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

Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 283 posts

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#261

Post by necovek »

ActorNightly wrote: post #253
GolfPopper wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any rocket-builder without a history of blowing things up?

I feel like other rocket builders, whether private or government, have way less launches but they have more successful launches percentage wise than Space X.

And many more actual casualties?

The only thing that matters is that things do not blow up with humans onboard: SpaceX simply accepted blow-ups as part of development cost, made sure nobody was hurt when they happen, and ended up building a rocket to carry humans to ISS much faster than eg. Boeing who got a bigger grant and is still not trusted to do that and bring them back (having only launched once to ISS last year, and not bringing astronauts back). So both faster and cheaper, and with some spectacle included too (everybody likes fireworks, right?)

They also started at the same time, and Falcon is now considered old tech (because SpaceX has been blowing up their new tech in the meantime).

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#262

Post by sigmoid10 »

threwrfaway wrote: post #196
sigmoid10 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You brought it up. I have been talking about structural issues with long term core modules. And that is clearly a Russian issue.

I think you're confusing me with the OP, which in fairness I didn't read. Nothing in the Russian space program in the last few decades have been as dangerous as Boeings little fiasco. Yes, the modules have long term problems, but they're built by the Russians because they have the most experience in space living quarters. Look at space mission fatalities, the least Soviet/Russian one was in 1971 and that includes the…

>the OP, which in fairness I didn't read.

Why are you commenting then if you don't even know what the topic of the conversation is? Just to distract from the issue with unrelated facts to defend mother Russia's image? Do you even realize how much like a propaganda troll account you sound?

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#263

Post by necovek »

krapp wrote: post #255
Mistletoe wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the gun for?

Shooting American spacecraft. What else would it be for?

If it made pew-pew sounds (inside the station, obv), mission accomplished regardless of it actually being able to shoot anything down, up or everywhere.

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#264

Post by thaumasiotes »

totetsu wrote: post #256
p-e-w wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that’s rarely discussed about spaceflight is that for the foreseeable future, it will have to happen without the animals that humans rely upon on Earth. I think this will expose just how strong that reliance is in some areas.

I wonder about what happens to gut micro biomes

They'll standardize so that everybody has more or less the same stuff.

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#265

Post by Forgeties79 »

ChoGGi wrote: post #225
Forgeties79 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Found the scrub who doesn’t know about gaff tape

I don't think you can be an astronaut on the ISS without being a handyman, and the handyman's secret weapon is duct tape.

Trust me, grab some yards of gaff tape and try it out. You’ll thank me later!

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#266

Post by l23k4 »

ActorNightly wrote: post #250
hagbard_c wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Im not saying Dragon will explode. Im just saying that its ironic the person I was replying to used the word "supposed" like it may malfunction. As for MDS/TDS, be careful about accusing other people of those. Its not really about politics, more about bring your character into question of supporting pedophiles.

> Im just saying that its ironic the person I was replying to used the word "supposed" like it may malfunction.

I think you've simply misunderstood what "ironic" means.

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#267

Post by 7952 »

Zigurd wrote: post #55
basch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the reason against separate conduit for utilities?

If such a conduit would connect two sections that the hatch is meant to isolate, you would have to make the conduit and everything running through it airtight, even under a catastrophic loss of air. If the conduit didn't seal as well as the hatch, which is meant to withstand hard vacuum on the other side of it, it would defeat the purpose of the hatch.

Most stuff runs outside of the capsule including power and dangerous ammonia. They use connectors that fit to the hull and have plugs on each side. Gases/liquids can be controlled with valves. And parts can fit tightly together to make a seal. The stuff running through the hatches is designed to be quickly disconnected in an emergency.

I guess the main question about this kind of routing is if things are safer kept on the unpressurized side or not. And that the risk of a small hole on the hull is offset by reducing the risk of leaks in the pressurised area.

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#268

Post by roryirvine »

CableNinja wrote: post #258
Kye wrote: post #167

I remember reading about the ISS in the May 1998 issue of Popular Science, a full issue about the station. They were getting ready to launch the first module. Every time bad news happens, I think about this part (from a PDF I hang on to): >> "SOMEDAY, THE international Space Station will descend, but if you're frightened at the prospect of a million-pound hunk of metal falling out of the sky, take heart. NASA does ha…

This never happened though, and as a result the ISS stayed up for longer. SpaceX is now the group that will deorbit it, as one big chunk

Though ATV did fulfil the resupply mission (five times, rather than three) in 2008-14.

It's now used as the basis of the Orion service module, whilst ISS resupply is currently done by Cygnus and Cargo Dragon on the American side and Progress on the Russian.

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#269

Post by krapp »

necovek wrote: post #263
krapp wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shooting American spacecraft. What else would it be for?

If it made pew-pew sounds (inside the station, obv), mission accomplished regardless of it actually being able to shoot anything down, up or everywhere.

The story that I read somewhere was that it was tested once but the recoil either damaged the station or it would have affected its orbit so they never tried it again.

There was also Polyus which was going to be an entire battle station designed to counter Reagan's SDI satellites[0], but it never made it into orbit. It had lasers, though.

[0]https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-rise-fall-the-sovie...

Re: Astronauts told to return to ISS after sheltering over air leak repairs

#270

Post by threwrfaway »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #262
threwrfaway wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing me with the OP, which in fairness I didn't read. Nothing in the Russian space program in the last few decades have been as dangerous as Boeings little fiasco. Yes, the modules have long term problems, but they're built by the Russians because they have the most experience in space living quarters. Look at space mission fatalities, the least Soviet/Russian one was in 1971 and that includes the…

>the OP, which in fairness I didn't read. Why are you commenting then if you don't even know what the topic of the conversation is? Just to distract from the issue with unrelated facts to defend mother Russia's image? Do you even realize how much like a propaganda troll account you sound?

You didn't even know who you were replying to!

You spewed BS about the Soyuz, which isn't part of the ISS.

Well if minor Soyuz problems are in play, I raise you two Shuttle disintegrations and a Boeing craft since the last fatal Soyuz accident in 1971.

You know instead of throwing "Russian troll darts" try practicing "strategic empathy", instead of letting your emotions blind you about engineering principles. Sone pointers:

- Space is hard.

- The Russians are good at it.

- So are we.

- The Russians are better at keeping people alive in space.

- We're better at sensors and materials.

- Historically Russian launches are cheaper (thats changed)

- Historically we've had money to launch more (that's changed)

Kindest Regards,

American materials engineer (guess who I work for)

Post reply on HN