[daeken]

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.

[mapmeld]

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.

[okdood64]

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.

[hermannj314]

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.

[awestroke]

The CIA is also taxpayer funded. Do you have similar expectations of transparency into their missions?

[okdood64]

I can respect operational security requirements. Even though they are abused.

[poulpy123]

When you drive on a taxpayer funded road, should you disclose publicly your medical history? When the taxpayer funded US military kidnap a foreign president on your name, should you disclose publicly your medical history ? When you use the taxpayer funded GPS etc...

[patmorgan23]

Does your employer get to know every little detail of your medical conditions when you call in sick? After all they're funding it.

[pockybum522]

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.

[Supermancho]

> What a strange take. Does this also apply to every soldier in the armed forces? Seems your criteria is equally applicable there.

Why? There are different rules for different endeavors, specializations, and roles. NASA is ostensibly for exploration, in an expansive sense. Hiding information of any kind, seems antithetical to the over-arching mission.

> The relevant people that can do the research and write future policies based on the data obviously will have the information.

Given recent events, this assumption of fidelity is not something I can subscribe to, for the rest of my days.

[okdood64]

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]

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.

[NetMageSCW]

The amount of money involved should have nothing to do with privacy. You don’t get to violate people’s rights just because it was expensive.

[alistairSH]

It could for anything remotely “special ops” - those are small specialized teams.

[RyanCavanaugh]

What are you going to do with this information? What policy would you plausibly advocate for on the basis of it?