Slashdot Mirror


ISS Fender Bender

wjsteele writes "Seems that the Space Station has had a minor fender bender. Sounds kind of scary... being in a space craft and hearing metal crunching (like an aluminum can.) Apparently some 'Minor' space debris struck the station around 2:30am this morning, while the astronauts were eating their wheaties." Update: 11/27 16:31 GMT by M : Looks like an experiment may be to blame.

175 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. 2:30 AM, eh? by gowen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Glad you included that, because times of day -- especially those lacking any sort of timezone information -- are extremely useful when referring to events that take place in space.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by KDan · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that, but I see someone already said it.

      I'll just add that it wasn't 2:30am, it was 5:30am, actually.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by mariox19 · · Score: 1

      I blame the schools. Most graduates can't convert Fahrenheit to Celsius, never mind terrestrial time to star dates.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    3. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by golan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the most logical timezone to apply in space, I believe, would be GMT, kind of standard.
      The military people use it when they talk about zulu time, right?, That would be common sense. But, maybe what people at NASA, ESA, or the russian agency think might the other way around!

    4. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would also explain why they were eating their wheaties at 2:30 am. 2:30gmt == 7:30 est.

    5. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by jfoust · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to the Houston Chronicle, among other sources, the incident took place at 1:59 am CST (0759 GMT) Wednesday.

    6. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by suds · · Score: 1

      Almost all the things in flight (except birds) always refer to GMT!
      BTW, When they are in orbit, astro/cosmonauts see a sunset and sunrise every 90 minutes. So I wouldnt be surprised if they are having breakfast at 2.30am GMT.

    7. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      0230GMT = 2130EST. EST is five hours behind GMT/UTC.

      I can speak with authority on this one, as I'm British and live in Florida. When I call my family at five in the evening, they're usually about go to bed.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by Jon_MrJR · · Score: 2, Informative

      I bet it's UTC, that's the timezone NASA uses on this cute StationLocation website...

    9. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      the russian agency think might the other way around!

      Dude... it isn't the Soviet Russian agency anymore!

    10. Re:2:30 AM, eh? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Well, the most logical timezone to apply in space, I believe, would be GMT, kind of standard."

      What's wrong with stardate?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  2. False Alarm by thelizman · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was just the aluminum foil on the stations main antenna.

    1. Re:False Alarm by Ripplet · · Score: 1
      It was just the aluminum foil on the stations main antenna.

      You mean something took off their tin foil hat? Now they're in trouble!

      --

      Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal

  3. Oh boy by EulerX07 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Their insurance are gonna go up now, I hope they had comprehensive...

    1. Re:Oh boy by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Do you know how long it'll take to get an insurance agent up to get an estimate? And most places tell you to "just bring it in".

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  4. Space Junk by Chatmag · · Score: 5, Informative

    A 1999 study estimated there are some 4 million pounds of space junk in low-Earth orbit, just one part of a celestial sea of roughly 110,000 objects larger than 1 centimeter -- each big enough to damage a satellite or space-based telescope.

    It's no wonder the ISS was hit. All they need is the space equivalent of the "adopt a highway" program, and a lot of plastic bags.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
    1. Re:Space Junk by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny
      Or alternatively a chain gang inmates to pick up the trash in orbit...
      An then they say crime doesn't pay. I mean, rob a bank, hide the money, turn yourself in and get a free trip in space! No need for years of hard study and training!
    2. Re:Space Junk by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even on the Earth's surface, those objects would be pretty spread out. The surface area of a sphere varies by r^2 and stable orbits starts quite a distance away from the Earth. So I would be interested in hearing the exact probability of getting hit by something; I don't imagine it's all that big.

    3. Re:Space Junk by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1

      Of all that junk, I wonder hour much is made of at least party fessis metal. Maybe a shuttle could make a few laps around the eart with a low power magnet (low, so you don't screw up the orbit of satalite. :) and snatch a few up. Then, they can shoot it at Sol.

    4. Re:Space Junk by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      You must be an Americon you fucking idiot.
      I'm confused. Are you trying to insult me or the Americons? And secondly, what are Americons?
    5. Re:Space Junk by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Yes, great fantasy anime. I love it. Even though its premise is completely retarded.

      I mean, really, humans manually cleaning up space debris in 2075? This will obviously be automated in the future (as will most jobs), but then that wouldn't make for a good story.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    6. Re:Space Junk by focitrixilous+P · · Score: 1

      Eh, I think the big blue signs saying "this cubic mile adopted by..." would be a bigger threat then the space debris.

      --
      SAILING MISHAP
    7. Re:Space Junk by lgftsa · · Score: 2, Funny

      And secondly, what are Americons?

      I think they're a splinter group of Destructicons which had some philosophical differences with Megatron. They've been having some trouble with Terrorcons lately.

    8. Re:Space Junk by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The space station has a farther orbit then almost all of the lower orbit space junk like sattelites.

      The real threat is the low orbit junk striking a sattelite or a space shuttle which typically fly at much lower elevations.

    9. Re:Space Junk by brettper · · Score: 1

      Actually the odds are 1. Since it just happened it's pretty certain.

      In fact the odds of it happening in the future would also be one - unless you constrain the length of time you're considering

    10. Re:Space Junk by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, genius.

    11. Re:Space Junk by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Hey, you asked... :-)

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  5. Minor? by KingDaveRa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Minor? If I was floating about in space in something with walls as thick as a tin can, I would be rather worried by now.

    According to This article on BBC News Michael Foale is no stranger to this: "He was onboard the Mir space station in 1987 when a Progress supply tanker crashed into it - one of the most dangerous incidents to have ever taken place in space."

    I'd still be crapping my pants though. There's no jumping off this one.

    1. Re:Minor? by KingDaveRa · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing something about the walls of a lot of space vehicles being quite thin. I may have dreamed it or something :-/

    2. Re:Minor? by GammaTau · · Score: 1

      According to This article on BBC News Michael Foale is no stranger to this: "He was onboard the Mir space station in 1987 when a Progress supply tanker crashed into it - one of the most dangerous incidents to have ever taken place in space."

      BBC must be wrong. There were certainly no western astronauts onboard the Mir in 1987. I guess they probably mean 1997.

    3. Re:Minor? by Psiren · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's no jumping off this one.

      Sure there is. It's just a long way down... ;)

    4. Re:Minor? by MouseR · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's no jumping off this one.

      Actually, yes there is.

      The ISS has a permanently docked Soyuz capsule for evacuation purposes.

      Some details, here, also indicate that the incident you mention actually took place in 1997.

      NASA also have info on the escape capsule.

    5. Re:Minor? by s20451 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most spacecraft that fly in and out of the Earth's atmosphere have thick skins, to endure the stresses of launch and re-entry. Spacecraft that are solely designed to travel in the vacuum of space tend to be quite thin-skinned to save weight.

      For example, the Apollo lunar module had a skin about the thickness of a pop can. Apparently the hatch would bulge outward when the module was pressurized -- I wish I could find a reference for that. There is also a story of a technician on the ground who clicked his pen against a high-pressue LM fuel tank during testing -- the click opened a pin-prick leak that amputated the technician's finger (that story is in "Apollo" by Murray and Cox).

      The ISS was specifically designed to withstand impacts from space debris, so I would expect its hull to be a little thicker.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    6. Re:Minor? by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      No, you didn't dream it. Conventional wisdom is to keep a space vehicle wall thin enough to keep oxygen in, and that's pretty much it. The lunar lander had tinfoil walls IIRC.

      Thicker walls cause all sorts of problems with secondary emissions when radiation hits them -- to say nothing of the mass penalty to keep it aloft. I'd rather be in a floating tin can that kept the air in and was relatively peaceful than a thick wall that was the equivalent of an operating xray machine.

      In a competition between space junk and solar radiation, I'll roll the dice for space junk all the time. Solar radiation is perpetual unless you're in the shadow of the earth. :)

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    7. Re:Minor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I recall a comment that very often the walls of some of the human habitable compartments of the Apollo spacecraft were as thick as kitchen foil.

      Remember, the key issues were strength, airtightness, and weight. The strength had to be enough to keep an atmosphere (or large fraction thereof) of air pressure contained - they were less concerned about something piercing the walls because at the kinds of speeds things were likely to hit, it didn't really matter how thick the walls were.

    8. Re:Minor? by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Apparently the hatch would bulge outward when the module was pressurized

      Here's one reference: Andrew Chaikin, A Man on the Moon", Penguin Books, 1998 (ISBN 0-14-024146-9).

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    9. Re:Minor? by MochaMan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is actually phase two of this programme. Original story was from The Onion, but couldn't find it on their site.

    10. Re:Minor? by jafac · · Score: 1

      It's not "floating about".

      It's jetting along at 18,000 miles per hour.

      UnderwearSoiled=true

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:Minor? by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Interesting
      According to This article on BBC News Michael Foale is no stranger to this: "He was onboard the Mir space station in 1987 when a Progress supply tanker crashed into it - one of the most dangerous incidents to have ever taken place in space."
      I've just finished reading Dragonfly, a book all about the incident you mention. Summarising: A manual docking system wasn't nearly up to the task of docking a Progress, and because of frequent system failures, the Russians bring them in fast and break hard. They'd had to turn off radar telemetry because it was interfering with a video signal from the Progress. The Progress hit the station, punching a postage-stamp sized hole in one section and damaging a solar array. The crew were able to seal off affected section, but only after effectively crippling the station because they had to unplug all the cables going through a doorway.

      This was shortly after a near miss of another Progress, a fire in one of the oxygen generators and a bunch of other system failures. The Russians more or less took it in their stride. The Americans, less so.

      If anyone is interested in these events, dig out the book. I don't have time to find an Amazon link at the moment -- will post one if no one beats me to it.

    12. Re:Minor? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0887 307833/qid=1069975712/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-553874 1-1385411?v=glance&s=books -- I can't imagine that /. won't put at least one space in there.

    13. Re:Minor? by SEE · · Score: 1

      Orwell said he drew on his experience working for the BBC when depicting the Ministry of Truth . . .

    14. Re:Minor? by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Yep and room 101 was where the editors chopped the stories to bits.

    15. Re:Minor? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

      Follow the link - either the quoter typed rather than cut and paste, or the BBC have already corrected it...

    16. Re:Minor? by GammaTau · · Score: 1

      Follow the link - either the quoter typed rather than cut and paste, or the BBC have already corrected it...

      Yeah, I followed the link when I wrote my comment and now after your comment. It was 1987 then, it is 1997 now. It seems that BBC has really edited it afterwards.

  6. Re:Uhh by October_30th · · Score: 1

    "Humans and aliens wrapped in two million, five hundred thousand tons of spinning metal, all alone in the night. It can be a dangerous place..."

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
  7. A "brush"? by PatrickThomson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't things as small as paing flecks cause serious damage at the kind of speeds space junk goes at?

    I realise the junk might share the same orbit as the space station and have the same relative velocity blah blah, but consider just how slow it'd have to be moving not to rupture the hull.

    --
    I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    1. Re:A "brush"? by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      That was on re-entry. But not to worry, space agencies know about space junk and plan on it not rupturing their hull

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    2. Re:A "brush"? by s20451 · · Score: 3, Informative

      but don't things as small as paing flecks cause serious damage at the kind of speeds space junk goes at?

      I assume you mean "paint flecks", and the answer is that they may cause minor damage. The space shuttle Challenger took a paint fleck hit on one of its windows, which left a crater about a quarter inch in diameter. Apparently such minor pitting on the thermal tiles is considered routine in the shuttle program.

      Even at orbital speeds, paint flecks don't have enough momentum to worry about. The big worry is the ball-bearing-sized debris, which is essentially impossible to detect, and which could deliver the impact energy of a hand grenade explosion.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:A "brush"? by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, the station is also moving at high speeds around the earth. If it moves in the same direction as the debris, they can move side by side without harm (or at least you don't get collisions in the km/s range).

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    4. Re:A "brush"? by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      Define serious damage... Here is an article describing the effects of space debris on the Hubble space telescope. It seems only an antenna was really damaged.

      A google search for hull repair kits gave me nothing useful, does anyone else know if such a thing has been developed for the ISS?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  8. Oh, I know what this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Micheal Foale's got one of those sound effect key fobs.

    Instead of the usual Grenade Launcher, Bazooka, Machine Gun noises, the new space version comes with 'crunching metal tin', 'airlock hiss' and 'oops, we lost a solar panel' noises...

    Nice one Michael!

    1. Re:Oh, I know what this is... by pipingguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Homer: Boy, I know you're going to like your present.

      [it's a hand-held gizmo with three buttons, Bart presses each button a few times]

      Toy: Shut up! Shut up! Kiss my butt! Shut up! Go to hell! Go to hell!

      Bart: Dad, I promise you, I will never get tired of this.

  9. 30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by asciimonster · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recall an insident with a space shuttle a few years ago. A flick of paint hit a window and left a fist-sized star in that window. That's the danger of space 30,000 km/s isn't a big deal in space, but having a collision at that speed is quite an impact.

    So anyone who still think the movie Armageddon is based on scientific facts. (Remember the body being flung againt the windscreen and it didn't even have a scratch?) Think again...

    1. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by asciimonster · · Score: 3
      Here are some links that might be interesting in this respect:

      High Speed Collisions
      Debris and Furture Space Activities

    2. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by Seahawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that the body in Armageddon didnt move with 30000 km/h compared to the shuttle, as it had fallen out of a spaceship with the same speed and direction of the first craft

    3. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by cybergrue · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      So anyone who still think the movie Armageddon is based on scientific facts.
      Your kidding right. Armageddon is possibly the worst SF movie in recient years in respect for the correct protrayal of science. Normally I go to see big budget SF movies and privatly chuckle everytime a scientific law gets broken. Most movies I rate in "minutes between screwups", however in Armageddon, it was how many screwup were there per second. My favourate one is when they doc with Mir, start it rotating to create artificial gravity, and then walk up the docking tubes. :-[ If they got this wrong, then don't expect the Hollywood producers to be able to calculate the damage from a two body collision correctly.

    4. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by asciimonster · · Score: 1
      Except that the body in Armageddon didnt move with 30000 km/h compared to the shuttle, as it had fallen out of a spaceship with the same speed and direction of the first craft

      Ok. Bad example. But in the film there were some basketball-sized stones flying around...

      Wait a minute... That body could never have hit the second shuttle in the first place. It has the same speed as the first shuttle, and since there is no atmosphere to slow him down, it should float alongside it.

    5. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by myom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything hitting the space station at that speed (1/10 the speed of light) would cause enormous damage. Did you mean 30 000km/h?

    6. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by Stween · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That body could never have hit the second shuttle in the first place. It has the same speed as the first shuttle, and since there is no atmosphere to slow him down, it should float alongside it."

      If memory serves from the movie, there was an awful lot of stuff floating around on the approach to the asteroid that could have slowed the body down quicker than a shuttle. A couple of strikes from those basketball-sized stones you mention could easily have kicked the body back a little.

      That said, there's little point trying to analyse a movie that's clearly not intended to be scientifically accurate.

    7. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by dAzED1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that you could see. with detail, the body coming pretty much meant that the relative speed differential wasn't 30,000km/s. Or even 30,000km/h. Or even 300km/h. Ever seen a car drive towards you at 300km/h? Even without flalling arms, even with sharp, slick edges, its more blurry than that body was.

      Just because something is in space doesn't mean that its relative speed to you is instantly 1/10 the speed of light - you realize that you're just one zero away, right? Additionally, just because you're in space and you hit something, doesn't mean your relative speed was all that high. I mean, if your relative speed is 1m/h different, and you're only 1m away...well, in 1h, you'll hit it.

      Has no one heard of relativity here?

    8. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      You're right at the damage that a space debris hitting you might cause. But I'm very sure that space debris aboce Earth can't hit a space station at 30 million meters per second - even if the two objects were orbiting the earth at exactly opposite directions, it isn't possible to be THAT high (3*10^7 ms-1 = 1/10 light speed!!). But, yes, even if a space debris hits you at 5 to 10km/s, that is gonna cause a lot of damage.

    9. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by hanssprudel · · Score: 1


      The earths radius is about 6,360 km. The ISS altitude varies, but is around 340-380 km mean most of the time. This gives an orbital distance of ca. 42,500 km (I know, orbits aren't circles, but I'm not being precise).

      If the ISS were traveling 30,000 km/s it would circle the earth in 1.5 seconds.

      So yes: he is way off.

    10. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Typical speed of LEO debris is 13km/sec - much faster than that and you'll escapte the earth's gravitational field - meaing you won't stick around for very long. The escape velocity from the SUN's gravitional field is in the 40's of km/sec.

    11. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by MrEd · · Score: 1, Troll
      While you're checking out the impact energy of a grain of sand at orbital velocities, you can find out if Jesus could have sinned or why the world could have been created in seven days.


      He sure covers all the bases.

      --

      Wah!

    12. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by myom · · Score: 1

      ISS colliding with something would mean it hits something that is: 1: Also in orbit, and in an extreme case it is a head-on collision. Its speed would be similar to the ISS, since it maintains orbit at the asme altitude. 2: Something else, non-orbital, moving through space. Its speed can theoretically be anything, but most likely not close to c/10.

    13. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      He's got an interesting take on Jesus sinning.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    14. Re:30,000 km/s can do a lot of damage by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      the guy said "30,000km/s," which is in fact 1/10 of 300,000lm/s.

      I said 30,000km/s was 1/10 the speed of light. I didn't say 30,000km/h was. Re-read.

  10. MicroMetoriets by rf0 · · Score: 1

    Least it wasn't a micro meteroite which would of just punctured the ISS and caused massive decompression. Of course floating around where the only way down is 100 mile fall isn't an overally comforting idea

    Rus

    1. Re:MicroMetoriets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except...

      a) the stations is designed to withstand mictometeor hits.

      b) there is a capsule parked there permanantly for escape

      c) in the event of a puncture, they can move to either the capsule or just out of the effected compartment, and seal off that area. decompression isn't very fast through a 1cm hole.

    2. Re:MicroMetoriets by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe that even the shuttle is able to cope with a hole in the hull close to an inch across long enough to do an emergency re-entry (of course if it's in the wrong part of the hull it's Columbia time again). So an ISS crew shouldn't have too big a problem with small meteorites, even if they had to seal off one module... the idea that all your air will leak out in seconds through a small hole is pure Hollywood.

    3. Re:MicroMetoriets by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Yes. If you look at the speed a car tyre goes flat at when you unscrew the valve - it takes a good minute or so from 35psi - then consider how large a space station is, that's a lot of air to leak out. Especially since the pressure difference is about the same (14psi->0, compared with 35psi -> 14psi).

    4. Re:MicroMetoriets by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Especially since the pressure difference is about the same (14psi->0, compared with 35psi -> 14psi).

      The pressure is about half - your 35 psi tire is 35 psi relative to the atmosphere. That's why the pressure changes in the Spring and Fall.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:MicroMetoriets by tftp · · Score: 1

      d) grab a spray can and seal the hole. Since the air escapes from within, it would be a very good patch. They do have such a sealant up there, and you can get one too (sold at local Kragen store to repair tires.)

    6. Re:MicroMetoriets by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      You are right, of course. I should check these things, and not post while concentrating on other things.

  11. Doesnt seem right to me by hookedup · · Score: 3, Interesting


    The spokesman, who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said by telephone that the space forces had detected an object along the station's orbit. They determined that the object was very small and would pose no danger to the craft.

    Shouldnt they at the very least notify the crew to inform them of the junk nearby? And possibly practice a drill for this sort of thing.

    Seems to me they lucked out this time, if that had been a bigger piece of junk which would cause major damage, and had ground control had seen it and not said anything, we would have plenty of different headlines this morning.

    1. Re:Doesnt seem right to me by Umber+Hulk · · Score: 1

      They are. THere are ground-based radar systems that monitor trajectories of earth-orbit objects. While their fundamental goal is to catch launch of ICBM's and other missiles, they do keep an eye for space junk that might hit the ISS. Of course, radars can only resolve objects of some minimum size, so at least the ISS can be forewarned of the big chunks.

  12. Fender Bender ? by mbone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of the weirdest things I have heard of -
    - Both astronauts heard it
    - By this point they should be pretty familar with the noises the station makes - for example, the thermal expansion / contraction as you go through the terminator.
    - It did not sound like an explosion (typical velocities of space debris impacts is 5 kilometers per second or so - and meteorites impact at even higher velocities), so it probably wasn't a piece of random junk.
    - They got out the mobile camera and couldn't see anything damaged.

    So what was it ? Let's hope it wasn't some valve or other part failing, but I suspect we will hear more of this.

    1. Re:Fender Bender ? by October_30th · · Score: 1

      The scientific explanation is simple: gremlins.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Fender Bender ? by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously it has to be aliens doing knock-and-run.

    3. Re:Fender Bender ? by Spunk · · Score: 1

      Wasn't this the opening sequence to one of the Alien movies?

    4. Re:Fender Bender ? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      "Don't worry, it was probably just the cat."
      "Oh, okay. G'night."

      Two minutes later...

      "We don't have a cat."

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Fender Bender ? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They got out the mobile camera and couldn't see anything damaged. So what was it?

      Well, if life follows B sci fi movies, they are in deep shit. There is NEVER a mysterious thump unless there is terror around the corner.

  13. Moving orbit by rf0 · · Score: 1

    "In case a piece of debris is big enough to threaten damage, the spacecraft are directed to a safer orbit."

    Am I the only worried by this in that if there is a bit of junk they have to move. Surely if we keep polluting space then there eventually won't be another orbit.

    If there was a bit of junk on the freeway it would be picked up and moved and in space we just avoid it

    Rus

    1. Re:Moving orbit by TehHustler · · Score: 1

      The distances involved with space travel are so large that its pretty to avoid something. Just moving 1 km down would do it.

      --

      TheHustler
      http://www.elmarko.org/ - Useless bilge
      http://www.asylum-games.co.uk/ - Co-Founder
    2. Re:Moving orbit by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      If there was a bit of junk on the freeway it would be picked up and moved and in space we just avoid it.

      Well, yeah. There's a slight cost differential between dispatching a Highways Department crew and sending up something able to find and catch a paint chip or something moving at orbital velocity.

      Surely if we keep polluting space then there eventually won't be another orbit.

      If the problem gets bad enough, surely The Powers That Be will devise some sort of autonomous craft able to detect debris down to the smallest paint chip, give chase, and collect it. Possibly even catch larger debris and guide it into a more quickly deteriorating orbit so it will burn up in the atmosphere. Once its debris hopper is full, it would change orbit so it too burned up on re-entry.

      For all we know this might even already be on the drawing board somewhere-- it's probably just a matter of waiting for some of the needed technologies to catch up with the design-- like fast propulsion and agile maneuverability without having to turn the craft into a giant fuel tank.

      ~Philly

    3. Re:Moving orbit by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      I think there should be alternatives, space is a lot different from ground (e.g. you don't need to care a lot about friction) you don't need to dispatch a janitor-craft to clean the mess.

      For example, considering the small size of most space junks, it should be possible to vapourize a number of them with a strong laser beam. It may even be possible to kick them away with good old Newtonian mechanics, as space debris' orbitals are pretty easily predictable, why not shoot them out of orbit with a projectile?

    4. Re:Moving orbit by phillymjs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      space debris' orbitals are pretty easily predictable, why not shoot them out of orbit with a projectile?

      Because the idea is to have less crap floating around in Earth orbit, not more. If the collision between one of your projectiles and its target is of sufficient force, the debris will become a scattered cloud of fragments. Something the size of the fingernail on your pinky put a crater into the windshield of one of the shuttles, do we really want a cloud of them up there?

      The laser beam idea might be feasible, but then again, maybe not. SDI turned out to be a lot harder to create than everyone thought, and that dealt with large moving objects traveling predictable paths. Plus you've got to worry about something that you don't want to hit being in the line of fire, which is slightly less of a concern when what you want to hit are nuclear warheads heading for your cities.

      Call me crazy, but I think the idea of a few autonomous space trash trucks cruising around up there and picking up errant junk seems like the way to go, once technology has advanced sufficiently to permit it.

      ~Philly

    5. Re:Moving orbit by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If the problem gets bad enough, surely The Powers That Be will devise some sort of autonomous craft able to detect debris down to the smallest paint chip, give chase, and collect it.

      why not just put something up there to absorb a bunch of junk and deorbit?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    6. Re:Moving orbit by Martin65 · · Score: 1

      Call me crazy, but I think the idea of a few autonomous space trash trucks cruising around up there and picking up errant junk seems like the way to go, once technology has advanced sufficiently to permit it.


      Having a "space truck" cruising around picking up junk would not be feasible. All this junk is in different orbits, and it would take massive amounts of fuel for the space truck to change orbit to capture the next piece of junk.

      Blasting it with a laser beam isn't a good idea either, it's better to have one easily-trackable solid piece of junk than thousands of little pieces in a cloud.

    7. Re:Moving orbit by jafac · · Score: 1

      For large pieces of junk which we can track, yes.

      But for the potentially millions of tiny bits, manmade or natural, it's still a pretty insurmountable problem. Vaporizing them with a laser probably isn't the answer either. Because you'd turn a large object, say a bolt, into thousands of tiny metal droplets once the vapor condensed and hardened.

      I think with current technology we've got on board the Airborne Laser, coupled with a space-based radar tracking system, could easily work the smaller ballistic targets - that's technology we have TODAY. (excluding how one would re-fuel the laser). But the vaporization debris creates a new problem. Sure, the tiny metal droplets are less hazardous, less mass, same velocity. But they're not harmless either.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    8. Re:Moving orbit by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      space trash trucks cruising around up there and picking up errant junk

      Like Quark?

  14. Sound in space? by instanto · · Score: 1

    I did'nt think sound travelled in space.

    Anyway; The ISS and the MIR stations - according to reports sound awfully like the space station in Armageddon (the movie - not the biblical doomsday).

    "Russian Equipment, American Equipment.. its all made in Taiwan!"

    --
    // instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
    1. Re:Sound in space? by Stween · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I did'nt think sound travelled in space."

      That's true. The sound didn't travel through space, the sound travelled through the body of the space station and the air contained within it, not the vacuum of space.

    2. Re:Sound in space? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      I did'nt think sound travelled in space.
      Almost right. It doesn't travel through space (mostly vacuum), but it does travel through space stations (various materials which conduct sound vibrations).
    3. Re:Sound in space? by snipingkills · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum due to a lack of matter to vibrate through. If something impacted the hull the sound waves would be transmitted through the hull and through the atmosphere inside the space station.

    4. Re:Sound in space? by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      "I did'nt think sound travelled in space."

      That's true.

      No, it's not . Hmm... on second thought, it may be true that he didn't think it, but you can't know that :-)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    5. Re:Sound in space? by Stween · · Score: 1

      "No, it's not."

      I deliberately didn't go into the fact that sound, albeit imperceptible to our good selves, can actually travel across space. Mainly because it's sometimes easier just to draw a line and make the distinction between audible and not.

      Besides, the story was about people hearing the noise, not highly sensitive electronic equipment. ;)

  15. A simplier explanation by doktorstop · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Russian Space Agency has just issued a simplier explanation. They've been trying to figure out what happened and came out with a different idea. No debris have hit the station. The sound was internal, coming from something that jammed a fan in the internal air ventilation system. This also has been confirmed by specialists from RosAviaKosmos (the company that built IIS =) Sorry, folks, the Mars attack theory will have to wait till next time =)

    --
    http://www.automatiq.se
    1. Re:A simplier explanation by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      RosAviaKosmos (the company that built IIS =)

      Wasn't Microsoft the company that built IIS?

    2. Re:A simplier explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just a face spider crawling through those pipes. Nothing to worry about folks.

      At least until astronauts return to Earth...

      *creepy music*

    3. Re:A simplier explanation by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite, if we've put up an IIS in space the Martians must have infiltrated into our governments.

    4. Re:A simplier explanation by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > This also has been confirmed by specialists from RosAviaKosmos (the company that built IIS =)

      As someone else pounted out, Microsoft built IIS. RAK built the ISS, thankfully.

  16. Re:Anyone know... by gowen · · Score: 4, Informative
    What time zone the ISS runs in?
    According to Ed Lu's letters home they work on Greenwich Mean Time.
    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  17. Would that not be UCT by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

    coordinated universal time.

    1. Re:Would that not be UCT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      UTC == GMT

    2. Re:Would that not be UCT by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Not by definition though.
      UTC is NOT GMT, it just happens to be the same as GMT.

      --
      No Comment.
    3. Re:Would that not be UCT by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      And not even that, about half the year there is an hour difference between the two.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    4. Re:Would that not be UCT by gowen · · Score: 1
      And not even that, about half the year there is an hour difference between the two.
      Thats not true. There's no daylight saving in GMT. There is in Britain, but then it becomes BST (British Summer Time), rather than GMT.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    5. Re:Would that not be UCT by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      True. In English, all statements evaluate to true unless otherwise stated.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    6. Re:Would that not be UCT by Dwonis · · Score: 2, Informative
    7. Re:Would that not be UCT by Dwonis · · Score: 1

      False, I think. Mainly because UTC is based on atomic time, and GMT was not (GMT officially no longer exists).

    8. Re:Would that not be UCT by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Does (UTC == GMT) resolve to true or false?

      Don't be so closed-minded about time: The answer is both! :)

      Half the year it is the same, half it is different. Think of it like Daylight Savings Time.

    9. Re:Would that not be UCT by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      "This statement is false."

      Heh.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  18. I know what it is by a!b!c! · · Score: 1

    Its is a printout of the code SCO needs to win its case, turned into an intersplanetary spitball.

    1. Re:I know what it is by Avihson · · Score: 1

      It was Frank Poole!

  19. FLOATING space junk? by localroger · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Space junk does not "float," it zips along at seven miles per second. Any piece of space junk big enough to see would have completely destroyed at least one module of the ISS. Even if the space junk was in "almost" the same orbit as ISS (say, detached from the ISS itself previously) it would be going fast enough to do a hell of a lot of damage.

    I don't have any idea what could have caused this, but it wasn't something randomly floating around that just bumped the station. What disturbs me more than the accident itself is that professionals who should know better are floating this idea that it might be like a shopping cart hitting your car. It makes no sense at all.

    --
    Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
    1. Re:FLOATING space junk? by andrewscraig · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you have to think relative. Relative to the speed of the space station, a piece of space junk "almost" in the same orbit as ISS is going "almost" the same speed as the ISS (unless one is being propelled by something). That's why it can just rub against the station without actually causing any damage.

    2. Re:FLOATING space junk? by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are two extreme cases, and a lot of intermediates.

      The orbital radius determines the tangential velocity of an orbiting object, but it doesn't determine its direction. You have to take the angle between the two velocity vectors into account in calculating the relative velocity.

      In this case, assume r is the same. If both velocities have the same direction, then relative velocity is zero. If they're on the opposite direction, then the relative velocity is twice the original. For any other cases you'll need to grab a calculator and prey to the cos() or sin() functions.

    3. Re:FLOATING space junk? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If they're on the opposite direction

      I don't know much about orbits & stuff, but can two things orbit in different directions around the planet? Or do they have to follow the rotation of Earth?

      > grab a calculator and prey to the cos() or sin() functions.

      Yup, those functions ate a lot of my time (hint: it's "pray")

  20. You knew it was coming! by Txiasaeia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did anybody else read the title and think "Bite my shiny metal space station ass?"

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
    1. Re:You knew it was coming! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Yes:
      ISS Gender Bender (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on 27-11-03 14:49
      But that was without the ass.
  21. Some serious analysis required by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The scene... a silently rusting space station, somewhere in near Earth orbit.

    "Honey,..."

    "Yeah?"

    "... I think I crashed the space station"

    "WHAT?!!"

    "Look, it wasn't my fault. Some space junk came out without stopping and I ran right into it!"

    "Honey, baby, how often have I told you, DON'T DRIVE MY SPACE STATION. Sorry, I got a little emotional there."

    "We're insured, aren't we?"

    "Not over international territory. Right now we're about over Afghanistan. No coverage."

    "I'm so sorry, I'll make it right..."

    "OK, suit up, we're going out"

    "No, I meant I'll bake some cookies"

    "OK, get me a beer while you're at it."

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  22. Re:Uhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    and aliens

    You mean there are Europeans up there?

  23. I'll thank you by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not to refer to my secret orbiting battle station from which I intend to launch my bid for world domination as 'debris'

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:I'll thank you by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      All that "space junk" you are referring to is in fact a form of cloaking device intended to hide the presence of alien ships in orbit!

      I know cause they radio me via the silver fillings in my back teeth (reception is getting worse as I lose them). They are in league with the black helicopters in whisper mode that hover over my trailer in east Texas (especially when Elvis is here for a visit).

      I'll just lay under my trailer tonight with my dogs and scan the sky with my night vision riflescope, and see if I can spot the little boogers!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  24. Re:Anyone know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't reply to Anonymous Cowards

    Right...

  25. For the space newbies by suds · · Score: 4, Funny

    Space junk, half the size of the little finger nail has hit the International Space Station (of size approximately 20 VW beetles) today morning at 2.30am precisely. The junk was moving at a 1000 times the speed of a jumbo jet, and if hit head on could create a crater 0.0034 times the size of Philadelphia.

  26. Why didn't they just... by riggwelter · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...raise shields?!

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
    1. Re:Why didn't they just... by isorox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, in this day and age you just polarise the hull plating

    2. Re:Why didn't they just... by youngerpants · · Score: 1

      Or just use the deflector dish.

      I personally dont know how the "junk" got through the stable warp bubble in the first place.

      Jesus, I really should get out more

    3. Re:Why didn't they just... by bidule · · Score: 1
      ...raise shields?!

      A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: We don't have any defensive shields, and Two: We don't have any defensive shields. Now, I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw, but I thought that it was such a big one it was worth mentioning twice.
      --
      ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  27. Re:Anyone know... by ComaVN · · Score: 1

    He never lies either, so that works out just fine :P

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
  28. Later on that day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...they discover that a six pack of beer has been stowed away in the bathroom. And one can is missing...

    1. Re:Later on that day... by wjsteele · · Score: 1

      There was also a mysterious circular bruise (approximately the size of the bottom of a beer can) on the forehead of Michael Foale's as well. Hmmm.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  29. Filmmaker David Cronenberg Arrested In Space by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5, Funny
    INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION -- Canadian filmmaker David Cronenberg was arrested today over 700 miles above the Earth's surface when he was found filming scenes for a sequel to his controversial film, Crash, a movie about sexual attraction to car crashes.

    Cronenberg, who had not obtained permission to film from the American or Russian space agencies, was found outside the International Space Station by astronauts after they were awoken by what sounded like "a car being crashed". Upon investigation, the astronauts found Cronenberg discussing the result of a take with actor Elias Koteas and giving direction for the next.

    "I can't believe he did this," said cosmonaut Alexander Kaleri from the space station. "This is not a movie studio."

    The arrest comes only six months after Cronenberg announced that he was entering the X-Prize Contest, which promises an award of $10,000,000 US to the first privately-owned reusable spacecraft. Outside of a few die-hard fans of the director's work, no one had taken Cronenberg's entrace seriously.

    "This really fucks things up for me," said John Carmack, the odds-on favourite in the contest. "If he posts bail and gets back up in space, then he wins the prize. I never knew he was this far ahead."

    Cronenberg is being held in a washroom on the International Space Station pending a routine Soyuz supply flight. Sources at NASA say that it's possible he could be formally booked and bail set within as little as six days, giving him plenty of time to fulfill the X-Prize conditions.

    Open-source programmer Richard Stallman could not be reached for comment, but sources close to the computing guru said he had been collaborating with Cronenberg for some time. "He was one of the paramedics in the first Crash," said a friend. "I think Cronenberg's making him a meteorite or something in this one."

  30. It wasn't hit by anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    BBC News now says that it wasn't hit by an external object and that the noice came from an internal instrument.

  31. Video footage from external cameras reveals... by Channard · · Score: 4, Funny

    '... a vaguely humanoid yet strangely reflective skinned figure placing a satellite dish and assorted space station parts into his torso before flying away in a strange shaped craft. Sound cleanup of the noise has revealed the mysterious but still slightly distorted message '.ou ca... bit... my shiny... etal... ass' Could this be the first evidence of an alien intelligence in the universe.?'

    1. Re:Video footage from external cameras reveals... by Saeger · · Score: 1
      "... NASA attributed the phenomenon to the Sun refracting off gas vented from the Shuttle, and buried the incident under FaceOnMars ..."

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  32. Does this remind anyone of "Chernobyl"? by geoswan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The article talks about the different attitudes towards safety the two space agencies have...

    The Russians consider themselves less rigid and more inventive than the Americans, who tend to follow every letter in the technical manuals, said Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the Russian Space Agency.

    Isn't this what caused the Chernobyl meltdown? IIRC, the technical staff were being inventive and improvising around some safety tests.

    1. Re:Does this remind anyone of "Chernobyl"? by geoswan · · Score: 1
      The Russians consider themselves less rigid and more inventive than the Americans, who tend to follow every letter in the technical manuals, said Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the Russian Space Agency.

      Actually, that was a quote from another space.com article. Here is the link.

    2. Re:Does this remind anyone of "Chernobyl"? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was a quote from another space.com article. Here is the link....

      That article must be a slashdot April 1st plant or something. Take a gander at these passages:

      In the U.S. program you must prove it is safe. The Russian approach is ''prove it's not safe.''.......``Here in Russia, we are more flexible in our approach to technical problems,'' Gorbunov said.

      In short: In Russia, space problems find you.

  33. Is it making a comeback? by tgeerts · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope they did not spill any Tang.

  34. Eating breakfast at 2:30am? by smart.id · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This brings me to wonder... what time system and time zone (if any) do the astronauts use?

    --
    blog & fiction: jd87
    1. Re:Eating breakfast at 2:30am? by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      I believe it's Central US time.

  35. Gender Bender ? by ciryon · · Score: 2, Funny
    Perhaps it was the Gender Bender ?

    Ciryon

  36. In space ... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    No one can hear you scream that it was the other guy's fault!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  37. The Space Station was NOT Struck by SparafucileMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nothing actually hit the space station, and everything is fine. See here, here, here, or just skip them all and see Google.

  38. Actually, it WAS a false alarm. by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Informative
  39. source of noise found by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 3, Informative
  40. Rant of the month by Wolfrider · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    --Y'know, this is a case where your vaunted "education" really kills the ENTERTAINMENT value of a movie. I thoroughly enjoy Armageddon every time I see it, because -IT'S A MOVIE- and I try not to read into it too much. Yeah, I recognized the "Mir gravity" as unrealistic, but it didn't get in the way. They did a great job on the plot and visual effects. I even got emotional over Liv Tyler's scene with her dad making the heroic sacrifice.

    --Cut them some slack, at least it wasn't as bad as Battlestar Galactica. (And if you lower your expectations, you could probably enjoy even that, too.)

    --You could pick apart the whole LOTR trilogy too, if you wanted to; but personally I figure it's better to just sit back and try to enjoy the ride. Don't over-analyze everything.

    --People are just getting too "sophisticated" these days. Everybody's got their nose up in the air and we all walk around thinking how well-educated and how great we all are. Yeah, we've "sophisticated" ourselves right out of a good imagination and we can't enjoy anything anymore. And Hollywood keeps making crappy movies because idiots keep paying to see it.

    --All our base are belong to India while stupid people over here work 12+ hour days, when more people should be hired to spread the work around. No wonder the economy is so damn bad.

    --
    .
    == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    1. Re:Rant of the month by prichardson · · Score: 1

      Ok, just to continue on in the ranting tradition.

      Armageddon was NOT a very good movie. I watched before taking HS physics, so not a lot of technical stuff bothered me. What bothered me was the complete and total lack of empathy i was made to feel for the characters. At the end of the movie I didn't care who lived or died. Any good movie at least makes you care about what happens to the characters. Armageddon completely failed to do that.

      Your last comment sums it up though. "And Hollywood keeps making crappy movies because idiots keep paying to see it." Well, in my opinion, Armageddon was one of those bad movies and I suppose you were one of the idiots who saw it (side note: the first time I saw it was on TV).

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    2. Re:Rant of the month by Roman_(ajvvs) · · Score: 1
      If noone mentioned the fact that movies inaccurately reflected reality, then movies like Shanghai Knights or Armageddon would seriously warp peoples' view of history.

      I've had to correct quite a few people of primarily younger age (not that I'm old), in their perception of what's real in movies and what's not. I'd almost go so far as to say while some people are getting too sophisticated (and killing their enjoyment), others are gettings less sophisticated.

      --
      click-clack, front and back. I'm not moving this car otherwise.
  41. Fender bender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I didn't know space stations have fenders. That is about as dumb as putting wings on a space ship. Wait... Nevermind.

  42. Re:"2:30am this morning" ? by wjsteele · · Score: 1

    Um... 2:30am happens every day... "this morning" refers to the fact that it happened on the day of the posting.

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  43. Close, but no cigar by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    UTC == GMT - daylight savings time.

  44. Re:Uhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If that had read read "you mean there are americans up there" it would have been modded as flamebait.

    Hardly fair to us Europeans is it ?
    Oh and yes, there are 2 europeans up there and no septics.

  45. Re:"2:30am this morning" ? by MagicBox · · Score: 1

    Dun, you must have some kind of spelling phobia. Dude, just relax. A more appropriate way could be: 2:30AM Today (or 2:30AM Thursday, or this morning at 2:30), but a lot of people do get confused when it comes to that. 2:30AM this morning is not that bad, it actually is easier to understand. Plus you have to understand that slashdot is a site run by geeks, and you know geeks are not the best when it comes to grammar. You have to forgive them sometimes. Dictionary

    --

    The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
  46. How reassuring by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1
    "Subsequent inspections showed there was no collision whatsoever," a mission control spokesman told Reuters by telephone from outside Moscow.

    As if they can tell this from an inspection? Didn't analysis of the Columbia space shuttle debris on takeoff show there was no risk, only to have it disintegrate on reentry?

    --
    Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
  47. Re:"2:30am this morning" ? by wjsteele · · Score: 1

    English is, after all, a second language for me. :-)

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
  48. Re:"2:30am this morning" ? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    Um... 2:30am happens every day... "this morning" refers to the fact that it happened on the day of the posting.

    You are correct, but it is still redundant. "this morning" means "today in the am hours". The proper way to say it would have been either: "2:30am today", or "2:30 this morning". If they were trying to say "today", they should have used the word.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  49. When I first saw that headline... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought it said IIS fender bender. I was trying to figure out why the space station was running IIS, and figured this was another microsoft-bashing article.

  50. Re:"2:30am this morning" ? by MagicBox · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is that geeks do not follow the same logic when writing code than when writing english (I haven't many times myself). I am sure an embedded spell checker for grammar inside the compiler would be extremely useful, so when you run your compiler it would also point out your spelling mistakes, but then that raises a whole other array of issues. However unpleasant, as long as I understand what they are trying to say I am fine with it. After all, I have people I work with which I cannot understand 40% of what they are saying, so compared to this little *mistake* it's a by far a much bigger problem. AM This morning at Google

    --

    The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
  51. evacuation by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Well, actually the Soyuz can't be *permanently* docked, or it wouldn't be very useful as an evacuation vehicle. How about 'long term'?

    But there is another consideration. The Soyuz has a shelf-life, and they periodically have to change the thing out, anyway. Every so often a Soyuz mission will come up, and take the rescue capsule down, leaving their original transport as the new rescue capsule.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  52. They need garbash deflectors up there by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

    They really should consider putting up a garbage detection and deflection system and it could be based and controlled from the ISS. Basicly a few radar satelites and a dozen or so robots that move about in ordit with bumber plates to deflect garbage into the atmosphere. Too bad vacume cleaners would work in space.

    Plus if there were a dozen or so, if one malfunctioned it could be rescued by another and brought back to the ISS for servicing. They could be both radio isotope and thrust fueled and could be refueled at the ISS. Relativly simple robots and it could lead the way for robotic repair bots for satelite repairs.

  53. Need the info... by daveking · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless you know what time standard is used on the space station, the assertion that something happened to the space station at 2:30am this morning only gives you the approximate position of the space station relative to the earth and sun during the event. You can't deduce the longitude or Earth surface local time from it, because the space station will have had that relative position multiple times on any given morning.

    So how do they handle time out there? I'll bet it involves the word 'Zulu' because that sounds really cool over the radio in movies.

    This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.

    --
    ------DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE------
  54. Bet it was a beer can. by ironduke-particle · · Score: 1

    Moreover, a can that until recently contained beer of almost homeopathic strength, probably with a picture of a kangaroo on the label.

  55. GMT explained by GoneGaryT · · Score: 2, Informative
    UTC == GMT == BST - daylight_savings, so far as I am aware.

    Greenwich Mean Time is called Mean because it is the time averaged over a year, if you get the idea. It isn't the real time on account of the 3 degrees or so of wobble of the earth on its axis. The block where I live is pretty much bang on geographical North - South, so shadows around midday can be observed over time. The midday alignment can vary by as much as 12 minutes from 'clock' time, in advance or retarded depending on the season.

    And now the sums: 12 mins = (hrs in day x mins in hr) x (3 degrees/360 degrees), or (24*60)*(3/360).

    Someone correct me if this is bollocks.

  56. Yes, it's bollocks by GoneGaryT · · Score: 1
    Ahem.

    (24*60)/(3/360)

    Ahem.

  57. Let's get the facts straight by xihr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All they heard on the ISS was a noise. Checks for external damage haven't found anything yet. Surely you hear hear the occasional weird noise in your apartment/house; that doesn't mean it was hit by a meteor, does it?

    1. Re:Let's get the facts straight by thetaikung · · Score: 1

      If my house was in orbit above the earth I would tend to give more merit to the thought "Maybe that was a meteor..."

      --
      P226 .40cal
  58. Acoustic location by ipsender · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Surely the astonishing finding is that there would appear to be no on-board vibration (sound) sensor array networked to a computer which could accurately determine the source and probable nature of the disturbance. Or does that feature come with v2.0?

  59. Re:"2:30am this morning" ? by psyrex · · Score: 1

    "but the [grammar/spelling/repost/factuality] checking of the is often very poor!"

    The checking of what?

    -psyrex

  60. yeah but by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    Their insurance are gonna go up now, I hope they had comprehensive.

    All these young morons with sporty little space stations, driving up the premiums for the rest of us responsible space inhabitants...

  61. Just goes to show you by extrasolar · · Score: 1

    In space, what comes around, goes around.

  62. Possible solution by sjames · · Score: 1

    heard the noise from the rear of the station's Russian module housing sleeping quarters, a kitchen and toilet.

    Either send up some of those breath right strips or review the menu.