Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

tass.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 330 posts

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#131

Post by dhosek »

WalterBright wrote: post #128
akiselev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it is the Russian Zvevda module that is leaking/cracking is likely related to the fact that it is also the oldest module in the ISS. Definitely sounds like it. They can't identify the leak on the inside so it doesn't sound like a micrometeoroid impact and they suspect a second leak that is so small they need a microscope to verify: > "So far, we have found one place and suspect another, where as some kind of l…

If the leaks are that small, sounds like putting an elastic coating on it should fix it.

A bit of duct tape will do the trick.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#132

Post by lordlic »

WalterBright wrote: post #129
lsllc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need a "Space New Deal", I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime. I mean we've done some great work, but we haven't made any giant leaps since getting to the moon 51.5 years ago. Thankfully, we do have SpaceX et. al. who really are making some big strides -- but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? ... sorry, I'm being selfish, but I really want to go to Mars.

It is simply too expensive for government to do it. It'll have to be private enterprise. (Not that private enterprise could pay what NASA spends either, but that it would be 10x cheaper for private enterprise to do it.)

You think NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, etc can build the ISS but they can't raise it to a higher orbit? Honestly, this cheering for privatization of space research is getting out of hand.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#133

Post by namibj »

gizmo686 wrote: post #47
m4rtink wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for the Moon, the lunar orbit is generally unstable: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit

You don't need a stable orbit, just one that will keep it in our neighborhood and away from the atmosphere and congested orbits. Put it in a high orbit, and point a telescope at it every now and then to update our record of it's orbit. By the time we are ready to visit it, even if its orbit changed, its new orbit would not be any more inconvenient then where we left it.

The moon's lumpy gravity field actually causes the eccentricity of most orbits to raise quite fast, eventually bringing the periapsis below the surface (or the apoapsis on an escape trajectory, but I recall the former being more of an issue): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadClM4Y45A

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#134

Post by mkl »

jjcon wrote: post #105
snoshy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely because it's a fantastically expensive undertaking, and hasn't quite borne out the fruits that were speculated about over the years. USA provides a huge bulk of the funding, expertise, and personnel required to keep the program running. That's not to say that Russia, Canada, Japan, etc. don't do their part, but it's really not as much of a truly global joint effort as you might be led to believe. Then there's…

> NASA's budget has been strangled for decades now It’s higher than it was in the 70s and has remained pretty constant since then trending upward (when adjusting for inflation) http://static1.squarespace.com/static/500caca8e4b0e4a25027aa...

Yes. But in another way to look at it, as a percentage of the US federal budget, in 2017 and 2019 it was the lowest it's been since 1959. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#135

Post by godelski »

rtkwe wrote: post #66
lsllc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need a "Space New Deal", I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime. I mean we've done some great work, but we haven't made any giant leaps since getting to the moon 51.5 years ago. Thankfully, we do have SpaceX et. al. who really are making some big strides -- but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? ... sorry, I'm being selfish, but I really want to go to Mars.

There has to be some revenue stream beyond just satellite launches and government research. Right now there's only so many reasons to go to space and a lot of those are pretty small markets or able to be served by one or very few provider(s) pretty well.

Sorry, what? The reason we have so many launch providers today is because space is extremely valuable. Even though you don't realize it there are hundreds of satellites above you head and you're connected to many of them. Telecommunicate (not just your phone), GPS, weather, etc. We wouldn't have the modern world without access to space. Things getting cheaper is causing a boom.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#136

Post by WalterBright »

khuey wrote: post #120
merpnderp wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the SLS, how much money was spent, and how unlikely it is to ever do anything, and it looks like we aren't even capable of a Space New Deal if we wanted to. Luckily we have SpaceX.

Going to space is only a secondary goal for SLS though. Keeping a bunch of people in politically influential states and congressional districts employed is the primary goal and it's succeeding at that.

Government spending "creating jobs" is a lot like a business plan where you pay people to buy your products, or a car that makes its own fuel.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#137

Post by WalterBright »

lordlic wrote: post #132
WalterBright wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is simply too expensive for government to do it. It'll have to be private enterprise. (Not that private enterprise could pay what NASA spends either, but that it would be 10x cheaper for private enterprise to do it.)

You think NASA, ESA, Roscosmos, etc can build the ISS but they can't raise it to a higher orbit? Honestly, this cheering for privatization of space research is getting out of hand.

I'm saying that the bill for NASA doing it would be 10x what a free market operation could do it for.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#138

Post by godelski »

waheoo wrote: post #99
lsllc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need a "Space New Deal", I'm honestly saddened by the lack of progress in space in my lifetime. I mean we've done some great work, but we haven't made any giant leaps since getting to the moon 51.5 years ago. Thankfully, we do have SpaceX et. al. who really are making some big strides -- but how do we multiply & speed up that effort? ... sorry, I'm being selfish, but I really want to go to Mars.

That's what space force was wasn't it?

Space Force is specifically for military and not public. To protect strategic assets like keystone satellites, launch detection system, etc. Stuff the Air Force was doing but the sub department in the AF grew big enough that it became it's own thing. Similarly it's not unlikely to see a cyber force happen in the future.

Re: One hull crack located in ISS, another one suspected

#140

Post by lordlic »

curiousllama wrote: post #115
onethought wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Privatised space industry is your country doesn't control the agenda. SpaceX is a pretty rare thing, the rest of the private space industry (Blue Origin, Virgin, Boeing) is as much of a money pit as NASA was. Then you have rapidly progressing government run space programs like China and India. The fact that the US banned China from the ISS and banned Non-Americans from participating in what it deems…

> you don’t control the agenda True, but not really in the way you describe. The US is the main (often, the only) customer of US space companies. If you control the money, you control the operational agenda. If you want a a new ISS? Just write up the contract. The way in which you don’t control the agenda is only inasmuch as the strategic interests of the space company diverges from those of the US govt. But typicall…

Gigadollar-scale space projects seem like a particularly poor fit for the private industry model, though. Conventionally the idea of free-market competition is that companies stand to gain if they succeed but have to eat the losses if they fail, and so competition eventually selects the best. But we're not talking about making widgets or sandwiches or launch vehicles. Things like the ISS, JWST, etc are all one-off projects, and they cannot be allowed to fail, so competition doesn't really help and the public is left holding the bag, just like we see in the endless cost overruns of politically unkillable DoD contracts.

"Public bad private good" isn't a coherent strategy. If NASA isn't good enough then the preference should be to improve NASA rather than to insert an unnecessary layer of profit-taking for SpaceX or Boeing to do the same thing anyway.

Post reply on HN