Author Topic: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak  (Read 165248 times)

Offline MattBaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Liked: 348
  • Likes Given: 253
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #280 on: 08/31/2018 04:25 pm »
On schedule that's 3 1/2 months, without having ever built or maintained a spacecraft it sure does seem long, I can't say I'd be surprised if I checked this thread on October 14th and read "Uhm, it's leaking again..."

If I jinxed that you can PM for lottery numbers.

Offline thomasafb

  • Shuttle Hugger
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #281 on: 08/31/2018 04:40 pm »
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.
couldn't agree more with you regarding the appearance of the response. Regarding another Soyuz, the production is rather limited. Currently, it takes about three years to build one.

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-476 page 18.
Visited Shuttles (so far):
OV-104, OV-105

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 733
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #282 on: 08/31/2018 04:46 pm »
Fortunately, in this case, they somehow found the leak quickly. I am equally curious as to how that actually happened.
AFAIR orbital module of Soyuz has pressure sensors, so they probably noticed the slight pressure gradient which pointed them toward the module.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #283 on: 08/31/2018 04:51 pm »
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 it

Fixes like that last decades

It doesn’t have to last forever just until Soyuz departs the station and then that area is disposed of.

Exactly. But I would not feel comfortable with epoxy alone as the pressure agent.  On our farm we have a 4 foot by 15 foot Al tank that we got from a friend who salvages CVNs.  It had four half inch holes 90 degrees apart about 12 feet from the top.  That's a lot of column pressure.  I did a fix as described ...that thing has never leaked and it included going through three hurricanes (it's our solar water heater tank

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #284 on: 08/31/2018 04:56 pm »
Does anyone know: Is the translator NASA-provided or fed from the RSA?

RSA

But I think they are funded by NASA.

Offline Joffan

Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #285 on: 08/31/2018 05:27 pm »
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).

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.
Getting through max-Q for humanity becoming fully spacefaring

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #286 on: 08/31/2018 05:32 pm »
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).


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.

Soyuz MS-10 could literally be launched uncrewed more than a month before DM-1's NET date and provide a new Soyuz for the MS-09 crew under a hypothetical urgent situation.  DM-1 is not an "other other option".
« Last Edit: 08/31/2018 05:37 pm by ChrisGebhardt »

Offline streadgold

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • MMOD
  • Houston
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #287 on: 08/31/2018 06:10 pm »
That 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.

This is not correct

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #288 on: 08/31/2018 06:16 pm »
That 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.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #289 on: 08/31/2018 06:50 pm »
That 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.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #290 on: 08/31/2018 06:54 pm »
That 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.

Regardless, your speculation is off-base.

Offline AntiAnti

  • Member
  • Posts: 25
  • Moscow
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #291 on: 08/31/2018 07:13 pm »
I believe it was drilled. Such a round and clean hole would mean that micrometeorite wasn't burned out, and they would have a damage at the opposite wall. Also, then needed to drill it to clear out a seam between the white panel and the BO wall and to seal it. Note that cosmonauts were instructed to push the gauze into the hole, not to apply it simply from above.

For info: wall (aluminium) thickness is 2 mm, anti-MM shield is 0.5 mm. It sould be effective for micrometeorites with a diameter up to 5-10 mm.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #292 on: 08/31/2018 07:44 pm »
That 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 can’t think of anything worse than drilling metal in microgravity for causing issues.

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #293 on: 08/31/2018 08:11 pm »
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 it

Fixes like that last decades

So basically do as they did in The Expanse (at timestamp) : https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=dIREwoOBAsA&t=5m50s (gore warning : someone's head was unfortunately directly in line with the projectile that holed the ship) (broke the link on purpose because apparently inline wasn't going to timestamp?)

TL;DW : there's a space battle going on, the ship these characters are on (and locked up on) gets holed, luckily a military ship seems to have a patch gun (think glue gun on steroids) in every compartment, and they toss whatever is big enough (in one case, a binder labeled "MCRN EMERGENCY PROCEDURES") over the holes (which suck the items into place) and glue seal the edges.
« Last Edit: 08/31/2018 08:13 pm by biosehnsucht »

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #294 on: 08/31/2018 08:54 pm »
Crew Plans Quiet Labor Day Weekend After Repair Work

The Expedition 56 crew resumed a regular schedule of work Friday on the International Space Station after spending the day Thursday locating and repairing a leak in the upper section of one of the two Russian Soyuz vehicles attached to the complex.

With the station’s cabin pressure holding steady, most of the crew pressed ahead with a variety of scientific experiments. Station Commander Drew Feustel of NASA prepared tools to be used in a pair of spacewalks late next month to complete the change out of batteries on the port truss of the outpost. Six new lithium-ion batteries will be transported to the station in September on the Japanese HTV Transfer Vehicle, or HTV-7 cargo craft, that will replace a dozen older nickel-hydrogen batteries in a duplication of work conducted last year on the station’s starboard truss.

Flight controllers at the Mission Control Centers in Houston and Moscow, meanwhile, continued to monitor pressure levels on the station following the patching of a small hole Thursday in the orbital module, or upper portion of the Soyuz MS-09 spacecraft. The Soyuz is docked to the Rassvet module on the Earth-facing side of the Russian segment. The tiny hole created a slight loss in pressure late Wednesday and early Thursday before it was repaired by Soyuz commander Sergey Prokopyev of Roscosmos.

The crew plans a quiet weekend before embarking on a busy schedule of research and routine maintenance work next week.

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6153
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 3358
  • Likes Given: 1138
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #295 on: 08/31/2018 08:56 pm »
The DPC was rushed due to ongoing TDRS issues, see next, but ground folks generated a history of pressure levels in the ISS for the crews consumption. 

The TDRS issue is interesting.  Problems with the 275 (degree)/Z satellite lead to frequent, lengthy, 45 minute comm gaps.   Return to availability is tomorrow at the earliest. This is interesting because previously the 275 bird, or actually lack of availability of the 275 bird, lead to consistent 10-12 minute gaps between East/West coverage.  Now apparently it's being used for extended coverage meaning either the East or West birds aren't being used....
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline Roy_H

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1209
    • Political Solutions
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 3163
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #296 on: 08/31/2018 09:50 pm »
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?
"If we don't achieve re-usability, I will consider SpaceX to be a failure." - Elon Musk
Spacestation proposal: https://politicalsolutions.ca/forum/index.php?topic=3.0

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #297 on: 08/31/2018 09:58 pm »
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?

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.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Istanbul Turkey and Santa Fe TEXAS USA
  • Liked: 588
  • Likes Given: 2095
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #298 on: 08/31/2018 10:13 pm »
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?

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?

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Expedition 56 Thread - also covering the ISS leak
« Reply #299 on: 08/31/2018 10:28 pm »
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?

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?
It sure looks like a drilled hole to me.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1