A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Leak on ISS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 31st 18, 03:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Leak on ISS

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...airs-continue/

Apparently there's a 2mm leak on-board ISS that's been tracked down to
Soyuz.
I'm sure some folks be all gloom and doom and all, but NASA is very much
treating this as a very minor incident.

It'll be easily patched. (and I fact looks like it has been).

It's in the orbital module so any outside damage (assuming it's due to
orbital debris) should pose no threat to re-entry.

But this got me thinking... NASA and the Russians have always treated the
Soyuz as lifeboats. But I've never seen any talk of plans for if the Soyuz
Descent module was highly damaged (let's say a lot larger than a 2mm leak).
Sure, you could probably plug most, but at some size and position, it could
make re-entry pretty hairy.

Years ago, the Soviets had a production rate they probably could just speed
up the next Soyuz launch (and do it uncrewed) but these days, it would
probably be 3+ months.
On the other hand, once Starliner and Dragon 2 come online, there's a lot
more options.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #2  
Old August 31st 18, 08:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Leak on ISS

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 30 Aug 2018
23:36:07 -0400:

On 2018-08-30 22:08, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...airs-continue/

Apparently there's a 2mm leak on-board ISS that's been tracked down to
Soyuz.


Earlier today, the CBC reported that it was in the module to which the
SOyuz was docked (aka: part of ISS). That one crewmember "sealed" it by
putting finger on it to test it temporarily.

a 2mm hole should be quite easy to patch.


There's no such thing as an 'easy patch'. Some are just less
difficult than others.


Since it now seems to be on the Soyuz orbital module, no permanment
damage to ISS. (and I guess Soyuz don't have much in terms of micro
meteorite protection?)

I would assume that the next return to Earth will be planned to minmise
time between undocking and de=orbit burn and separation of
orbital-module so crews would have to spend less time in it.


Since the part with the leak is jettisoned for reentry, I don't know
why they just wouldn't have airtight doors closed so it doesn't
matter.


Lets assume the hole had been on the descent module, and that during
re-entry, the heat would have jeoperdized the patch. (In reality, i
assume outside insulation would shield the hole in pressure vessel from
extreme re-entry heat, right?)


I'd be concerned about a hot spot developing where it's patched.


Is it safe to assume that crew could close helmets and live off piped
pressurized air in the Sokhol suits during the full descent until at
ground altitude and capsule re-pressurized?


If it won't hold air I'd be pretty concerned about sending people down
in it.


But this got me thinking... NASA and the Russians have always treated the
Soyuz as lifeboats. But I've never seen any talk of plans for if the Soyuz
Descent module was highly damaged


Highly damaged might require a hatch be closed and allowing it to go to
vacuum in order to preserve ISS atmosphere.


If it was 'highly damaged' it would probably just be jettisoned.


can do do an inside EVA to ingress the Soyuz using EVA suits or woudl
the only solution be using a Sokhol suit with some portable breating
pack that provides O2 for a while?

I could see them either trying to fix it, or going in to manually
release the docking then exit Soyuz and push it away. (one would assume
that if the cabin is left in vacuum for too long, the electronics would
be fried and non-operational, right?)

or could they undock it manually in a real EVA from outdoors ?


I would assume you could do an automated jettison from the docking
port. We design everything on an airplane that's 'removable' to do
that, so I'm not sure why the docking ports wouldn't be designed that
way.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #3  
Old August 31st 18, 11:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Leak on ISS

In article ,
says...

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...airs-continue/

Apparently there's a 2mm leak on-board ISS that's been tracked down to
Soyuz.
I'm sure some folks be all gloom and doom and all, but NASA is very much
treating this as a very minor incident.


It was. The Russians were getting ready to permanently patch it and the
US astronauts were talking to their mission control trying to get them
to convince the Russians that the proposed permanent patch should be
studied for at least 24 hours. In response, the Russians just patched
the hole in their module using some epoxy sealant and medical gauze. It
seems to have worked.

This highlights the cultural difference that the cosmonauts generally
have more autonomy where US astronauts generally have mission control
plan everything out for them and test things on the ground before they
implement even the simplest fixes.

Apparently this is so common in US astronauts that they get worried when
cosmonauts don't do things their way, like patching a (reportedly) 2mm
diameter hole in a Russian module. That's freaking tiny. And 1 atm of
pressure differential isn't that much at all.

It'll be easily patched. (and I fact looks like it has been).

It's in the orbital module so any outside damage (assuming it's due to
orbital debris) should pose no threat to re-entry.


Agreed. Sine the orbital module is discarded after the reentry burn,
it's not that big of an issue. The Soyuz would be fine to use for
reentry even if the leak reoccurs.

But this got me thinking... NASA and the Russians have always treated the
Soyuz as lifeboats. But I've never seen any talk of plans for if the Soyuz
Descent module was highly damaged (let's say a lot larger than a 2mm leak).
Sure, you could probably plug most, but at some size and position, it could
make re-entry pretty hairy.


You'd likely shelter in place at ISS and wait for a replacement crew
vehicles to bring you back. This was discussed years ago. No one is
100% sure if the current Soyuz could launch and dock with ISS without a
crew, but it stands to reason it could since Progress does just that.

Years ago, the Soviets had a production rate they probably could just speed
up the next Soyuz launch (and do it uncrewed) but these days, it would
probably be 3+ months.
On the other hand, once Starliner and Dragon 2 come online, there's a lot
more options.


Agreed. And Starliner and Dragon 2 will have more seats, so more
options to launch a "rescue" mission.

NASA has certainly been thinking about this, especially after the
Columbia disaster. On the NASA side, I'm sure they've thought more
about it than the Russians (again, cultural differences).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #4  
Old August 31st 18, 11:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Leak on ISS

In article ,
says...

On 2018-08-30 22:08, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...airs-continue/

Apparently there's a 2mm leak on-board ISS that's been tracked down to
Soyuz.


Earlier today, the CBC reported that it was in the module to which the
SOyuz was docked (aka: part of ISS). That one crewmember "sealed" it by
putting finger on it to test it temporarily.

a 2mm hole should be quite easy to patch.


It's already permanently patched. The Russians fixed it in a timely
manner.

Since it now seems to be on the Soyuz orbital module, no permanment
damage to ISS. (and I guess Soyuz don't have much in terms of micro
meteorite protection?)

I would assume that the next return to Earth will be planned to minmise
time between undocking and de=orbit burn and separation of
orbital-module so crews would have to spend less time in it.


I would not assume this. The hole is patched. The Soyuz will almost
surely follow the normal reentry procedures. It's the Russians.
They're not going to be overly cautious here.

Lets assume the hole had been on the descent module, and that during
re-entry, the heat would have jeoperdized the patch. (In reality, i
assume outside insulation would shield the hole in pressure vessel from
extreme re-entry heat, right?)


This is why the Russians have worn pressure suits during launch and
landing ever since they lost a Soyuz crew that wasn't wearing any (they
had a depressurization failure before reentry and all died).

Is it safe to assume that crew could close helmets and live off piped
pressurized air in the Sokhol suits during the full descent until at
ground altitude and capsule re-pressurized?


Yes, that's why they wear the damn suits.

But this got me thinking... NASA and the Russians have always

treated the
Soyuz as lifeboats. But I've never seen any talk of plans for if the Soyuz
Descent module was highly damaged


Highly damaged might require a hatch be closed and allowing it to go to
vacuum in order to preserve ISS atmosphere.

can do do an inside EVA to ingress the Soyuz using EVA suits or woudl
the only solution be using a Sokhol suit with some portable breating
pack that provides O2 for a while?

I could see them either trying to fix it, or going in to manually
release the docking then exit Soyuz and push it away. (one would assume
that if the cabin is left in vacuum for too long, the electronics would
be fried and non-operational, right?)

or could they undock it manually in a real EVA from outdoors ?


Do note that the Russians have performed internal EVAs on Mir through
similar sized hatches. If you want to learn about that, Google it.

Besides, if anyone can figure out how to do something with the Russian
modules, it's the Russians. Worst case, I'd imagine they could get rid
of the damaged Soyuz by remote control.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #5  
Old August 31st 18, 04:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Leak on ISS

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...airs-continue/

Apparently there's a 2mm leak on-board ISS that's been tracked down to
Soyuz.
I'm sure some folks be all gloom and doom and all, but NASA is very much
treating this as a very minor incident.


It was. The Russians were getting ready to permanently patch it and the
US astronauts were talking to their mission control trying to get them
to convince the Russians that the proposed permanent patch should be
studied for at least 24 hours. In response, the Russians just patched
the hole in their module using some epoxy sealant and medical gauze. It
seems to have worked.

This highlights the cultural difference that the cosmonauts generally
have more autonomy where US astronauts generally have mission control
plan everything out for them and test things on the ground before they
implement even the simplest fixes.

Apparently this is so common in US astronauts that they get worried when
cosmonauts don't do things their way, like patching a (reportedly) 2mm
diameter hole in a Russian module. That's freaking tiny. And 1 atm of
pressure differential isn't that much at all.

It'll be easily patched. (and I fact looks like it has been).

It's in the orbital module so any outside damage (assuming it's due to
orbital debris) should pose no threat to re-entry.


Agreed. Sine the orbital module is discarded after the reentry burn,
it's not that big of an issue. The Soyuz would be fine to use for
reentry even if the leak reoccurs.

But this got me thinking... NASA and the Russians have always treated the
Soyuz as lifeboats. But I've never seen any talk of plans for if the
Soyuz
Descent module was highly damaged (let's say a lot larger than a 2mm
leak).
Sure, you could probably plug most, but at some size and position, it
could
make re-entry pretty hairy.


You'd likely shelter in place at ISS and wait for a replacement crew
vehicles to bring you back. This was discussed years ago. No one is
100% sure if the current Soyuz could launch and dock with ISS without a
crew, but it stands to reason it could since Progress does just that.

Years ago, the Soviets had a production rate they probably could just
speed
up the next Soyuz launch (and do it uncrewed) but these days, it would
probably be 3+ months.
On the other hand, once Starliner and Dragon 2 come online, there's a lot
more options.


Agreed. And Starliner and Dragon 2 will have more seats, so more
options to launch a "rescue" mission.

NASA has certainly been thinking about this, especially after the
Columbia disaster. On the NASA side, I'm sure they've thought more
about it than the Russians (again, cultural differences).

Jeff


I have to admit I hadn't fully read the article I linked to until after
posting (I had read a briefer Time.com article though).
But, as I've said in the past, heck, worst case, I'd be willing to fly in a
Cargo Dragon NOW if need be, up or down.. wouldn't be the most pleasant ride
for sure.

And given how quickly SpaceX can turn things around and how close they are
to launching Crew Dragon... I could see them (and the article touches upon
this) rushing to launch.

On an unrelated note, this is one reason why as much as I LOVED the book The
Martian, I laugh that it has so quickly become outdated in a sense. If
something like that happened in today's "history", SpaceX could probably
launch even very limited supplies within about 3 months! And try again 3
months later!


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #6  
Old August 31st 18, 08:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Leak on ISS

Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 31 Aug 2018
06:20:18 -0400:

In article ,
says...

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018...airs-continue/

Apparently there's a 2mm leak on-board ISS that's been tracked down to
Soyuz.
I'm sure some folks be all gloom and doom and all, but NASA is very much
treating this as a very minor incident.


It was. The Russians were getting ready to permanently patch it and the
US astronauts were talking to their mission control trying to get them
to convince the Russians that the proposed permanent patch should be
studied for at least 24 hours. In response, the Russians just patched
the hole in their module using some epoxy sealant and medical gauze. It
seems to have worked.

This highlights the cultural difference that the cosmonauts generally
have more autonomy where US astronauts generally have mission control
plan everything out for them and test things on the ground before they
implement even the simplest fixes.

Apparently this is so common in US astronauts that they get worried when
cosmonauts don't do things their way, like patching a (reportedly) 2mm
diameter hole in a Russian module. That's freaking tiny. And 1 atm of
pressure differential isn't that much at all.


NASA likes to have everything tested on the ground to make sure it
works and won't kill anyone. Russians are a little more 'relaxed'
about that.



Years ago, the Soviets had a production rate they probably could just speed
up the next Soyuz launch (and do it uncrewed) but these days, it would
probably be 3+ months.
On the other hand, once Starliner and Dragon 2 come online, there's a lot
more options.


Agreed. And Starliner and Dragon 2 will have more seats, so more
options to launch a "rescue" mission.


NASA will never (according to their current plans) send up more than
three or four people at once, so with seven seats there are always
spare seats (although Boeing is approved to sell 'extra' seats to
'tourists').


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another leak? Brian Gaff Space Station 2 May 12th 13 02:40 PM
APU Leak Snoopyto Space Shuttle 1 July 19th 06 01:40 AM
Mass don't leak Bob Cain Misc 18 September 15th 05 02:46 PM
The ISS leak Brian Gaff Space Shuttle 14 January 13th 04 06:06 PM
ISS Slow Leak R Mark Elowitz Space Science Misc 0 January 6th 04 01:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.