Glad we got that straightened out...
Nov. 9th, 2007 08:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpRussian tends to require more description in the written form, by which I mean one doesn't simply refer to "Mir" in a sentence, but to the "Mir orbital station." Similarly, if company X signs a contract with company Y, a sentence describing the fact would not be phrased as "X and Y signed a contract" (at least not and be considered literate). Instead, a proper sentence would go so far as to say "Representatives of company X and company Y signed a contract."
I bring this up because a funny thing happened yesterday while translating an appendix of acronyms and abbreviations. In one entry, I ran across the abbreviation МТКС (многоразовая транспортная космическая система), which translates literally as "reusable space transportation system" and in another, a reference to "твердотопливные ускорители МТКС «Спейс Шаттл»" (or "solid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle reusable space transportation system").
Clearly, the МТКС abbreviation is an attempt to render, in Russian, the U.S. term "Space Transportation System" (which is NASA's name for the Shuttle program). However, as a number of NASA web sites will tell you, the STS is the Space Shuttle system (the two terms being pretty much synonymous), and consists of three components (the Orbiter, the solid rocket boosters, and the external tank), only the first two of which are designed to be reusable. A "Space Shuttle," therefore, is what you see poised on the pad, ready for launch.
Terminologically, there were two issues to resolve. First, since it is clear that МТКС is intended to represent the STS, that's how I cast it (the "reusable" part will get dropped). Second, references to "the STS Space Shuttle" have been slimmed down to, simply, "the STS" as they read better in English.
The one epiphany that came out of this for me was learning that vehicles such as Discovery and Atlantis are not, themselves, instances of the "Space Shuttle." They are Orbiters (or, if one insists, "Shuttle Orbiters" or "Space Shuttle Orbiters"). Thus, it is technically incorrect to report something along the lines of "The space shuttle Discovery landed at Kennedy Space Center today, ending a 10-day mission to the International Space Station." (Be it technical as it may, the incorrect usage is pretty common - I mean, I only just realized there's a difference, myself - so there's nothing to be done there.)
Back to the face of the salt mine.
Cheers...
I bring this up because a funny thing happened yesterday while translating an appendix of acronyms and abbreviations. In one entry, I ran across the abbreviation МТКС (многоразовая транспортная космическая система), which translates literally as "reusable space transportation system" and in another, a reference to "твердотопливные ускорители МТКС «Спейс Шаттл»" (or "solid rocket boosters for the Space Shuttle reusable space transportation system").
Clearly, the МТКС abbreviation is an attempt to render, in Russian, the U.S. term "Space Transportation System" (which is NASA's name for the Shuttle program). However, as a number of NASA web sites will tell you, the STS is the Space Shuttle system (the two terms being pretty much synonymous), and consists of three components (the Orbiter, the solid rocket boosters, and the external tank), only the first two of which are designed to be reusable. A "Space Shuttle," therefore, is what you see poised on the pad, ready for launch.
Terminologically, there were two issues to resolve. First, since it is clear that МТКС is intended to represent the STS, that's how I cast it (the "reusable" part will get dropped). Second, references to "the STS Space Shuttle" have been slimmed down to, simply, "the STS" as they read better in English.
The one epiphany that came out of this for me was learning that vehicles such as Discovery and Atlantis are not, themselves, instances of the "Space Shuttle." They are Orbiters (or, if one insists, "Shuttle Orbiters" or "Space Shuttle Orbiters"). Thus, it is technically incorrect to report something along the lines of "The space shuttle Discovery landed at Kennedy Space Center today, ending a 10-day mission to the International Space Station." (Be it technical as it may, the incorrect usage is pretty common - I mean, I only just realized there's a difference, myself - so there's nothing to be done there.)
Back to the face of the salt mine.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2007-11-10 05:14 am (UTC)However, according to what one can glean from, say, this Web site (http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html), an Orbiter is not the same thing as a Space Shuttle, which is what you get when you strap an external tank to the belly of an Orbiter, along with two SRBs.
So technically, it is incorrect to refer to an Orbiter as a Shuttle, though pretty much everyone does anyway. For my immediate assignment, however, I plan to be as scrupulous as I can in hewing to the proper terminology.
I mean, it can't hurt! :^)
Cheers...