Russia says space station leak could be deliberate sabotage

a reply to: BigDave-AR

I never said you said anything about lines emanating from the hole. That was my point on the behavior of drill skips. A drill doesn't lift up three times in a row then make three straight line skips .

The funny thing is you've decided what happened after viewing only one picture. Doesn't it bother you that only one pic was supplied?

There was also a exterior hull puncture. The Russians claimed the hole happened from the inside . Why aren't the Russians supplying a picture of the exterior hole? Another thing I would like to know is how thick the hull is ? A 2 mm drill bit gets real fragile after it reaches over say 3 inches in length . Have you ever looked at a set of drillbits and noticed the smaller that they get the shorter the bit is. The reason for that is the thinner the bit the more likely it is to snap . which is why I want to know the thickness of the hall .


Remember these are the guys that showed irrefutable proof of a Ukrainian fighter shooting down MH 17. Only to find out later it was a three-year-old satellite pic.

they also showed irrefutable proof of 25 mm punctures in the airframe of mh 17. Only to find out later the holes were about a quarter of the size 25 mm rounds would make .

They also made a documentary going again irrefutable proof of what happened to MH 17 only to pull it in a week .

The Russian media claimed that the little green men in Crimea had nothing to do with Russia. Even Putin admitted later they were Russian troops .

Not to mention that Dmitry Rogozin, is on the sanction list from the US. And if you go check out his Twitter account you could see his bias .

NASA is conducting an inquiry into what happened. Myself I'd like to hear both sides.

I've made my point and I am awaiting results . You're basing your position on less than half of the information that will become available .

I never said you said anything about lines emanating from the hole. I'm telling you the behavior of drill skips. The drill doesn't lift up three times in a row then make three straight line skips .

The funny thing is you've decided what happened after viewing only one picture. Doesn't it bother you that only one pic was supplied?

There was was also a hull puncture. The Russians claimed the hole happened from the inside . Why aren't the Russians supplying a picture of the exterior hole?

Remember these are the guys that showed irrefutable proof of a Ukrainian fighter shooting down MH 17. Only to find out later it was a three-year-old satellite pic.

they also showed irrefutable proof of 25 mm punctures in the airframe of mh 17. Only to find out later the holes were about a quarter of the size 25 mm rounds would make .

They also made a documentary going again irrefutable proof of what happened to MH 17 only to pull it in a week .

The Russian media claimed that the little green men in Crimea had nothing to do with Russia. Even Putin admitted later they were Russian troops .

Not to mention that Dmitry Rogozin, is on the sanction list from the US. And if you go check out his Twitter account you could see his bias .

NASA is conducting an inquiry into what happened. Myself I'd like to hear both sides.

I've made my point and I am awaiting results . You're basing your position on less than half of the information that will become available and calling me blindly ignorant.

I told you before. I think this is all Russian propaganda and probably has something to do with US no longer using their launch vehicles to send astronauts into orbit .

appoloppgies - for my earlier posts

i made an assumption that a pic in the OP was from the incident

it was not

mea culpa

a reply to: ArMaP

Sure it's possible I could step outside my door and find $1 billion in gold. But it's not probable .

Do you understand the point I'm making about the drill lifting and then behaving the same way on three different scratches ? A drillbit skipping will spiral out from the place where the bit contacts the metal not from a quarter inch to an inch( all three lines ) away from it .


As for the MM claim look at half the reports from five or six days ago . And that's besides the point NASA hasn't agreed with those truthful honorable, and honest Russians yet . Nasa is setting up their own commission to look into it and I'm willing to bet that after one day NASA isn't going to give theory.

Anyone that makes this claim immediately after it happened. It is either a propagandist, idiot or a show off


This isn't addressed to anybody I'm just throwing it out there. How many people on this thread are liberals who hate trump for Russian collusion and believe they are the biggest threat to our country ? But now find them honest.

( if you haven't figured it out yet I completely despise Vladimir Putin)


The complete lack of unbelievability from sputnik or RT is the main suspicion for me on this incident. I just don't trust them and nobody else should. Especially when their claims have political value.



I'm going to try to bow out of this one again . I will revisit this thread whether I'm right or wrong when more information comes out .

a reply to: 14377

That would've made a better rant than a reply. My bad

originally posted by: 14377
Do you understand the point I'm making about the drill lifting and then behaving the same way on three different scratches ?

I understand it.

A drillbit skipping will spiral out from the place where the bit contacts the metal not from a quarter inch to an inch( all three lines ) away from it .

Exactly, is any thing that makes it impossible for someone to have tried three times in slightly different places, with each start of each scratch line representing the point where the drill was placed for that try?

As for the MM claim look at half the reports from five or six days ago .

You said it, you should provide the supporting data. I haven't seen any reference to the astronauts themselves saying it was a micro meteorite that did the hole.

And that's besides the point NASA hasn't agreed with those truthful honorable, and honest Russians yet .

I don't understand it, are you saying that from all the astronauts/cosmonauts on the ISS only the Russians said it was a drilled hole?

Nasa is setting up their own commission to look into it and I'm willing to bet that after one day NASA isn't going to give theory.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "isn't going to give theory".

Anyone that makes this claim immediately after it happened. It is either a propagandist, idiot or a show off

What claim? I think I'm missing something on your answer.

How many people on this thread are liberals who hate trump for Russian collusion and believe they are the biggest threat to our country ? But now find them honest.

I'm Portuguese and not the slightest interested in that.

I'm going to try to bow out of this one again . I will revisit this thread whether I'm right or wrong when more information comes out .

I would prefer that you answer my questions first, if you don't mind.

that people is a 2mm drill in my hand.

So unless the person who's finger is in the shot is a homo florensis, there is no way that hole is 2mm, more like 4-5mm.
I can tell nobody commenting has ever tried to hand drill a hole that size.
The drill is not stiff enough to "walk" it will break.
And how is somebody going to drill that hole without anybody noticing?, what about the chips that would have been floating around.
Russians are FULL OF S and their manufacturing quality is crap

a reply to: ArMaP

All right first off I know I just realize how big of a jerk I was being . I apologize


But here's where we stand right now. Most people ( apparently everybody but me ) believe the marks are drill skip. My position has been they don't follow the normal rules of skipped bits.



Unless they were put there intentionally


Oh and "isn't going to give a theory ".


About the questions ask away

The three photos I have found of this case.

The more famous, showing the hole.


Repairing it.


After the repair.


As far as I understand it, these were the photos that appeared on a video NASA posted on (I think) Twitter and that were later removed.

originally posted by: 14377
All right first off I know I just realize how big of a jerk I was being . I apologize

No problem, but you should learn to distance yourself from other people's problems that do not affect you directly.

But here's where we stand right now. Most people ( apparently everybody but me ) believe the marks are drill skip. My position has been they don't follow the normal rules of skipped bits.

Well, those rules are not really rules, as they are the result of a rotating drill that has the tendency to move in the direction of rotation and the opposing force of the person/system holding the drill. If the two forces are equal the movement will be in straight line, right?

Oh and "isn't going to give a theory ".

OK, that makes sense, thanks. Having learned English by myself makes it hard, sometimes (specially at the end of a long working day) it hard for me to understand an incomplete sentence, as I'm not capable of "reverse engineer" the sentence to try to find the idea behind it.

About the questions ask away

Here they are:
1 - Where are the references that were the astronauts/cosmonauts aboard the ISS that said the hole was made by a micro meteorite?
2 - If those references show they did say it, who said it, a Russian, an American or the German crew member?
3 - The theory that the hole was made by a drill came from several people that saw the photos I just posted and that were on a video posted by NASA. A little time after NASA removed the video and later reposted it without those images. How does that relate to the Russians saying it was a drill hole when it was not?
4 - When you wrote "Anyone that makes this claim immediately after it happened. It is either a propagandist, idiot or a show off ", what claim were you talking about?

Thanks in advance.

a reply to: ArMaP

I've seen the top and bottom ones. The one in the middle is new to me though.

Can't wait to see the rest .

a reply to: ArMaP

I'm on my phone. There's no way I can reply to that Tome. One at a time please ?

a reply to: punkinworks10
There's a woman aboard the ISS.

a reply to: 14377

OK, but I will have to do it tomorrow, it's getting late here.

a reply to: ArMaP

1 - Where are the references that were the astronauts/cosmonauts aboard the ISS that said the hole was made by a micro meteorite?

Here you go.

If I specifically mentioned astronauts or cosmonauts it was not meant literally .

On August 30, a 2 millimeter “microcrack” was detected on the hull of a Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft, which is currently docked to the ISS. The six astronauts aboard the ISS were never in any peril, as the air pressure leak was very small and easily contained. A strip of Kapton tape was placed over the hole as a stopgap measure, followed by the application of an epoxy-based sealant. The ISS is no longer leaking air into space, and the hole appears to be stable.

www.google.com...

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: ArMaP

1 - Where are the references that were the astronauts/cosmonauts aboard the ISS that said the hole was made by a micro meteorite?

Here you go.

If I specifically mentioned astronauts or cosmonauts it was not meant literally .

On August 30, a 2 millimeter “microcrack” was detected on the hull of a Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft, which is currently docked to the ISS. The six astronauts aboard the ISS were never in any peril, as the air pressure leak was very small and easily contained. A strip of Kapton tape was placed over the hole as a stopgap measure, followed by the application of an epoxy-based sealant. The ISS is no longer leaking air into space, and the hole appears to be stable.

www.google.com...

Okay I’m not trying to make this personal but you believe the first scenario put forward yet because another theory of the cause came after and happened to come from the Russians it must automatically be disregarded? That seems pretty silly to me if you take the latest statements along with the evidence (pictures) you’ve been trying very hard to bend to fit your narrative, seems pretty hypocritical and ignorant to me. Of course if you’re on orbit and get a increasing drop in pressure aboard the station your first assumption is going to be something that happened on orbit IE a MM strike, so that’s what you say it most likely was, until you find evidence otherwise which appears to have happened, that’s how things work you make your hypothesis of the cause and tell that to the public and then you either confirm or deny your hypothesis and then update the info.

Now I think Russia coming out crying sabotage was hyperbolic and typical Russian bluster but they’ve backed down to a middle ground and NASA has not made any counter statement. Let’s try to set prejudice and assumptions aside and look at this logically and I think we’ll all get along much better.

ETA- I’ve been trying to be apolitical as possible in this case I’m not a leftist nor do I have a hard on for Russia one way or the other.

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: ArMaP

1 - Where are the references that were the astronauts/cosmonauts aboard the ISS that said the hole was made by a micro meteorite?

Here you go.

If I specifically mentioned astronauts or cosmonauts it was not meant literally .

On August 30, a 2 millimeter “microcrack” was detected on the hull of a Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft, which is currently docked to the ISS. The six astronauts aboard the ISS were never in any peril, as the air pressure leak was very small and easily contained. A strip of Kapton tape was placed over the hole as a stopgap measure, followed by the application of an epoxy-based sealant. The ISS is no longer leaking air into space, and the hole appears to be stable.

www.google.com...

Okay I’m not trying to make this personal but you believe the first scenario put forward yet because another theory of the cause came after and happened to come from the Tussians it must automatically be disregarded? That seems pretty silly to me if you take the latest statements along with the evidence (pictures) you’ve been trying very hard to bend to fit your narrative, seems pretty hypocritical and ignorant to me. Of course if you’re on orbit and get a increasing drop in pressure aboard the station your first assumption is going to be something that happened on orbit IE a MM strike, so that’s what you say it most likely was, until you find evidence otherwise which appears to have happened, that’s how things work you make your hypothesis of the cause and tell that to the public and then you either confirm or deny your hypothesis and then update the info.

Now I think Russia coming out crying sabotage was hyperbolic and typical Russian bluster but they’ve back down to a middle ground and NASA has not made any counter statement. Let’s try to set prejudice and assumptions aside and look at this logically and I think we’ll all get along much better.

" not trying to make it personal" you didn't do a very good job at that .

There are reports of a exterior hull strike, couple that with depressurization and it demands more investigation .

a reply to: seattlerat

Russia is the born again Boogeyman. It worked in the 80's and it's working now (granted, only on stupid Liberals). It's the Liberals fortifying their Russian narrative against Trump. They need the people really, really scared and/or angry with Russia....so they can get population support for war, and get their Impeachment of Trump. Most people know what they're up to though, which is why CNN has less viewers than some cable Gardening shows.

originally posted by: 14377
If I specifically mentioned astronauts or cosmonauts it was not meant literally .

You said:

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 .

www.google.com...

That article says nothing about the astronauts "acknowledging" that the depressurization was caused by a micro meteorite. The other article linked inside that one doesn't say it either.

originally posted by: 14377
There are reports of a exterior hull strike, couple that with depressurization and it demands more investigation .

Who made those reports?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: 14377
If I specifically mentioned astronauts or cosmonauts it was not meant literally .

You said:

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 .

www.google.com...

That article says nothing about the astronauts "acknowledging" that the depressurization was caused by a micro meteorite. The other article linked inside that one doesn't say it either.

Spoke out of turn my bad. But I still supplied evidence to back up my claim.