Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

1320Fastback t1_j0bttx5 wrote

At least it was just the Soyuz.

29

BackwoodsRoller t1_j0cndnx wrote

One of our NASA astronauts, Frank Rubio, traveled to the ISS in that very Soyuz craft. It was supposed to be his ride home as well.

23

ThellraAK t1_j0cse4l wrote

Don't they keep a spare?

3

1320Fastback t1_j0csmll wrote

They can send up an empty one or the dragon crew. Both can be sent without a pilot on board.

7

BackwoodsRoller t1_j0ctomp wrote

Dragon requires custom suits and custom seats that are tailor made for individual astronauts. Not sure if they could make them for the soyuz crew without taking all the measurements in advance.

0

Dromfel t1_j0d34k1 wrote

I bet they can for sure :D it really doesn't metter that much if the suit is a bit bigger for the astronaut just to be sure. It just another layer in case of decompression. The astronaut won't do anything in the capsule when they are in the suits anyway. Just sitting in his seat. You can even use pilot with properly fitted suit and training from the other Dragon that's on ISS as emergency pilot for the ride. Most likely also just sitting there. It's all automatic.

6

Tonaia t1_j0e7hss wrote

It doesn't require the custom suits. It just makes for a more effective suit if it's well fitted.

3

BackwoodsRoller t1_j0ctesz wrote

Not on the station but they could launch another and autonomously dock it to station

1

Wolpfack t1_j0d4gx1 wrote

A meteorite is a solid piece of debris from an object, such as a comet, asteroid, or meteoroid, that originates in outer space and survives its passage through the atmosphere to reach the surface of a planet or moon.

Since whatever hit the Russian spacecraft was in orbit, e.g. not on the surface of a planet or moon, it was a meteoroid. Meteoroids are objects in space that range in size from dust grains to small asteroids. Think of them as “space rocks."

Try again, AP.

16

continuousQ t1_j0dvk1b wrote

Or you could say a meteorite is anything that makes an impact. The Moon doesn't have much of an atmosphere, but it does have a surface.

8

azdood85 t1_j0deigz wrote

We have to dumb down terminalogy and definitions because the average moron reading these articles cant take the extra effort to educate themselves with a simple search.

At least thats what keeps getting repeated to me whenever I point out an issue.

−9

MartianSands t1_j0dkpsa wrote

I think terminology like this is often pedantry for pedantrys sake. It's not at all clear to me that it actually adds anything of value to the language in this case, so it's perfectly reasonable for people to stop making the distinction

14

BBsmoothLSD t1_j0ecavv wrote

It’s only useful in its related fields. It doesn’t add any meaning for the average reader and also no one would notice or care regardless of whether they used the correct term or no

5

russmbiz t1_j0goxjs wrote

I don't even think it's useful in related fields. Whether you pick the right word or not when talking about a rock hitting a spacecraft adds nothing of value. It was hit while in space. There's plenty of context to know that's the case.

2

xeneks t1_j0dyir8 wrote

If you don’t use the appropriate word in context, people won’t learn to use it.

−3

nhomewarrior t1_j0gkgk9 wrote

That is literally something only an idiot would say. I could care less.

1

contravariant_ t1_j0cgab4 wrote

And so it begins.

6

quantainium_pasta t1_j0d315d wrote

Yeah, that was my main concern.

All that liquid leaking... it's gonna freeze, I assume? And then you have basically billions of particles flying around in the ISS orbital plane.

Even if it's not frozen, matter is still just matter, and the kinetic energy it has while flying around is the same.

4

5up3rK4m16uru t1_j0dtglh wrote

It can only freeze or evaporate in vacuum, and due to the sun it's likely going to do the latter eventually. Also smaller objects tend to experience faster orbital decay, since they are more affected by drag. Quite relevant at the altitude of the ISS.

5

BlueCyann t1_j0grv5o wrote

Uh, no? The ISS is in low earth orbit. Even if the coolant doesn’t sublime in vacuum, which it probably will, shit like that deorbits in a matter of weeks.

2

contravariant_ t1_j0rm9j6 wrote

The coolant probably will. Depending on the size of the drop and the substance, it will either sublimate instantly, or freeze and then sublimate slowly as its orbit exposes it to the Sun. But that's just the big story. What about the fragments of the wall keeping the coolant there, do you think they disappeared? And the 'micrometeorite' even existing in LEO the first place shows that there is something wrong with that analysis. There are fragments in low earth orbit.

1

Kyonikos t1_j0fmghc wrote

Too bad Elon Musk is too busy burning Twitter to the ground to lend a hand.

6

NoodlesrTuff1256 t1_j0fbbg8 wrote

This incident reminded me of a space tragedy back in 1971 when a Soyuz capsule returning from a mission to a Soviet space station orbiting the earth developed an oxygen leak during re-entry and all three cosmonauts aboard died. The irony was that, unlike the violent destruction of the space shuttle Columbia, the capsule remained intact and there's some film footage of the capsule recovery crew trying to resuscitate the men to no avail.

2

cskoff1 t1_j0fnuz8 wrote

Damn what was putin’s dong doin floatin around space!? Gonna put an eye out with that thing

0

Xenjael t1_j0caqcs wrote

I bet this is from that satellite they stupidly blew up in 2021.

We told them the cloud would be a problem, but it's Russians and they're stupid fucks.

−1

clburton24 t1_j0d5kg2 wrote

China and the US have also blown up satellites in orbit...

6

Xenjael t1_j0dhgyy wrote

Funny how we also haven't damaged our own modules repeatedly. We know what can happen if too much debris collects, pointing at US early efforts is a bit ridiculous. Last time we did it was... 1985. From an f-15 in low orbit, meaning no debris in the upper atmosphere. Russia was 2021 and its already fucking up their space missions.

−4

clburton24 t1_j0e3vo8 wrote

Last time we did this was...2008. And how would an F-15 be in low orbit? The satellite was in low Earth orbit.

We also do not know if this is a result of the satellite test my dude. I think what Russia did was stupid, but damn, American craft have been hit by debris. See STS-7

2

BlueCyann t1_j0gsqag wrote

You’d bet because you’re an idiot. The trajectories of satellite debris are largely known. If it was likely to be that they’d have said so. Also, the first thing I read about this said the leak was on the trailing side of the spacecraft. If correct that means it’s far more likely to be something coming in from deep space, moving faster than orbital speed.

1

ggrieves t1_j0c0uhc wrote

Why meteorite and not space debris? I don't think there's a way they can tell the difference, but saying it's space junk raises fears

−3

KerPop42 t1_j0c18q2 wrote

Micrometeroites can be natural or artificial

30

abecido t1_j0fhxeb wrote

Yes and it sounds nicer than space debris. We should not use that bad word, right?

0

Asterlux t1_j0kdxjg wrote

Hi, I work on the ISS Meteoroid/Orbital Debris Team. In this case we actually can tell the difference.

Firstly, I must state that we don't know it was an impact that caused the leak. Anyone saying otherwise is jumping the gun. Won't know until we get better imagery and even then might not know definitely.

A major reason we know it's not orbital debris (man made) is that the leak location is on the wake-side of the vehicle (opposite the "ram direction"). The vast majority of orbital debris threats to the ISS come from a cone about 30 degrees off either side of the velocity vector. Impacts from behind don't really happen as it would likely be co-orbital with the ISS and not approaching at a substantial relative velocity.

I can also say it likely wasn't one of the Geminid meteoroids (the leak occurred during the Geminid Meteor Shower) as the leak was on the starboard side of the Soyuz and the Geminid radiant vector was on the port side for the entire duration of the meteor shower.

But again, still not sure it was impact-induced. If it was though, likely a random background flux meteoroid.

3

ggrieves t1_j0n0juc wrote

Interesting, thank you. That extra info wasn't in this article

2

BlueCyann t1_j0gt8jm wrote

Because, if nothing has changed from original reports, the location of the strike is consistent with something moving faster than the speed of anything in orbit at that altitude. (It hit from behind.) Orbital debris is more often a head on or sideways hit from a crossing orbit.

2