Live data from Hacker News

First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

nottingham.ac.uk

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#121

Always a bit special to see science come from a spacecraft I had the pleasure of working on. Honestly there were a lot of issues during the build of Euclid that I was very glad to not be a part of, but seeing the images coming out of it now is pretty damn impressive. Hope all of the engineers that struggled to get this mission spacebourne can enjoy!

Congratulations. That's an amazing project to be a part of, and it looks like some really jawdropping science is going to result.

Quite a small part, but yeah, the science missions are always special to be a part of, even if its small.

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#122
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The long scale is common in French, German and Spanish for example. English usually uses the short scale. The scientific community uses SI prefixes, which aren't part of either scale (you don't say a billion joules which is ambiguous, you either say a terajoule for a long-scale billion or a gigajoule for a short-scale one).

Fair enough, but I still would be surprised to see the long scale used in scientific communications written in English. Re SI Prefixes: you _could_ make the argument that they are essential another short scale since they are named every 3 orders of magnitude.

My country uses long scale. I've never seen long scale used in English, so I don't think it's ambiguous.

But! When non-native speakers read news, they are not always completely fluent in English, or even aware the short scale exists. This is true even for journalists. I've seen articles written in a serious newspapers where a journalist confused "billion" and "trillion", because they incorrectly translated English "billion" to my language "bilion". Journalists! A cross-cultural mistake not unlike foots vs meters.

So that's one thing to consider if one wants to avoid miscommunication at all cost. I'm not sure if it is important enough to take into account - after all people should know better.

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#123
post #45

Always a bit special to see science come from a spacecraft I had the pleasure of working on. Honestly there were a lot of issues during the build of Euclid that I was very glad to not be a part of, but seeing the images coming out of it now is pretty damn impressive. Hope all of the engineers that struggled to get this mission spacebourne can enjoy!

Can you share some insights on what the issues were?

I wouldn't want to go into specifics, as it's easy to look like I was slinging mud.

But if you have seen the issues that Starliner has had recently, I would echo the statement from there, that valves are hard. Very hard. Everything to do with pressurised systems in space is hard. But the propulsion team worked it through and are now seeing the fruits of the long hours.

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#124
post #116

Always a bit special to see science come from a spacecraft I had the pleasure of working on. Honestly there were a lot of issues during the build of Euclid that I was very glad to not be a part of, but seeing the images coming out of it now is pretty damn impressive. Hope all of the engineers that struggled to get this mission spacebourne can enjoy!

Thanks for sharing a human moment, honestly inspiring to contemplate. I have a few interview questions if you find the interest: 1. What was testing/safety/static checking culture like? I have experience within a NASA software contractor that spent a lot of time and stress on balancing classic “aerospace-y” engineering practices with the more modern ones out of SV, which are paradoxically both more and less rigorous…

Love to answer questions if I can.

1. The testing culture is very thorough. I was involved on the propulsion side of things, and as such the safety is taken very seriously, for the safety of the test/production engineers and of course the spacecraft. Propulsion systems are typically integrated in such a way that it is very difficult (nigh impossible at times) to separate them if an issue is found at a later stage, so the testing goes through things with a very fine comb. And even still things can go wrong and can sometimes only be found at a later stage.

From the spacecraft Assembly Integration and Test (AIT) side of things, which is where I work, things are traditional but pragmatic. If a new way can be shown to be more reliable we will adopt it. But not before it is very well understood and characterised. In space, heritage is king, the best way to know if something will work in space is to already know it works in space. So it can take a lot of evidence for a new method/system to be adopted, and when we think we are moving quickly, it probably looks like a glacial pace to others.

During the build and test, we are often so far from the end goal of a spacecraft, its not possible to see the "groundbreaking" aspect of things. Perhaps the payload designers and engineers can see this better.

2. I believe it is named after Euclid, as the father of geometry, as the mission goal was to measure the geometry of the universe. And also yes, go Europe.

3. Christ, accomplished? I love the idea of being accomplished in many ways, but its also a scary concept. Wouldn't want to be having notions of grandeur either. I am very lucky to have worked on many great projects, in many countries, and in a job that I honestly think I am good at and enjoy. But I am always surrounded by so many people who have done so much more, so it mostly feels like I am trying to catch up really.

The science missions really are special to me, I have a background in Astrophysics, and sort of fell into spacecraft engineering. So it is always a real pleasure to get to work on something I understand on a deeper level. But most of the missions I have worked on have not been so special. Most spacecraft are to make money or do something for a military. Its why I have so much time for ESA. Even with their issues (cost, time, etc.), they really feel like they do the important missions for humanity. Nasa and Jaxa too, but they mix in a higher amount of the less special stuff in my experience.

The stress and sacrifice was stressful and sacrificial(?). I wouldnt say it was worth it, or not worth it. Its an odd one. Mostly I have just tried to do cool shit as often as I can, and I have been damn lucky.

Thanks for the kind words though, and I hope I wasn't rambling too much in my response.

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#125

Always a bit special to see science come from a spacecraft I had the pleasure of working on. Honestly there were a lot of issues during the build of Euclid that I was very glad to not be a part of, but seeing the images coming out of it now is pretty damn impressive. Hope all of the engineers that struggled to get this mission spacebourne can enjoy!

Indeed, thanks! Euclidean here too ;)

Oh hey! Congrats on the awesome mission!

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#126
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proper unit would be Parsec, imho

Parsec is a unit of distance[1]. They were counting a number of stars. [1] Defined as the distance at which 1AU subtends an angle of one arc second or 648000/pi AU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsec

Oh, my bad. I thought they were talking about trillions of lightyears

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#128
post #2

TFA specifies "more than 1,500 billion". That's more than a _trillion_, not "billions"! Why the reluctance to use the proper number?

The UK used a different definition of trillion until ~50 years ago (10^18 vs 10^12), so it probably helps avoid ambiguity

And billion too, though. In the 80s the term was still confusing; no longer though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billion

Re: First pictures from Euclid satellite reveal billions of orphan stars

#129
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the brown dwarf not considered a star? I don't know.

“A brown dwarf is an object which is made of the same stuff as stars, but does not have enough mass for hydrogen fusion (combining hydrogen atoms into helium atoms). Hydrogen fusion is what makes stars glow. Brown dwarfs are not massive enough to do this, so they are not stars. On the other hand, they are not regular giant planets, because they do glow.” https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf While very young…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN