Russia says space station leak could be deliberate sabotage

a reply to: ArMaP

Well seeing as how the majority of the reports from five or six days ago we're saying it was a micrometeor strike . You can pretty much take your pick .

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: ArMaP

Well seeing as how the majority of the reports from five or six days ago we're saying it was a micrometeor strike . You can pretty much take your pick .

Okay ya obvious nothing is going to sway you from your opinion so to keep from derailing this thread completely this will be my last post directed towards you in this thread. Do you think Pluto is still a planet? Or perhaps the earth is flat? I realize I’m being hyperbolic but really it’s the same deal, there has been zero evidence of a MM strike since initial reports, all evidence is pointing towards something that you be appear to be unable or unwilling to even consider as a possibility....

I honestly am baffled by your position, you seem to have a vehement hate for Russia, yet instead of saying “stupid Russians what amatures they could screw up anything” or the likes, but you’re defending them by thinking the only possible cause is a MM strike, contrarian much?

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Hey I grant you that you guys have a 90% chance of being right and I've been reduced to 10%. One of the things I've been thinking about. Is that besides pictures we're never going to see any actual evidence .

My position is there were reports of MM strikes at the early stage of the investigation. Again couple that with partial depressurization and there is a reason to give pause. Your evidence is a picture that for you proves it was drilled. That same picture for me puts doubt in that theory . So the same picture is evidence for both opinions . People seemed to be angry because I don't except their theory. But on the flipside nobody is willing to except my theory either. The pushback I've received states fully and loudly my theory is invalid . That's not fair.

I've apologized a couple times. Let me try it again. I got confrontational because I was dealing with three or four posters at the same time . My bad I've got to watch that .

originally posted by: 14377
Spoke out of turn my bad. But I still supplied evidence to back up my claim.

What claim? That the astronauts said it was a micro meteorite or something else?

a reply to: ArMaP

I admitted someone other than the astronauts said it .


Are you saying that my claim of a micrometer is completely invalid? Yet almost everyone else's position based on one picture irrefutable proof ? This is a conspiracy form not everyone's going to agree.

Here I took a piece of extruded aluminum a 16th inch thick and re-created my test. For a 2 mm bit I substituted a 5/64. On every try I did my best to keep the bit in a straight line .

The green arrow in this picture shows one that was close . But note all the other ones don't resemble a straight line . I also pulled a bit out of the hole and set it down again as in the original picture .




The green circle in this picture indicates to me they are close but they still aren't straight lines .



Here's a sideview looking into a hole. I did use a bigger bit on this but I only did it to show it's pattern. Notice how it's shiny and the one in the original picture isn't ?





The line half of the way in the gold circle is a straight line I was able to produce one. Which I could've easily left out if I was a know it all. But I didn't because I'm honest





Here's a better look at the two parallel lines that were close but no cigar .




Closer looks to show I'm not being deceptive .



A closer look at the one that was almost perfectly straight . I produce that out of at least 10 tries. Which adds to my position that I believe it wouldn't be possible to get three straight lines in a row no mistakes . I lean towards Micrometeor because the theory of a drill hole does not match up in my opinion .






My point is I have experience and even provided legwork. Unless you think I'm lying you must realize that there is some problems with the original picture .

originally posted by: 14377
The hole looks to be about a quarter inch. So I went down to my shop and skipped a 1/4" bit on a piece of aluminum. The gaps are far different and mine all torqued to the right instead of in a straight line.

Could you repeat your experiment with a 2 mm drill? That would reproduce better the situation.

Edited to add that I was writing this post while you made your post above this one, so just ignore this one.

a reply to: ArMaP

Difference in the size of drill bits is minuscule .






For comparison here's the bit I used .



The thing is any hard evidence of what happened is gone. All we're going to see is pictures .

originally posted by: 14377
Are you saying that my claim of a micrometer is completely invalid?

No, I was only asking what claim you were talking about, I like to know exactly what we're talking about, as I hate misunderstandings.

My point is I have experience and even provided legwork. Unless you think I'm lying you must realize that there is some problems with the original picture .

I understand that, and I thank you for "providing the legwork", something I always try to do when it's something I can do, but I think you are too fixed on one part of the situation: the markings close to the hole.

I am one of those that think that the hole looks like a drilled hole, but that means exactly what I wrote, that the hole looks like a drilled hole, I don't think it's a drilled hole because those markings appear to have been made by a drill, to me they are not the most important part.

Also, although I have very little knowledge of drilling in metal (or anywhere else, really), I think that markings may change when some of the factors, like drill shape, drill speed and the type of paint/whatever is covering the metal. As I have a variable speed driller (and I am almost useless working with one) I have made many markings at different speeds, with different drills, and they look different.

One of the reasons specialists thought, when they saw the photos, that it was not a micro meteorite hit was the fact that, a hole of that size would mean a meteorite so small that it wasn't supposed to make a hole in the Soyuz module.

originally posted by: 14377
Difference in the size of drill bits is minuscule .

The difference between 2 mm and 1/4 of an inch? That's what I was talking about.

The thing is any hard evidence of what happened is gone. All we're going to see is pictures .

The Soyuz module is still there, they only covered the hole. And, yes, we are obviously only going to see pictures, as we are not going to the ISS to see it "in loco", although I would love to do it.

Here's a sideview looking into a hole. I did use a bigger bit on this but I only did it to show it's pattern. Notice how it's shiny and the one in the original picture isn't ?

This could be considered proof that the hole is in fact old, oxidized aluminum vs freshly worked. I’m leaving it alone from here I learned beating my head against a wall is counterproductive.

ETA, also you don’t know if the person was bracing off something thus helping make nearly parallel lines there is a convient area nearly parallel above the hole that you could you side of of your hand to brace a drill against.


ETA#2 armap- I think it’s a 1/16th”

a reply to: ArMaP

I considered your points about the drill. Are used a variable speed drill but I didn't start out slow. I tried it with pressure and I tried it with just the drills wait. I tried to do it everywhere I could think up . Lol

A micrometer year can be a piece of space junk. Anything from a ball bearing up to a screw . A small ball bearing traveling at 22,000 mph has quite a bit of penetrating power.


A progress we supply ship I have learned is not pressurized. But it is pressurized when it hooks up with the ISS . I would also like someone to explain the minor depressurization that occurred.


I might be wrong with the only experts that made that claim are the Russians specifically Dimitri whatever the hell his name is .


Here's an article I just found that is two days old and cites a American astronaut. Notice it says exterior .

Mystery continues to swirl around a hole found in the outside of the International Space Station.

Last week, Nasa and the Russian space agency scrambled to fix a leak in the floating laboratory that was causing air to slowly rush out of the space station. The crew on board eventually plugged up the gap with epoxy, fixing the problem at least temporarily.

Initially, astronauts and other experts had suggested that the hole had been caused a by tiny rock that would have hit the space station and ripped a hole in it. "This leak seems to have resulted from a micrometeoroid impact," tweeted ISS veteran Scott Kelly in one representative tweet.

www.google.com... -a8522036.html%3famp

So far a American astronaut said outside strike. The Russians say it happened from the inside .

I've got two questions that I can't find the answers for.

How thick is the hull and why did it calls depressurization ?

a reply to: ArMaP

Actually it's my understanding that the vehicle was a progress supply vessel. They dock at the ISS temporarily to offload supplies. Afterwords it's filled with garbage and burns up upon reentry. That's why we will never see any evidence .

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: ArMaP

I considered your points about the drill. Are used a variable speed drill but I didn't start out slow. I tried it with pressure and I tried it with just the drills wait. I tried to do it everywhere I could think up . Lol

A micrometer year can be a piece of space junk. Anything from a ball bearing up to a screw . A small ball bearing traveling at 22,000 mph has quite a bit of penetrating power.


A progress we supply ship I have learned is not pressurized. But it is pressurized when it hooks up with the ISS . I would also like someone to explain the minor depressurization that occurred.


I might be wrong with the only experts that made that claim are the Russians specifically Dimitri whatever the hell his name is .

Here's an article I just found that is two days old and cites a American astronaut. Notice it says exterior .

Mystery continues to swirl around a hole found in the outside of the International Space Station.

Last week, Nasa and the Russian space agency scrambled to fix a leak in the floating laboratory that was causing air to slowly rush out of the space station. The crew on board eventually plugged up the gap with epoxy, fixing the problem at least temporarily.

Initially, astronauts and other experts had suggested that the hole had been caused a by tiny rock that would have hit the space station and ripped a hole in it. "This leak seems to have resulted from a micrometeoroid impact," tweeted ISS veteran Scott Kelly in one representative tweet.

www.google.com... -a8522036.html%3famp

So far a American astronaut said outside strike. The Russians say it happened from the inside .

I've got two questions that I can't find the answers for.

How thick is the hull and why did it calls depressurization ?

I don’t see where he said outside? The article writer is saying outside, he’s a guy now more or less out of the loop he was speculating based on the evidence (just an educated guess) that he shared, he’s not speaking for NASA and I’m sure that he’s not sticking behind his first guess.

Hull thickness is going to vary and there’s also schemes like the Whipple Shield to protect from MM strikes so chances are it isn’t just a single hull panel with space on the other side you’re going to have layers. As far as how it was losing pressure it was losing barely over the acceptable range until the rest of whatever was helping it seal dislodged allowing a sudden increase in pressure drop.

They already have much better pictures they’re just not available publicly yet, they won’t be kicking it out to burn up on reentry they also use them to return cargo to earth it’s multi-use so it will be brought down and further examined.


ETA- It’s a Soyuz capsule not a progress.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

Mystery continues to swirl around a hole found in the outside of the International Space Station.

This leak seems to have resulted from a micrometeoroid impact," tweeted ISS veteran Scott Kelly in one representative tweet

www.google.com... human-a8522036.html%3famp

Reduction in mass was possible because the Progress was designed to be unmanned and disposable. This means that there is no need for bulky life support systems and heat shields. A small amount of weight is saved due to the lack of automatic rescue crews system and lack of parachutes. The spacecraft also has no ability to split into separate modules. After undocking, the spacecraft performs a retrofire and burns up in the atmosphere.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

As for the pressure loss you pretty much stated the way I look at it. We don't know if it's double hulled or single hulled or how wide the gap is if it's double hulled. But we do know there was a small pressure leak .

No findings have been etched in stone yet. There are alternate theories to someone drilling a hole.

I see your theory and i might be wrong. But you will not even consider my theory. Instead you've acted like I'm an idiot.

Can we start over ?

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

Mystery continues to swirl around a hole found in the outside of the International Space Station.

This leak seems to have resulted from a micrometeoroid impact," tweeted ISS veteran Scott Kelly in one representative tweet

www.google.com... human-a8522036.html%3famp

Reduction in mass was possible because the Progress was designed to be unmanned and disposable. This means that there is no need for bulky life support systems and heat shields. A small amount of weight is saved due to the lack of automatic rescue crews system and lack of parachutes. The spacecraft also has no ability to split into separate modules. After undocking, the spacecraft performs a retrofire and burns up in the atmosphere.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

As for the pressure loss you pretty much stated the way I look at it. We don't know if it's double hulled or single hulled or how wide the gap is if it's double hulled. But we do know there was a small pressure leak .

No findings have been etched in stone yet. There are alternate theories to someone drilling a hole.

I see your theory and i might be wrong. But you will not even consider my theory. Instead you've acted like I'm an idiot.

Can we start over ?

It’s a man rated Soyuz not the progress, it can and will be deorbited and examines back on terra firma. Your link is no bueno for the quote, the whole 2nd picture controversy was from people taking Chris Hadfield’s twitter Post with the theory that it was MM strike. People take astronauts word for gospel whether they’re speaking for NASA or not.

If you look at some of the marks at the 90 degree send you can actually see where it looks like someone drug the chuck of a drill against the paint part of the reason things seem to be pointing very strongly away from the MM theory, I’m more than willing to be proved wrong.

I apologize if you feel that I was treating you unfairly or acting like you were an idiot, far from it I think you’re intelegent dude just perhaps on the stubborn side (not that I’m not at times more often than I’d like to admit), please accept my apology and peace from here on out, I’m not out to get you.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Do they actually have a drill and bit on board?

Yes, it was reported that there is 1 drill on board that is capable of doing this

The British Daily Mail had an interesting report on this.

Apparently 30% of all useable time in space is taken Up by quarrels . Tempers run high. Also, cosmic radiation causes intracranial swelling and Alzheimer’s-like brain changes and behavior changes.

It doesn’t look good that this was an accident!

reply to: seattlerat

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

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

Mystery continues to swirl around a hole found in the outside of the International Space Station.

This leak seems to have resulted from a micrometeoroid impact," tweeted ISS veteran Scott Kelly in one representative tweet

www.google.com... human-a8522036.html%3famp

Reduction in mass was possible because the Progress was designed to be unmanned and disposable. This means that there is no need for bulky life support systems and heat shields. A small amount of weight is saved due to the lack of automatic rescue crews system and lack of parachutes. The spacecraft also has no ability to split into separate modules. After undocking, the spacecraft performs a retrofire and burns up in the atmosphere.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

As for the pressure loss you pretty much stated the way I look at it. We don't know if it's double hulled or single hulled or how wide the gap is if it's double hulled. But we do know there was a small pressure leak .

No findings have been etched in stone yet. There are alternate theories to someone drilling a hole.

I see your theory and i might be wrong. But you will not even consider my theory. Instead you've acted like I'm an idiot.

Can we start over ?

It’s a man rated Soyuz not the progress, it can and will be deorbited and examines back on terra firma. Your link is no bueno for the quote, the whole 2nd picture controversy was from people taking Chris Hadfield’s twitter Post with the theory that it was MM strike. People take astronauts word for gospel whether they’re speaking for NASA or not.

If you look at some of the marks at the 90 degree send you can actually see where it looks like someone drug the chuck of a drill against the paint part of the reason things seem to be pointing very strongly away from the MM theory, I’m more than willing to be proved wrong.

I apologize if you feel that I was treating you unfairly or acting like you were an idiot, far from it I think you’re intelegent dude just perhaps on the stubborn side (not that I’m not at times more often than I’d like to admit), please accept my apology and peace from here on out, I’m not out to get you.

Chris Hadfield has a theory just like you have a theory I have a theory and Dimitri Rogozin has a theory . Nothing has been proven all we have is our opinions .


There are two Soyuz spacecraft docked at the ISS. There was also one progress 70. But the progress 70 is now a mute point because this latest version is equipped for reentry . Good we will be able to see the exterior then .

Actually it was anodized and extruded piece of metal. (no paint) I drilled all the holes. The Chuck didn't rub anywhere .


About your position on my disposition " stubborn " you nailed it . Lol

originally posted by: 14377

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

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

Mystery continues to swirl around a hole found in the outside of the International Space Station.

This leak seems to have resulted from a micrometeoroid impact," tweeted ISS veteran Scott Kelly in one representative tweet

www.google.com... human-a8522036.html%3famp

Reduction in mass was possible because the Progress was designed to be unmanned and disposable. This means that there is no need for bulky life support systems and heat shields. A small amount of weight is saved due to the lack of automatic rescue crews system and lack of parachutes. The spacecraft also has no ability to split into separate modules. After undocking, the spacecraft performs a retrofire and burns up in the atmosphere.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)

As for the pressure loss you pretty much stated the way I look at it. We don't know if it's double hulled or single hulled or how wide the gap is if it's double hulled. But we do know there was a small pressure leak .

No findings have been etched in stone yet. There are alternate theories to someone drilling a hole.

I see your theory and i might be wrong. But you will not even consider my theory. Instead you've acted like I'm an idiot.

Can we start over ?

It’s a man rated Soyuz not the progress, it can and will be deorbited and examines back on terra firma. Your link is no bueno for the quote, the whole 2nd picture controversy was from people taking Chris Hadfield’s twitter Post with the theory that it was MM strike. People take astronauts word for gospel whether they’re speaking for NASA or not.

If you look at some of the marks at the 90 degree send you can actually see where it looks like someone drug the chuck of a drill against the paint part of the reason things seem to be pointing very strongly away from the MM theory, I’m more than willing to be proved wrong.

I apologize if you feel that I was treating you unfairly or acting like you were an idiot, far from it I think you’re intelegent dude just perhaps on the stubborn side (not that I’m not at times more often than I’d like to admit), please accept my apology and peace from here on out, I’m not out to get you.

Chris Hadfield has a theory just like you have a theory I have a theory and Dimitri Rogozin has a theory . Nothing has been proven all we have is our opinions .


There are two Soyuz spacecraft docked at the ISS. There was also one progress 70. But the progress 70 is now a mute point because this latest version is equipped for reentry . Good we will be able to see the exterior then .

Actually it was anodized and extruded piece of metal. (no paint) I drilled all the holes. The Chuck didn't rub anywhere .


About your position on my disposition " stubborn " you nailed it . Lol

I was talking about our favorite picture that we’ve been butting heads over. I didn’t think I was going out on too much of a limb with my assessment of your demeanor, your avatar helps reinforce that image lol.

a reply to: BigDave-AR


If those are rub marks they would've had to come from a drill with a plastic chuck.



That's why I chose that avatar it does convey a message .