| ▲ | stackskipton 11 hours ago |
| Everyone likes to point and laugh, sure, I'm getting a chuckle as well. However, on more practical level, what are other options? Outlook, the desktop application works really well with local copies, is pretty low bandwidth and very familiar to end users. IMAP with Thunderbird is probably only other option that would satisfy the requirements. EDIT: Yes they need to get email in space. It's easy way to send documents back and forth. |
|
| ▲ | autoexec 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Email is a pretty good way to send short text messages, but it's not great at sending files. The basic protocols are pretty simple and we've got a lot of experience using them. I can see the appeal of email. There's no way that outlook is the best tool for the job though, and it's no surprise at all that they're having problems with it. It's a complete mess with insane amounts of overhead and bloat if all you want to do is send text. Even the message headers it sends/mangles are trash. It's a pain to work with on the end user side too. I can't imagine that they couldn't have written a basic email client that would do the job better with far fewer problems/resources or used/built off of any number of decades old open source projects. |
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This comment is downvoted, but it is correct. Emailing a file takes roughly 30% more bandwidth than a file transfer protocol (any such protocol, not necessarily FTP) due to mime encoding. | | |
| ▲ | thephyber an hour ago | parent [-] | | Discussion of the MIME part’s encoding as being an inefficient size is missing the forest for the trees. The entire message is (or can be) compressed before transmission (eg. When IMAP has DEFLATE enabled). Just because an intermediate encoding step expands binary to make it text safe doesn’t mean it has to stay uncompressed during the entire existence of that MIMe message. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | marcosdumay 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You'd want fetchmail with some local server. And if you are going with some local server, the Exchange/Outlook family is just the worst possible option. Those people already have enough stuff to maintain up there, they don't need something that require in-house expert admins. |
|
| ▲ | EvanAnderson 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't know why people are surprised by this. Using suitable off-the-shelf solutions for non-mission-critical purposes seems like a very reasonable thing to do. I'm recalling this from my memory of "The Space Above Us" podcast: There were various bespoke teleprinters sent up on early shuttle flights that had exciting failure modes (if I remember correctly one of them started smoking) and in at least a couple of cases they had to stow the new hardware and pull out the old backup hardware because the new stuff didn't work. |
| |
| ▲ | cj 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Related thread from 2023 about the US Navy using Xbox 360 controllers instead of custom built hardware. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36408604 | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Xbox 360 controller: Good times! US Navy approved. Madcatz controller: Bad times! OceanGate approved. | | |
| ▲ | sidewndr46 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Having had the unfortunate experience of using MadCatz controllers, I would doubt the sanity of anyone that selected one | |
| ▲ | cobertos 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | OceanGate was Logitech not MadCatz | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I deeply regret the error; MadCatz would have failed long before. Gad those things were crap. | | |
| ▲ | kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They'd probably still be alive if they used MadCatz, because it would have failed long before they submerged. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2muchcoffeeman 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m surprised they went with outlook rather than something like thunderbird. And I’m surprised they are burning power on an os that can run outlook. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mrweasel 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Yes they need to get email in space. It's easy way to send documents back and forth. To me that's probably much more interesting. We assume they have all this fancy NASA tech, probably some special communication protocols, but nope, email is fine. Still not sure why they'd use Outlook, but I guess it's easier than retraining astronauts on Alpine or Mutt. How long did the US military rely on mIRC... decades, maybe they still do? |
| |
| ▲ | charlieboardman 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If they have stock outlook they are doing normal networking and are connected to the normal internet over some deep-space antenna setup. So why not just use Debian and gmail in the browser if you want easy? The ISS uses Debian. I can't believe it's too hard to get astronauts to open Firefox | | |
| ▲ | dugite-code 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The browser would be far too slow for practical use. Local fist software, which ironically outlook is, would be the way to go. |
| |
| ▲ | stackskipton 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | US Military still uses IRC/mIRC for similar reasons. Easy to self host and it's low bandwidth. | | |
| ▲ | esseph an hour ago | parent [-] | | Wow I remember that from late OIF. Fascinating that they're still using it! |
| |
| ▲ | HeyLaughingBoy 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'd ask the opposite question. Why would they not use Outlook and instead use something like Alpine or Mutt? This is 2026, you know. | | |
| ▲ | irthomasthomas 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is this incident not reason enough? Astronauts in space are needing remote support to debug it, and taking up priceless mission time. | | |
| ▲ | hatthew 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, but bespoke software isn't necessarily going to be more reliable. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-... > The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they’ve been fixed. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Alpine and mutt are about as far from bespoke as it gets. Both are far less likely to suffer from bugs than outlook. | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This quote is completely and totally irrelevant. Nobody is saying they should code a new Outlook. If they did code something, it would be significantly smaller in scope and rigorously tested like spacebound programs in the past were. "New space-engineering-grade code created with actual engineering practices" is absolutely going to be more reliable than "old bloated commercial shitware". But I guess software engineering is a lost art, so it can't be helped. | | |
| ▲ | HeyLaughingBoy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's also going to take a hell of a lot longer and cost more than buying an Outlook license. If I was lead on that project, you'd have an uphill battle trying to convince me that spending $100k+ on an email solution unless you can point to specific, serious deficiencies in the existing off the shelf solutions. Software Engineering is far from a lost art: part of the practice is intelligently making cost-benefit decisions. | | |
| ▲ | applfanboysbgon 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The current solution is literally causing problems in space. Space-grade engineering is expensive, but having things go wrong on your already very expensive mission is even more expensive. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Until we've had this failure, I do agree that using COTS software was the logical choice. And now we know better. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SamBam 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Alpine and Mutt are about 20 and 30 years old, respectively. |
| |
| ▲ | HeyLaughingBoy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And that problem would go away with a 30 year-old solution? | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That problem would be much less likely with a minimalist battle tested OSS solution whose maintainers and users have decidedly different priorities than those governing something like outlook or even thunderbird. The higher the stakes the more valuable minimalism becomes. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | syntaxpr 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Neither outlook nor thunderbird. Best option would be some web browser based email + local web server (on board) |
| |
| ▲ | MarsIronPI 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Browsers are heavy and complicated. Better to use something TUI or very light GUI. | |
| ▲ | rayiner an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why go through all that trouble to reinvent SMTP? Outlook is trash, but the web is even worse. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Best option would be some web browser based email If the computer has a browser, yes. Otherwise, that sounds like a lot of unnecessary moving parts. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | trebligdivad 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I did think 'Thunderbird' would be a more appropriate (named) use on a rocket :-) |
|
| ▲ | somat 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Email(smtp) is not a bad choice for messaging in space(or anywhere really) it is a well understood robust protocol designed in a time when all networks were slow and intermittent. Exactly what you need in space. IMAP probably not so much, It depends too much on having a good network. unless the imap server is on the spaceship(heh, spaceSHIP, that is an optimistic term, but it is all we have, so going with it), I would not expect it to work all that well. I am not very familiar with outlooks game, Historically my beef with with it and thunderbird was their local data store, I mean it was not strictly speaking bad, but I was like "we have this great Maildir spec, why are you using this propriety database that is prone to corruption, even if you don't like Maildir million files approach at least use sqlite" |
| |
| ▲ | linsomniac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Email(smtp) is not a bad choice for messaging in space Email (Taylor UUCP g protocol) is a better choice for messaging in space. Resuming partial transmission is great! I used it up until ~2010 and it worked really great on some very, very crappy connections (modems, obviously, CDPD, phone tethering in spotty locations, bad WiFi setups)... | |
| ▲ | mememememememo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Spacecraft? Shuttle? |
|
|
| ▲ | nitwit005 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd have just set up a backup mail client if someone insisted on Outlook. These sorts of issues are very common, and having a backup is the textbook solution if something might go wrong. |
|
| ▲ | MarsIronPI 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| mu4e in Emacs works well, or Notmuch, or even Gnus with a local Maildir. Or Mutt if you're more into that. None of these applications can be that much harder than flying the capsule can they? |
|
| ▲ | sombragris 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > However, on more practical level, what are other options? Outlook, the desktop application works really well with local copies, is pretty low bandwidth and very familiar to end users. Claws-mail (https://claws-mail.org) has a good working Windows version. Native desktop app, lightweight, extremely fast, able to handle multigigabyte inboxes for breakfast. The only drawback for some would be that it does not compose (although it can display them just fine) HTML mail, only text-only mail. This is an architectural decision. |
| |
| ▲ | jayofdoom 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I used this for a while. It doesn't display HTML emails just fine. It only supports a subset of stuff which -- as a geek is awesome because it protects me -- but would be hideous to give to a normal user. Literally less than half of my emails were readable. | | |
| ▲ | thephyber 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | As someone with deep experience in MIME encoding/parts, HTML for emails, and email client support for different HTML/CSS/image content, this is a sinkhole. The world will be better off when we fork HTML so there is one standard email-safe version that all modern email clients support natively. There’s entirely too much security surface area to put arbitrary HTML into emails and expect any 2 email clients to render it correctly / the same. Email needs its “no more IE6” moment. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > There’s entirely too much security surface area to put arbitrary HTML into emails ... We manage it with browsers though. Don't get me wrong, I've never liked html in emails to begin with. It's the same issue that markdown and every other rich text system has regarding where to draw the line. HN even strips most emojis (and I think that's a good thing). |
| |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hopefully they are not getting exquisitely crafted newsletters in space. | |
| ▲ | sombragris 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you sure? You used the the Fancy HTML Viewer plugin, which uses WebkitGTK2? I never had any problems with HTML Mail rendering in Claws. Your experience must be clearly peculiar to yourself. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | acdha 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, the only other option I’d consider for this would be Apple Mail on an iPad for the same reason that it works well offline or with low bandwidth networks. There’s a QA issue here but the logic is quite reasonable. |
| |
| ▲ | tempaccount5050 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apple Mail does not play nicely with Outlook/Exchange/M365 accounts. Everywhere I've worked had said "You can use Apple Mail if you want, but IT won't be supporting it. Outlook app only." Always issues with syncing mail or contacts. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Outlook is notoriously difficult to interface with. The only real success story I'd ever seen was some Thunderbird extension. I think it was called Owl. I had the company pay for it, but I think that it wasn't very expensive. It synced contacts and calendar too. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | leptons 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I quit Outlook and went to Thunderbird when I upgraded my CPU and Microsoft told me I had to re-purchase Outlook when I had paid for a "lifetime license". That was the last straw for me. I installed Linux and Thunderbird and have not looked back at Windows. |
| |
| ▲ | aucisson_masque 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Obligatory Linux comment when speaking about Microsoft, windows or anything related. I don't have Linux but you guys make it hard to like it. | | |
| ▲ | bombcar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I run Outlook in Wine or on the Web on Linux in a VM on Mac and make everyone mad. | |
| ▲ | papichulo2023 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Dude you are on HN no Reddit, most people around here use Linux | | |
| ▲ | esseph an hour ago | parent [-] | | I wished I believed this, but it feels closer to 50% Apple, 35% Windows, 15% Linux. |
| |
| ▲ | leptons 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was on Windows for 30 years. I advocated for it and even got a few CTOs to switch from MacOS to Windows because they saw Windows was actually more capable than Apple propaganda would have you believe. I'm not really sure how you figure that my comment makes Linux hard to like. I simply don't like the direction Microsoft is headed in, and haven't for some time. Many people don't like it. Microsoft recently may have had a realization as a company and they might change their current direction, but I still doubt I'll go back. They expected me to pay twice for software that I paid a "lifetime license" for, only because I upgraded the CPU in my computer. If you think that somehow makes Linux look bad, then I don't know man... I run my email inside a virtual machine, so it was easy for me to switch over from Windows/Outlook to Linux/Thunderbird. I certainly don't expect everyone to switch. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mememememememo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah that is the sad thing. Fewer desktop options these days. And CLI client is OK. Actually for an astronaut probably OK as they are used to learning systems. They'd appreciate reliability. |
|
| ▲ | mmooss 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Outlook, the desktop application works really well with local copies With local cache for an Exchange server, or with purely local mail (i.e., using .pst files). The latter is mediocre IME. Outlook is an Exchange client; other uses are not in its wheelhouse. |