(1997) might be a good addition to the title.
back
3 comments
It's a new interview so no.
Is the article from 1997, though? It's dated as 2016.
The event is from 1997, this article is dated June 22 2016.
"Mir spacecraft 1997 collision: Worst collision in the history of space flight"
That doesn't answer the question.
The astronaut looks 20 years older in the video than on Mir.
What would Sherlock Holmes deduce?
Yes, an article about a long gone space station is about a long ago event. Shocking! It's a new article though.
I think one concern is that if you're not familiar with Mir, and the fact that it's long gone (or if you're just skimming titles on HN), the title by itself could be seen as suggesting that the worst collision in the history of space flight just happened recently. Putting a year, or maybe calling it "Reflections on the worst collision..." or something like that, would get rid of that ambiguity.