Russia says space station leak could be deliberate sabotage

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: snewpers

please drill ha hole like this :

frpm the side the photo is taken from

That photo was a stock photo from a different incident with a meteorite. It was called Solar Max

originally posted by: snewpers
Reverse image search goes back to 2014, didn't bother to check if it was published even earlier. That image is from space debris.

It was, as I posted on page 2, it's from 1984.

originally posted by: 14377
So there is confirmation of a micro meteor strike. Yet there's Russian speculation about sabotage ? I'm going to go with a former rather than the latter .

Yesterday I did some searching about this case and I found that, apparently, the astronauts/cosmonauts commented that there was another metal sheet behind the one with the hole that didn't have any hole, so it could not have been a meteorite or anything else from outside.

I will post some link(s) later, now I'm on my lunch break.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: 14377
So there is confirmation of a micro meteor strike. Yet there's Russian speculation about sabotage ? I'm going to go with a former rather than the latter .

Yesterday I did some searching about this case and I found that, apparently, the astronauts/cosmonauts commented that there was another metal sheet behind the one with the hole that didn't have any hole, so it could not have been a meteorite or anything else from outside.

I will post some link(s) later, now I'm on my lunch break.

Intriguing it looks like my theory might be correct about it being a ground screwup that passed pressurization tests on the ground and started leaking O2 on orbit.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

cork shoved in it the “plug” would have been ejected into space

From what i could gather this is one layer out of several behind this layer. Any shoddy patch would be around somewhere stuck between the layers or on the deck.

This should not be hard for someone with access to figure out. The iss has cameras and surely they can account for drill usage. There would also be worker logs to see who would have been working on it on the ground.

Perhaps we should begin to question russian craftsmanship at this point. No one was hurt thankfully but this is a big deal. I just do not see how inspectors would not have seen this if it happened before launch. The damaged area is on a bulkhead out in the open. Is their not a preflight visual inspection. It would cost less than 500$ to have someone go over the hull with an iphone recording. Seems like they would already have this situation covered.

a reply to: ArMaP

If there was another metal sheet behind the hole in the first sheet. Why was there depressurization ?

a reply to: howtonhawky

I read somewhere that the hole was behind an insulation panel, it was not visible.

a reply to: 14377

I don't have any years of metal work, but I think that was because the metal sheet behind the one with the hole was not making that space airtight but the one with the hole was.

I'm still sticking with drill press work done by a drunken Russian, and just now they discovered it. I also asked whether they even have a drill at the station in the first place?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: howtonhawky

I read somewhere that the hole was behind an insulation panel, it was not visible.

That would make so much more sense.

Maybe it took all this time for the many layers of metal,insulation and shielding to finally depressurize.

So we can rule out space debris.

We can likely rule out this being done in space if your report is true. It would take too much time to get into a second layer to drill a hole without being noticed.

Likely done on the ground and ignored by worker that drilled in the wrong place and not reported by worker in order to keep job. Passed inspection cause layered inspection was not done and maintained pressure for some time.

I it were on my back to figure out i would pressurize the ship with a colored dye and see exactly how the oxy escaped and how it maintained pressure for so long.

What i do not understand is how they are using steel sheet metal to hold pressure. Judging by the gauge in the pics that is not at all easy to seal up the joints where the sheets meet. Givin the vast amounts of materials available to build with sheet metal would not be my first choice for a pressurized capsule. I think we will learn much more soon about the layers involved in pressurization on the ship.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: 14377

I don't have any years of metal work, but I think that was because the metal sheet behind the one with the hole was not making that space airtight but the one with the hole was.

I've read nothing to discount another piece of metal behind the hole. But I've also read nothing that said there was .

But here's the thing that bothers me. All the stories before the Russian claims were that there was a slight depressurization caused by a MM strike. That is acknowledged by astronauts aboard the international space station and reported as so by just about every news outlet .



Keep in mind the space station is full of engineers and the best of the best. It sure as hell seems like the astronauts could tell a drill hole from something that was punched through.

I have seen no correction of that scenario with the exception of Russia and their media. A lot of evidence seems to rest on whether there were drills skips or not . I will reiterate my position. Besides the fact that all the marks are straight which is a impossible coincidence for drill skips. There aren't any other drill skips that behave in the normal manner . ( other mistakes ) Furthermore none of the "skips"tie directly to where the hole is. There is a gap between the markings and the hole. That's not how a drill behaves unless you're on a roller coaster.

I will concede that the hole might have been drilled. But the drill skips are not evidence of that .

Take a look at the middle markings ( Blue arrow), it might be pareidolia on my part. But as far as I can see the first four letters say either Tass or _ _ 88 ?

originally posted by: 14377

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: 14377

I don't have any years of metal work, but I think that was because the metal sheet behind the one with the hole was not making that space airtight but the one with the hole was.

I've read nothing to discount another piece of metal behind the hole. But I've also read nothing that said there was .

But here's the thing that bothers me. All the stories before the Russian claims were that there was a slight depressurization caused by a MM strike. That is acknowledged by astronauts aboard the international space station and reported as so by just about every news outlet .



Keep in mind the space station is full of engineers and the best of the best. It sure as hell seems like the astronauts could tell a drill hole from something that was punched through.

I have seen no correction of that scenario with the exception of Russia and their media. A lot of evidence seems to rest on whether there were drills skips or not . I will reiterate my position. Besides the fact that all the marks are straight which is a impossible coincidence for drill skips. There aren't any other drill skips that behave in the normal manner . ( other mistakes ) Furthermore none of the "skips"tie directly to where the hole is. There is a gap between the markings and the hole. That's not how a drill behaves unless you're on a roller coaster.

I will concede that the hole might have been drilled. But the drill skips are not evidence of that .

Take a look at the middle markings ( Blue arrow), it might be pareidolia on my part. But as far as I can see the first four letters say either Tass or _ _ 88 ?

They all just happen to be consistent of a two flute twist drill the best Pareidolia I can get is 3/4s of swastika if I squint real hard also just because you haven’t read anything about something on the inside or outside of the hole in question why would you automatically assume the hole had to be straight to space, remember oxygen isn’t the easiest stuff to contain and in a vacuum it will find any path it can to low pressure.
This looking more and more like a ground goof according to the latest articles I’ve seen.
arstechnica.com...

The Russians seem to be backing down off the purposeful sabotage and to human error in manufacturing which is a nice change to see them admitting their ish can stink too. I’m feeling very confident this was no MM strike.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Explain to me why the top two don't emanate from the hole? Or the fact that there is a unblemished space between the marks and the hole ? To do that you would have to pick the drill up and set it back down. hence my roller coaster comment .

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Explain to me why the top two don't emanate from the hole? Or the fact that there is a unblemished space between the marks and the hole ? To do that you would have to pick the drill up and set it back down. hence my roller coaster comment .

Where is your proof that they can’t be drill marks? We could do this all day. Did you read the link I provided? The Russians are even saying that the marks are froma drill but walking and you can bet they have a whole lot better resolution pictures to study and would certainly know if it was any kind of manufactures mark or anything else. Do you just want to be right or like the idea of a meteorite impact as opposed to a mundane earthly dick up?

a reply to: [post=23739125]BigDave-AR[/post

Explain to me how the top two lines skipped from the hole and made perfectly straight lines .

It's hard to judge the distance but to me it looks like the top line is about a inch away from the hole that you claim it came from.

If I've learned one thing on the Internet. It's never to believe the Russians .


If you want to take their word on this as gospel go ahead I'm not buying it .

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: [post=23739125]BigDave-AR[/post

Explain to me how the top two lines skipped from the hole and made perfectly straight lines .

It's hard to judge the distance but to me it looks like the top line is about a inch away from the hole that you claim it came from.

If I've learned one thing on the Internet. It's never to believe the Russians .


If you want to take their word on this as gospel go ahead I'm not buying it .

Okay blind ignorance it is then I never said the skip marks were in line with the hole and your theory of spalling or markings doesn’t line up they would extend radially and not nearly parallel but alright I’ll be awaiting my apology when it turns out that gasp the Russians might admit a mistake every now and again. I’m no Rusky lover I’m looking at this with an open mind, no bias one way or the other the evidence just doesn’t add up for a micro meteorite impact without some kind of special glasses (or blinders) that apparently I didn’t come into this with.

originally posted by: 14377
That is acknowledged by astronauts aboard the international space station and reported as so by just about every news outlet .

Could you give me an example? The only person I saw saying it was a micro meteorite strike was an astronaut that is not on the ISS.

Keep in mind the space station is full of engineers and the best of the best. It sure as hell seems like the astronauts could tell a drill hole from something that was punched through.

I'm sure they could, can you show me they said it was a micro meteorite hole?

I have seen no correction of that scenario with the exception of Russia and their media.

“Overnight, ground teams noticed a decreasing trend in ISS stack pressure at approximately 1800 GMT (6PM Central). Initial indications showed a leak rate of approximately 0.8 mmHg per hour, slightly higher than the maximum specification leakage rate of 0.5 mmHg per hour.

“Throughout the night, the leak rate increased in magnitude to approximately 4 mmHg/hr. Crew performed actions to isolate the location of the leak by closing hatches between modules and utilizing the Ultrasonic Leak Detector before isolating the location to the Soyuz [MS-09] orbital module behind the Soyuz toilet.

“The hole located was described as approximately 2 mm in diameter but did not appear to be a through hole as metal was described to be behind the hole. Crew placed kapton tape over the hole temporarily which has stabilized the leak rate to below spec leakage.

“Crew is in work to use a Russian patch kit to place sealant within the hole and a patch over the hole. Ground teams will monitor ISS stack pressure following repair.”

Source

I don't think NASASpaceFlight.com is a Russian source.

Take a look at the middle markings ( Blue arrow), it might be pareidolia on my part. But as far as I can see the first four letters say either Tass or _ _ 88 ?

In Russian, "Tass" is written "Tacc".

originally posted by: 14377
Explain to me why the top two don't emanate from the hole? Or the fact that there is a unblemished space between the marks and the hole ? To do that you would have to pick the drill up and set it back down. hence my roller coaster comment .

Doesn't that underlined (by me) part means it's possible?

originally posted by: 14377
It's hard to judge the distance but to me it looks like the top line is about a inch away from the hole that you claim it came from.

The hole is suppose to be 2 mm wide, making the distance between the hole and that specific marking around 2 mm too.

For the decimal system challenged, 2 mm is the same as 0.0787 inches.

You may be good at a lot of things but you are not good at judging distances on photos.