3 ms·
(1997) might be a good addition to the title.
by epaga 10y ago
(1997) might be a good addition to the title.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y agoIs the article from 1997, though? It's dated as 2016.
- acz 10y ago"Mir spacecraft 1997 collision: Worst collision in the history of space flight"
- Ensorceled 10y agoThat doesn't answer the question.
- jwn 10y agoThe event is from 1997, this article is dated June 22 2016.
- melling 10y agoThe astronaut looks 20 years older in the video than on Mir. What would Sherlock Holmes deduce?
- speps 10y agoIt's a new interview so no.
- jonknee 10y agoYes, an article about a long gone space station is about a long ago event. Shocking! It's a new article though.
- alangpierce 10y agoI think one concern is that if you're not familiar with Mir, and the fact that it's long gone (or if you're just skimming titles on HN), the title by itself could be seen as suggesting that the worst collision in the history of space flight just happened recently. Putting a year, or maybe calling it "Reflections on the worst collision..." or something like that, would get rid of that ambiguity.