OP is from a few days ago. SpaceX passed the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) in advance of launch NET Saturday 3/2 at 07:48 UTC.

A better article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/spacex-gains-frr-gre...

Kinda weird mixing a European timezone with an American date format. Parent means 2019-03-02T07:48Z

This is why it's good practice to just never use MM/DD or DD/MM dates anywhere. 2-Mar or 2-MAR is nearly as terse but much less ambiguous. The only other date format I default to is YYYY-MM-DD (i.e. 2019-03-02). It sorts well and, by putting the year first, doesn't pick a side in the MM/DD or DD/MM battle. It just lists the terms in descending significance.

So much of my life has been wasted because people want their dates formatted dd/mm/yyyy in their browser..

So much of my life has been wasted because people want their dates formatted mm/dd/yyyy in their browser..

;-)

Formatting, sure, but inputs...

One of our customer integrations uses all of MM-DD-YY, YY-MM-DD and DD-MM-YY for a date input. Took us quite a few man-hours to figure out why our integration layer failed so often.

Use Moment.js

I'm an engineer in the aviation industry and I stick exclusively to DD-MMM-YY (26-Feb-19). Too many different formats used globally.

Unless you use four digits for the year all the time, it will remain ambiguous.

That would automatically look like 2026-02-19 to me. It's an odd order TBH, though I'll admit that DD-MMM-YYYY would be unambiguous.

ISO-8601 FTW!

Not that weird I think? Americans are a plurality and probably majority of HN commenters, and UTC is a universal time zone (hence the "U"). American astronomers would describe observations in UTC (with the American time format), regardless of the timezone the observation took place in, yet would still communicate between themselves using the American date format. (In contrast, it would indeed be weird if the European time format with the colon was intermixed with American date format, e.g., 1130 UTC on 3/4 for 11:30am on March 4th.)

That said, HN is sufficiently international that mentioning the date format to avoid confusion is good.

I guess amateur astronomers might use something else besides UTC or some form of Julian date to label their data, and the professionals might well put whatever date format they well choose in their directory names.

But looking at the Keck open data archive or the time conversion utility NASA hosts I found little evidence they frequently use anything else than standard iso dates.

It would make sense that Keck open data would use the international ISO standard, no? Further, NASA changed (in 1990) to the metric system, but this doesn't really change how two American astronomers would communicate with each other on a day-to-day basis.

It'd be pretty weird for american Astronomers to use a strange date format for their observations, but not strange if they used them when talking about their next seminar.

Curious, do any nations outside the US use M/D/YYYY?

Silly anecdote: I have family in Scotland. Prior to getting married, we sent "save the date" cards to them. The listed date was "6/3/06" (June 3) and they were sent in February. Of course, first response from an uncle: "Well, you didn't give us much heads-up. Is she 7 months pregnant?"

that's why you always write name of the month in dates

UTC isn't a European timezone, it's "universal coordinated time".

Yeah that's a fair point. I actually originally had "Saturday at 07:48 UTC" and realized a few hours later it might be helpful to have a date in there... at which point I'd lost the ISO-8601 context in my head.

UTC isn't even a timezone.

They're also launching a suit in the capsule. I can't wait to see another Starman, especially one that flies a real spaceship.

Wow! This is great news for the space program. Feels like it’s gathering alot of momentum now.

With respect, in the title it should be “NASA”, not “Nasa“.

The former is a US government agency, the latter is a mis-spelling of the capital city of the Bahamas.

They've been supplying the station with unmanned dragon craft for years already...

This isn't a supply mission, it's a demo of a crewed mission to send people up to the ISS on SpaceX's platform.

Assuming this demo goes well, and a few other things (like an abort test at a later date with the exact capsule that they are sending up to the station goes well), then SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Dragon 2 platform will be rated for human spaceflight by NASA.

There's also a bit of a race going on to be the first private company to send people to space on a rocket. Both Boeing and SpaceX are currently neck-and-neck in the race, and I'm going to guess the winner will come down to a technicality (someone filed paperwork faster, or someone was approved more quickly than the other, or even just the ISS is in the right position at the right time and one of them has their launch date set before the other).

This is a completely different Dragon - Dragon 2.0 if you will.

What is different?

- Designed to carry crew

- Launch abort system (superdraco engines on the side of the capsule)

- Automated docking port, Dragon 1 has a berthing port that requires the ISS to use the CanadaArm to maneuver it in for berthing and astronauts in the ISS to make/release the connection.

From what I understand it's basically a ground up new design with a new pressure vessel. Eventually they will start using a version of Dragon 2 for cargo missions as well although supposeldy it won't have launch abort capability.

Everything! It's total revamp. Different dimensions, different style, weighs twice as much. Best place to start reading is here:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2