However, I am hoping they opt to send that Soyuz home early and send another one up early. Whatever they have to do, does not seem wise to keep that vehicle on the station for full mission length.
Fortunately, in this case, they somehow found the leak quickly. I am equally curious as to how that actually happened.
Quote from: TripleSeven on 08/31/2018 03:56 pmClearly they know what they are doing but....epoxy as a sealant or glue is good. It strikes me that what would have been better was to use a large "washer" or something to cover the hole ..then use epoxy around the edges of the plug to seal it...so that pressure pushed the plug against the sealant and the sealant against the body of the vehicle. Then put a glob of epoxy over all of itFixes like that last decadesIt doesn’t have to last forever just until Soyuz departs the station and then that area is disposed of.
Clearly they know what they are doing but....epoxy as a sealant or glue is good. It strikes me that what would have been better was to use a large "washer" or something to cover the hole ..then use epoxy around the edges of the plug to seal it...so that pressure pushed the plug against the sealant and the sealant against the body of the vehicle. Then put a glob of epoxy over all of itFixes like that last decades
Quote from: elmarko on 08/30/2018 10:42 pmDoes anyone know: Is the translator NASA-provided or fed from the RSA?RSA
Does anyone know: Is the translator NASA-provided or fed from the RSA?
If this Soyuz were -- (and this is a big IF and an answer based only on the speculative question asked) -- to be declared unsafe for crew return, the three crewmembers would stay behind on ISS as Soyuz MS-09 is deorbited. Soyuz MS-10 is already a 2 person only launch. So one of the MS-09 crew would come home on Soyuz MS-10. After that, options would be to reduce crew manifest on Soyuz MS-11 and MS-12 to two astros and rotate the remaining two MS-09 crew down on those (very similar to the plan of how to get the STS-135 crew home if Atlantis had become disabled on STS-135). This, I would argue, would be the most likely plan taken. The other possibility (more remote) would be, if SpaceX's crewed demo -- DM-2 -- remains perfectly on schedule for April 2019 and IF that mission is not expanded to a 6 month flight (as NASA has now hinted is a possibility under review), to have the remaining two MS-09 crew come back on DM-2. (This is far less likely given schedule uncertainty for Commercial Crew vehicles at this point).
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 08/30/2018 09:01 pmIf this Soyuz were -- (and this is a big IF and an answer based only on the speculative question asked) -- to be declared unsafe for crew return, the three crewmembers would stay behind on ISS as Soyuz MS-09 is deorbited. Soyuz MS-10 is already a 2 person only launch. So one of the MS-09 crew would come home on Soyuz MS-10. After that, options would be to reduce crew manifest on Soyuz MS-11 and MS-12 to two astros and rotate the remaining two MS-09 crew down on those (very similar to the plan of how to get the STS-135 crew home if Atlantis had become disabled on STS-135). This, I would argue, would be the most likely plan taken. The other possibility (more remote) would be, if SpaceX's crewed demo -- DM-2 -- remains perfectly on schedule for April 2019 and IF that mission is not expanded to a 6 month flight (as NASA has now hinted is a possibility under review), to have the remaining two MS-09 crew come back on DM-2. (This is far less likely given schedule uncertainty for Commercial Crew vehicles at this point).The other other possibility in this deeply speculative scenario would be to have astronauts(/cosmonauts) come down on DM-1. It's available almost immediately and while there is theoretically some shakedown to do with it as a crewed vehicle, it has nevertheless been the subject of searching review. And considering that we're talking about less likely possibilities that imply some urgent or persisting issue, it's one of the potential routes to support rapid action.
Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 08/31/2018 02:54 pmThat looks like a drill hole, no? It's got tool markings right by it.My guess is that they probably drilled the hole bigger in order to get the epoxy in the hole.
That looks like a drill hole, no? It's got tool markings right by it.
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 08/31/2018 03:04 pmQuote from: ChrisGebhardt on 08/31/2018 02:54 pmThat looks like a drill hole, no? It's got tool markings right by it.My guess is that they probably drilled the hole bigger in order to get the epoxy in the hole.Your guess would be wrong. You don't make a hole in a pressure shell bigger, and drilling in microgravity is a big deal -- metal chips floating around are a serious hazard. That picture is the hole as they found it.
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 08/31/2018 06:16 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 08/31/2018 03:04 pmQuote from: ChrisGebhardt on 08/31/2018 02:54 pmThat looks like a drill hole, no? It's got tool markings right by it.My guess is that they probably drilled the hole bigger in order to get the epoxy in the hole.Your guess would be wrong. You don't make a hole in a pressure shell bigger, and drilling in microgravity is a big deal -- metal chips floating around are a serious hazard. That picture is the hole as they found it.that is what a hazard classed vacuum is for.
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 08/31/2018 06:16 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 08/31/2018 03:04 pmQuote from: ChrisGebhardt on 08/31/2018 02:54 pmThat looks like a drill hole, no? It's got tool markings right by it.My guess is that they probably drilled the hole bigger in order to get the epoxy in the hole.Your guess would be wrong. You don't make a hole in a pressure shell bigger, and drilling in microgravity is a big deal -- metal chips floating around are a serious hazard. That picture is the hole as they found it.You would drill a ragged hole if you were worried about cracking. Also to clean it up if you plugged it with something before the epoxy. Just using gauze and epoxy seems like someone who didn't have a lot of sense would do.
I'm sure I must have missed something. Makes no sense to me that this has been identified as most likely MMOD damage and is an exit hole with no apparent entry hole. How is this possible? Also the repair was on the inside liner and not main pressure hull, so this implies that the liner is sealed all around and that the external leak still exists. Therefor the air should slowly escape from the space between the liner and outside hull, correct? And this is not a concern?
Quote from: Roy_H on 08/31/2018 09:50 pmI'm sure I must have missed something. Makes no sense to me that this has been identified as most likely MMOD damage and is an exit hole with no apparent entry hole. How is this possible? Also the repair was on the inside liner and not main pressure hull, so this implies that the liner is sealed all around and that the external leak still exists. Therefor the air should slowly escape from the space between the liner and outside hull, correct? And this is not a concern?There is no inside liner -- what you see in the pictures in the article IS the pressure shell. Claims that it is "most likely MMOD damage" are simply false. It's not MMOD, period.
Quote from: SWGlassPit on 08/31/2018 09:58 pmQuote from: Roy_H on 08/31/2018 09:50 pmI'm sure I must have missed something. Makes no sense to me that this has been identified as most likely MMOD damage and is an exit hole with no apparent entry hole. How is this possible? Also the repair was on the inside liner and not main pressure hull, so this implies that the liner is sealed all around and that the external leak still exists. Therefor the air should slowly escape from the space between the liner and outside hull, correct? And this is not a concern?There is no inside liner -- what you see in the pictures in the article IS the pressure shell. Claims that it is "most likely MMOD damage" are simply false. It's not MMOD, period.What do you think it is?