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

201–210 of 330 posts

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

#201

Post by jarofgreen »

elihu wrote: post #150
headwayoldest wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize their orbit is relatively clear of debris and micro meteors, but is this materials decomposing or degrading and not random damage and happenstance? The ISS has no doubt been important and I remember how excited I was when it was being assembled. Is it really so historically significant it's worth the amount of effort you're describing?

> Is it really so historically significant it's worth the amount of effort you're describing? Space launches are getting a lot cheaper, so moving the ISS to another orbit might not be such a big deal as it used to be. We don't really need to keep the ISS around forever, but on the other hand, losing it would in some ways be similar to the burning of Notre Dame in 2019 (I can't believe that was less than two years ago…

> It's mankind's first permanent foothold in space.

Mir?

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

#202

Post by WalterBright »

sudosysgen wrote: post #194
WalterBright wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In 2021, the cheapest and most reliable way to send a man to space is to use a Soyuz, for a cost of 19-22 million dollars per person. This is of course a communist design launched by a public space agency built by a majority public ownership factory. I think it might be time to accept that in these cases its pretty often not the inherent efficiency of the free market - which can often be less efficient than alternati…

> 19-22 million dollars per person

That doesn't mean it was profitable. The price could have been set for political reasons. Or it could have been set by the marginal cost of the launch, ignoring entirely the development cost that was written off when the USSR collapsed. Or it could have been enough to simply pay for the weight of the astronaut in a rocket that was going up anyway, like a hotel will sell rooms at a deep discount just to not lose as much money if it cannot otherwise. If communism produces goods and services cheaper than the free market, we'd be awash in Soviet goods.

The US government produces goods and services at "cheap" prices, but the losses are made up for by the taxpayer.

> which can often be less efficient than alternatives

I'd like to see a case of that.

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

#203

Post by WalterBright »

NewLogic wrote: post #188
WalterBright wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government contracting is not at all indicative of how the free market works. Also, the free market would never have built a design like the space shuttle. Pushing very heavy wings and landing gear into space doesn't make sense and never did.

It was actually the side-mount design that made the least sense. It left the heatshield completely exposed to ice and insulation strikes.

To be fair, the magnitude of that risk was not realized in the design phase. Though one could hardly miss the giant, heavy wings & landing gear and the heavy structure to support it. That was obvious to me at the time, and I often wondered why no article about the shuttle ever mentioned it.

Musk figured out a far better way to make a reusable rocket. All it needs is a bit of extra fuel that is burned at the last second.

(Playing the Lunar Lander game in college, I soon realized that the minimum fuel burn to land it was to fall ballistically and go to full power as late as possible, hitting 0 fps just as one touched down.)

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

#204

Post by leptons »

lsllc wrote: post #42
ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

Materials aging in space is a pretty deep subject. 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. The ISS is/was scheduled to be retired in 2024 (aka 3 years from now) but there are calls to keep it going. My fantasy would be to have SpaceX move it into the Lunar L1 Lagrange point which would keep it in use but it would have to…

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.

TV and movies have sold you a fantasy.

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

#206

Post by sellyme »

xxpor wrote: post #56
tempestn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it was a translation? I assumed it was quoting Solovyov speaking English.

It's not even the interview that's the issue, the actual text the author wrote is a mess too. >He underscored that air loss due to the crack are insignificant. >In November, Russian cosmonauts photographed the suspected leak location on the outside of the ISS, but found no hull damage at where the crack is supposed to be. Granted, it's understandable, but it sounds like someone who learned English in school but never…

I routinely see English errors far more egregious than that in publications written exclusively by native speakers, so I'm not sure it's too noteworthy.

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

#207

Post by sellyme »

curiousllama wrote: post #116
calcifer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They leak 0.3 mmHg per day and are currently at 750 mmHg. An emergency is 0.5-1 mmHg per minute . They really don't have anything urgent to worry about.

Except loud cracking sounds followed by a gentle breeze

If they're experiencing a breeze they might have bigger problems to worry about than a cracked hull.

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

#208

Post by elihu »

jarofgreen wrote: post #201
elihu wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it really so historically significant it's worth the amount of effort you're describing? Space launches are getting a lot cheaper, so moving the ISS to another orbit might not be such a big deal as it used to be. We don't really need to keep the ISS around forever, but on the other hand, losing it would in some ways be similar to the burning of Notre Dame in 2019 (I can't believe that was less than two years ago…

> It's mankind's first permanent foothold in space. Mir?

Good point, I forgot about Mir. According to wikipedia it lasted from 1986 to 2001.

I had briefly considered Skylab, but figured it didn't really count as "permanent". Wikipedia says it was up for 24 weeks.

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

#209

Post by faeyanpiraat »

calcifer wrote: post #97
keyle wrote: post #60

I burst into laughter reading the Russian's quotes. I love how casual the astronaut is about it! I'm no astronaut but I wouldn't be sleeping with crack in my hull, leaking air.

They leak 0.3 mmHg per day and are currently at 750 mmHg. An emergency is 0.5-1 mmHg per minute . They really don't have anything urgent to worry about.

Ok, so it’s a 4.5cm long crack.

If an aluminum bycicle frame cracks like that, it is useful to drill holes at the end of the cracks, to stop the cracks from progressing.

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

#210

Post by etaioinshrdlu »

WalterBright wrote: post #136
khuey wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, in the literal sense, the government can raise revenue via tax and employ people. So it's literally true... You might not like it, or it might be ill advised, or might believe that all taxation is theft, but it is what it is.
Post reply on HN