right now I think that qualifies as stuck. If there's no set date where that's scheduled to change yet they are stuck indefinitely.
They do have a way to get home right now, safely. Their mission was simply changed to staying up longer.
That's good to hear, in that case I was wrong and I withdraw my objection.
The part of the spacecraft that has the issue they're researching is the part that has already done its job (getting to the space station). That part isn't needed for the flight home, and in fact, gets jettisoned not long after departure from the station. Thats the reason they haven't left yet. If they leave, the part of the spacecraft with the problem gets thrown away and they can't learn anything more from it.
Is that correct? I thought the simulations being run were to determine if the leaks posed any potential risk during separation, and triple checked multiple times to ensure safety. I didn't consider it was for data collection
Sustained 👨⚖️
if you say "sorry i'm stuck at work" it doesn't mean that your boss has literally chained you in place
Indefinitely implies never being able to go back which is much more similar to your analogy though. Either way, it's clearly a click bait headline.
No, indefinitely implies you don't know when you'll be able to go back. It does not mean you're never going back.
You are correct; thank you for bringing rationality to something that the media continues to sensationalize.
They're having a blast too. It's even possible this will be the last trip both of them take to ISS.