5 ms·
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 "
by tailspin2019 5y ago
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.
- blamazon 5y agoAlternate framing: benevolent space agency prioritizes flight crew rest while ground crew monitors and prepares a response to an ongoing mild emergency situation.
- eli 5y agoStill sounds weird tbh
- jhugo 5y agoThe 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?
- elliekelly 5y agoI 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.
- conistonwater 5y agoThe "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.
- plopz 5y agoI 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.
- conistonwater 5y agoYou're right, but I'm not sure how to refer to something that doesn't seem to have been ready after this much time.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoIt'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.