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

Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#111

Post by Retric »

rtkwe wrote: post #108
Retric wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not even close. It cost ~900M for the repair mission and the cost to build Hubble was ~2.5B. There where 6 Hubble servicing missions. "this last Hubble servicing mission is expected to cost about $1.1 billion" http://www.space.com/6648-hubble-faq-space-telescope-repair-... Further, 15 years is considered a relatively short lifetime for a satellite, so Hubble 2 and 3 could have easily had a longer total lifespan if…

26 years (it's still going after all because of the repairs done by shuttle missions) is a long life for a space telescope and particularly for one during it's time. Before Hubble most telescopes were only around for a handful of years before being shutdown. There's a big difference between designing to fail and designing to be repairable. Even if it's possible it could have been cheaper to launch multiples but it's…

Granted, nobody died, NASA got great press from the Hubble, and it made the shuttle seem useful. And sure funding would have been harder due to less feel good missions, but easier from 1+ billion lower costs. So, I am not going to call it the dumbest thing NASA has done.

However, as to lifespan, from April 24, 1990 to Dec, 1993 the Hubble was significantly 'impaired'. If the next two averaged 10-12 years and the original continued to be useful for a few years that's well past break even. Especially considering the Hubble always suffered from a defective mirror even after the first servicing mission help that's not unreasonable.

PS: By designing to fail I don't mean they intentionally made it worse, just assuming servicing caused a wide range of problems. Sure, NASA did learn something from going though this exercise. But the highly political nature of the organization limits such benefits.

Edit: Yes, many telescopes had a very short lifespan though that was often by design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossi_X-ray_Timing_Explorer Mission duration 16 years, 6 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ultraviolet_Expl... 18 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOST_(satellite) 13+ (still up) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_Space_Telescope 13 years and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAMELA_detector 10 years and counting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Anomalous_and_Magnetosph... 11 years 11 months. There are also quite a few up which may or may not last a long time.

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#112

Post by logfromblammo »

kuschku wrote: post #49
Hondor wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Astronaut is the original English word. Cosmonaut is a transliteration from the Russian word for astronaut. So if we're speaking English, we should use astronaut regardless of the country they're from. Otherwise we're forced to invent silly new words that nobody understands like taikonaut and what will we call Indian astronauts or whoever's next? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut#Terminology

The argument is that Astronaut means "sailor of the stars", but "Cosmonaut" means "sailor of the cosmos". As they’re obviously not sailing between stars, but in the cosmos, Cosmonaut is obviously the correct term.

Not obviously. If we're going to quibble over details, we might as well do it properly. The astro- root can also translate as a non-stellar celestial body, since at the time the word meaning was established, the planets were considered "wanderer" stars. Also, asteroids are not stars, but bear a related etymological root.

Cosmos, on the other hand, derives from the entire universe. Obviously, the universe surrounds us completely, but if you're willing to call someone in LEO a cosmonaut, I'm not certain you couldn't say the same about someone driving a car on the planet's surface to the grocery store to buy milk. Both are traveling through the cosmos. Where's the cutoff? Earth escape velocity? Solar escape velocity? Galactic escape velocity? People in LEO just aren't going fast enough.

I have no qualms about calling the flight personnel of the Apollo program "astronauts", as their goal was to reach another celestial body, even if it was not literally a star, and several of them actually made it there. "Selenauts" would also have been appropriate.

But since 1972, we have only been sending humans as far as LEO. Maybe "lacunauts" would be better for those in space, but not traveling to other celestial bodies?

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#113

Post by ceejayoz »

logfromblammo wrote: post #110
ceejayoz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes! This is the concept between ISS! Sort of. China is banned by the US government from participating in the ISS (or any other cooperation with NASA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NA...

All space tech is necessarily dual-use military. I'm certain the concern is that space launch cooperation with PR China will result in unintentional transfer of militarily relevant technologies. Also, China is responsible for the largest single space debris generating event in history, from the intentional destruction of Fengyun-1C in 2007. That kind of thing doesn't matter to the politicians so much, but it was kind…

That concern requires pretending (against all evidence) the Chinese haven't thoroughly penetrated US defense contractors' networks and personnel. http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fighter-hacking-idUSL2N0E...

We managed to cooperate with Russia, too.

> Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO...

I posit that's exactly what the policy forbidding China from collaborating with NASA is.

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#114

Post by logfromblammo »

ceejayoz wrote: post #113
logfromblammo wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All space tech is necessarily dual-use military. I'm certain the concern is that space launch cooperation with PR China will result in unintentional transfer of militarily relevant technologies. Also, China is responsible for the largest single space debris generating event in history, from the intentional destruction of Fengyun-1C in 2007. That kind of thing doesn't matter to the politicians so much, but it was kind…

That concern requires pretending (against all evidence) the Chinese haven't thoroughly penetrated US defense contractors' networks and personnel. http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fighter-hacking-idUSL2N0E... We managed to cooperate with Russia, too. > Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO... I posit that's exactly what the policy forbidding China from collaborating with NASA is.

Nothing good will come of freezing China out of "international" space collaborations.

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#115

Post by ceejayoz »

logfromblammo wrote: post #114
ceejayoz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That concern requires pretending (against all evidence) the Chinese haven't thoroughly penetrated US defense contractors' networks and personnel. http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fighter-hacking-idUSL2N0E... We managed to cooperate with Russia, too. > Space is too important for nationalist dick-measuring contests in LEO... I posit that's exactly what the policy forbidding China from collaborating with NASA is.

Nothing good will come of freezing China out of "international" space collaborations.

That's precisely my point.

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#117

Post by exDM69 »

jcoffland wrote: post #97
exDM69 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, there's no party on earth who could execute a space mission on one month notice. And such a mission would have very little capabilities due to poor preparation time. Whatever doomsday scenario you are concerned about, it's not a realistic goal.

Either Russia or China could if properly motivated.

No, I very much doubt that. If there was a launch vehicle and space craft ready and waiting for integration, it would take about a month to get it on the pad and launched.

But there aren't any spare rockets lying around like that. And we're talking about a standard LEO mission, not a doomsday scenario one off special mission.

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#118

Post by ChoHag »

exDM69 wrote: post #32
ChoHag wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the point: we may not know until we have days or hours remaining to achieve them.

As far as I know, there's no party on earth who could execute a space mission on one month notice. And such a mission would have very little capabilities due to poor preparation time. Whatever doomsday scenario you are concerned about, it's not a realistic goal.

I love the idea of knowing exactly which failure scenarios are incoming.

Your universe sounds fun. Can I join?

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#119

Post by ChoHag »

exDM69 wrote: post #117
jcoffland wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either Russia or China could if properly motivated.

No, I very much doubt that. If there was a launch vehicle and space craft ready and waiting for integration, it would take about a month to get it on the pad and launched. But there aren't any spare rockets lying around like that. And we're talking about a standard LEO mission, not a doomsday scenario one off special mission.

I think you underestimate the ability of the Slavs to Get Shit Done.

Do you know why they beat you into space? It certainly wasn't because they had a head start.

Re: Astronauts enter China's space station [video]

#120

Post by areyousure »

kuschku wrote: post #84
Hondor wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not according to dictionary.com: "Astro- a combining form with the meaning “pertaining to stars or celestial bodies, or to activities, as spaceflight, taking place outside the earth's atmosphere,” used in the formation of compound words:" It sounds like the Greek(?) meaning has been lost now in English, which is fine since it's a different language. Astronomers still sometimes look at other planets afterall.

According to that, literally means figuratively, too. Sometimes linguistic prescriptivism is necessary to keep a language actually understandable, and to ensure it makes sense, and doesn’t just become thousands of independent statements that you have to learn by heart.

That ship sailed long ago.
Post reply on HN