
Mir Spacecraft: Worst collision in the history of space flight [video] - ZeljkoS
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36549109
======
aleyan
Strictly thinking, Space Shuttle Columbia colliding with foam was worse[0]
than this.

It is amazing how Mir courted disaster[1] but ended its mission without
fatalities or serious injuries. I wonder what if anything could be learned
from this?

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster)
[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Accidents)

~~~
Piskvorrr
"Shit happens." Both scenarios could have played out with opposite endings
(e.g. there have been other debris strikes in previous Shuttle missions,
without fatal consequences), with very small changes in inputs.

There's plenty of things to be learned from each, but I don't see anything
those incidents would have in common, except "IN SPAAAACE!".

~~~
mikeash
The debris collision happened about 20km up, and the orbiter began to break up
at an altitude of around 70km (on the way back down, of course), so
_teeechnically_ speaking neither event happened in space.

Man, my inner nitpicker really came out on that one.

~~~
amelius
There is no clear boundary of the atmosphere, so technically speaking no event
ever happens in space.

~~~
NegativeLatency
Actually we've defined a boundary at 100km
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line)

~~~
mikeash
Yep, just because there's no clear physical boundary doesn't mean there isn't
a clear line separating "in space" from "not in space."

~~~
amelius
It is a surface, not a line :)

And it isn't very clear either, since the sea level isn't very well defined as
it changes all the time :)

~~~
mikeash
Heh, you're doing it again! The actual water level is constantly changing, but
"sea level" is typically defined to some fixed level. Although there is more
than one definition to pick from.

~~~
amelius
Yes, and I can continue until you run out of definitions to cling to :)

Sea level is (presumably) defined in terms of the center-of-mass of the Earth.
This center of mass is constantly changing (even as a side-effect of the
rocket moving).

~~~
mikeash
Changes smaller than your ability to measure them don't really matter.
Especially when we're talking about being ~30km below the definition's
altitude.

~~~
amelius
And here I thought this was a nitpicking subthread.

~~~
mikeash
Ah yes! But at this point it only works if you're nitpicking over the
definition of "clear," since the "in space" bit is now settled.

Right? Maybe I missed a nit!

------
hartror
If you're like me and have no intention of installing flash here is an
alternative video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM7fTLLmgbk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM7fTLLmgbk)

~~~
aidos
For others, the video linked here doesn't tell the whole story, so you're
better off watching the one in the article if you want to know how it ends! :)

~~~
Bromskloss
Here's a direct link extracted with youtube-dl.

[http://cp401491-vh.akamaihd.net/i/,mps_h264_med/public/news/...](http://cp401491-vh.akamaihd.net/i/,mps_h264_med/public/news/world/1248000/1248218_h264_800k,mps_h264_hi/public/news/world/1248000/1248218_h264_1500k,.mp4.csmil/index_1_av.m3u8)

------
cyberferret
One thing that was unclear to me - they say that they had to retreat to the
Soyuz escape vehicle as a safety measure, which is understandable. Then he
says that because the space station was tumbling out of control due to the
impact, they had to fire the retro rockets to counteract the spin and bring
things under control again - did they mean they used the Soyuz capsule retro
rockets? Or did they manage to deploy the ones on the space station itself (if
indeed it was fitted with retro rocket packs)??

If they used the Soyuz retro rockets, then I would think that was a feat in
itself - if they had to use the gimbals on the capsule attached to a outer
portion of the station to ascertain the pitch and roll of the main structure
and counteract it.

The interview was not specific, and I couldn't find any clear info via Google
so thought I would ask in case anyone here might know & could clarify.

------
Wonderdonkey
Side note: The volume on BBC's media player goes to 11.

------
delbel
This story was told better in the book [1]. Specifically the part where they
used a Soyuz to re-align the space station. They didn't think it would work,
because it was the first idea they came up with and it seems so genius. They
spent hours looking for a second solution before trying it. Dragonfly: NASA
And The Crisis Aboard Mir

------
BillTheCat
Another short video by the BBC about the same incident with an interview with
Sasha Lazutkin, one of the Cosmonauts on the station at the time but not the
one controlling the cargo ship:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028l07k](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028l07k)

------
kbart
It's time to add [FLASH] tag to HN.

~~~
forgotpwtomain
It's time for BBC and other major news providers to stop serving Flash
content.

~~~
DanSmooth
Let's start small by disabling auto-play.

~~~
lmm
Unfortunately it seems like we added that nonsense into HTML5 :(.

------
epaga
(1997) might be a good addition to the title.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Is the article from 1997, though? It's dated as 2016.

~~~
acz
"Mir spacecraft 1997 collision: Worst collision in the history of space
flight"

~~~
Ensorceled
That doesn't answer the question.

