Smoke alarms go off at the International Space Station | Hacker News Reader

Smoke alarms go off at the International Space Station

euronews.com

43 pointsunderscore_ku36 comments

When there was a fire on Mir, Nasa said "Small Fire Extinguished on Mir" [1], and the actual thing was pretty severe: "The flames were large enough to span the breadth of Kvant-1, cutting off access to one of two Soyuz escape capsules", "Thick smoke rapidly enveloped the entire station, forcing all crewmembers to don oxygen masks." [2]

Given all the recent trouble Roscosmos had with the new module in addition to the engine malfunction, I wonder how bad the situation really is. What's the worst that can happen here?

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/1996_1998...

[2] https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-messages/saf...

> The crew activated air filters and returned to their "night rest" once the air quality was back to normal, the agency stated.

Really? Shouldn't they have investigated a wee bit more or did they also wave a magazine around at the --ceiling-- bulkhead? This reads like "normal people stuff" and not what I'd expect from people on a space station.

I thought the same. What an odd statement from a space agency.

Even the article title downplays it. Why is the headline "smoke alarms go off" as opposed to "something was on fire" (aka visible smoke and burning smell). Smoke alarms going off can be a false detection.

The news here is something was literally burning on the ISS and the secondary news is that according to the relevant space agency they didn't even find out what it was before going back to sleep.

Alternate framing: benevolent space agency prioritizes flight crew rest while ground crew monitors and prepares a response to an ongoing mild emergency situation.

Still sounds weird tbh

The whole station is monitored from the ground, and the smoke alarms were presumably still functional. If the crew couldn't do anything useful in the moment, and the danger is over (and any return of the danger will be immediately noticed) then not interrupting their sleep any further seems like a rational choice.

You can imagine that while the crew are sleeping, people on the ground are giving some consideration to where the smoke could have come from, so that by the time the crew wake, there is a plan for further investigation in place. Why make the crew stay awake while you come up with that plan?

I wonder how closely the State Department is involved in the ISS and associated PR? I don’t mean that in a tinfoil hat conspiracy way but as a genuine question. I can certainly understand that (whether the State Dept. is involved or not) NASA is walking a fine in dealing with their Russian counterparts. I’m sure, like most of us at work, they have to pick and choose their battles and occasionally acquiesce to an official story they know doesn’t quite add up.

The "Russian counterparts", if I understand correctly, are something like two different entities. One is the Russian government itself, which is mostly interested in PR. E.g., I read a rumour somewhere that part of the reason that Nauka module was so out of control was that they rushed it so that some tourists get to film something in it when they go up this autumn. I'm not sure how true it is that it was rushed.

But the other entity is Roscosmos, which is partially subservient to the government (like any government agency), but partially consists of scientist types that would care more about space than PR. Quite similar to Nasa, really. So Nasa would have to deal with the State Department, the Russian government, and the Russian scientists all at once, it's not like they literally have a single counterpart to deal with. What I read about the Nauka failures was mostly sourced to Roscosmos and people working there, while Nasa was relatively quiet.

I don't know if "rushed it" is the right terminology here, it was mostly built in the 90s and then kept being repurposed and delayed for 30 years.

You're right, but I'm not sure how to refer to something that doesn't seem to have been ready after this much time.

It's reported in other sources that they did go check and couldn't find anything, ROSCOSMOS just didn't put that in their tweet it seems.

Yeah, that sounded like a bit of a cavalier attitude towards the problem for me too... and I couldn't help but wonder if it would have been investigated more thoroughly if it had happened in the non-Russian part.

In fairness, I'm guessing that the problem here is the reporting of the situation and likely not the reality of what they actually did on board. I'd be really surprised if they didn't follow the correct procedures as well as actually identify the source of the issue.

What's most likely is simply that the statement released about the incident down plays it (as we've seen before) and omits the most important detail (what was on fire... was it important... etc)

""" William Harwood (@cbs_spacenews) ISS: Station crew looked behind panels near the smoke alarm that tripped, but did not see anything obvious; filters were activated to remove the odor and after discussions, the crew was told to go back to bed (2/4) """

Reportedly they did go have a look, but couldn't find anything.

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1435928837347500035...

Ah man, and this just after the other incident where the Russian module boosters went off and the Russian agency wasn't able to communicate with it being out of reach.

William Harwood (@cbs_spacenews) ISS: Station crew looked behind panels near the smoke alarm that tripped, but did not see anything obvious; filters were activated to remove the odor and after discussions, the crew was told to go back to bed

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1435928837347500035...

ISS appears to be falling apart. Is it a change in publicity or real?

Its actually falling apart, roscosmos has been saying their segments have outlived the expected lifetime of the station for a few years now.

ISS has been running continuously for 22 years. Most earth based housing doesn't even have that level of uptime. If it were a cruise or cargo ship it would have been in and out of drydock 5-7 times. It's extremely difficult to have complex systems run continuously for decades.

Unfortunately after we built ISS I thought there would be ISS2 or ISS upgrades planned. And I haven't seen anything like that.

>Most earth based housing doesn't even have that level of uptime

are we including mud huts and/or poorly built apartments in chinese ghost cities here? If we only considered american timber framed houses, I don't see why 22+ years of "uptime" would be hard to achieve.

Maybe OP meant 22 years of zero maintenance. Even though many houses are way older than 22 years (including the apartment I'm living in now) going more than two decades without something breaking is quite challenging. Granted a lot of the time it's a simple electrical issue, plumbing that needs to be repaired or paint that's peeling off the walls. Stuff that isn't vital for the structural integrity of the building.

Because if it is tearing down buildings after 22 years and rebuilding new housing then yes, that is quite ridiculous and unachievable for most people.

>Maybe OP meant 22 years of zero maintenance

Has the ISS not received any maintenance in the last 22 years either?

ISS hasn't been 22 years without maintenance.

You are not continuously occupying your home for 22+ years. It might feel like it during the pandemic but you regularly leave. You probably take 2-4 weeks off per year without worrying about if it's going to still be there. If your bathroom stops working you can go to the gym. If the power goes out it's simply inconvenient, but not life threatening.

I'll reiterate; the ISS has been continuously inhabited for 20 years, non-stop, no weekends in the countryside.

But Earth-based stuff isn't designed to last too long precisely because it can be maintained. Why wouldn't the ISS be somewhat different in this regard? I don't really see how this analogy is supposed to work.

Let's say they decide to put it out of commission. How do they get rid of it? Regular orbit needs to be actively maintained, I think. Will they let it enter the atmosphere, whole or in chunks?

Most components of ISS were brought up by shuttle. It will need to be disassembled and brought down by the next generation of shuttle. I don't think it was designed for controlled re-entry. And dismantling it for re-entry is going to get super complicated and dangerous.

The shuttle has heat shields which disintegrate on re-entry. Could the ISS be kept at that altitude to safely destroy it?

More accurate headline: Russian batteries start to smoke and melt plastic onboard the ISS

Do you have a source for this?

Russians need to cope with that fact that they are not in a position to have space program.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com