UM-Bot Posted August 30, 2018 #1 Share Posted August 30, 2018 Astronauts have been working to locate and seal a small leak that has opened up aboard the orbiting outpost. https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/321059/nasa-discovers-leak-aboard-the-space-station 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the frog Posted August 31, 2018 #2 Share Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) Lucky that the hit is on an expandable part of the station... don't know if they turn the station to put the Soyuz in the most likely hit direction like a shield ? Edited August 31, 2018 by Jon the frog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 31, 2018 #3 Share Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Jon the frog said: Lucky that the hit is on an expandable part of the station... Lucky? The Soyuz is the only way to get home in an emergency. It's the last thing you want leaking. 1 hour ago, Jon the frog said: don't know if they turn the station to put the Soyuz in the most likely hit direction like a shield ? Do you really think it is a good idea to use your lifeboat as a shield? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the frog Posted August 31, 2018 #4 Share Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said: Lucky? The Soyuz is the only way to get home in an emergency. It's the last thing you want leaking. Do you really think it is a good idea to use your lifeboat as a shield? Normally they have two Soyuz docked no ? The life boat and the taxi ? If just one.. it's not a lot of redundancy... The Soyuz is quite rugged... the rest of the station would have probably been more damaged. Still the Soyuz TMA is planned for a typical six-month change out cycle. Edited August 31, 2018 by Jon the frog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted August 31, 2018 #5 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Lucky nothing caught fire. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 31, 2018 #6 Share Posted August 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, taniwha said: Lucky nothing caught fire. How would a micro-meteoroid cause a fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 31, 2018 #7 Share Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Jon the frog said: Normally they have two Soyuz docked no ? Only when there is six crew. When three crew return home there is just one Soyuz until the next compliment arrives, then there are two again. Each Soyuz can only hold 3 crew. When the ISS is fully manned it would need both Soyuz to evacuate. 35 minutes ago, Jon the frog said: The life boat and the taxi ? Yep. 35 minutes ago, Jon the frog said: If just one.. it's not a lot of redundancy... No redundancy at all, whether there is one or two (or in a few very rare cases three) present. It costs several tens of millions of dollars tomalunch each astronaut/cosmonaut. It is simply too expensive to have extra Soyuz seats available. 35 minutes ago, Jon the frog said: The Soyuz is quite rugged... the rest of the station would have probably been more damaged. Are you going to present evidence for this or are you just guessing? Of course you won't present evidence, you can't because your claim is incorrect. The reality is that the ENTIRE station is quite rugged. It is designed to survive in orbit for decades, not just six months. The Soyuz, on the other hand, is based on 1960's designs. From a NASA article: Quote The ISS is the most heavily shielded spacecraft ever flown. Shielding is designed to protect critical components such as habitable compartments and high-pressure tanks from the nominal threat of an aluminum sphere approximately 1 cm in diameter. The ISS also has the capability of maneuvering to avoid tracked objects. (My emphasis). Source: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/laboratories/hypervelocity/mmod.html That is is an impact far larger than the one that holed the Soyuz. You still haven't answered the question: 1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said: Do you really think it is a good idea to use your lifeboat as a shield? Edited August 31, 2018 by Waspie_Dwarf Forgot source for NASA quote. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allanson Posted August 31, 2018 #8 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Now, you'd have thought some bright bugga, would have the foresight to pack a patch or two in the event of a micrometeor strike!? I mean, it's not as if things are whizzing about up there at great speed or anything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 31, 2018 #9 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Quote The International Space Station’s cabin pressure is holding steady after the Expedition 56 crew conducted repair work on one of two Russian Soyuz spacecraft attached to the complex. The repair was made to address a leak that had caused a minor reduction of station pressure. Read More: NASA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 31, 2018 #10 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, John Allanson said: Now, you'd have thought some bright bugga, would have the foresight to pack a patch or two in the event of a micrometeor strike!? I mean, it's not as if things are whizzing about up there at great speed or anything! They did, the hole is patched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Allanson Posted August 31, 2018 #11 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Got that Waspie_dwarf, they described it as a bit of tape that isn't doing the job of a proper patch and engineers are working on a solution. A bit of prethought would have a properly, lab tested, fully function patch in the hold for just such occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted August 31, 2018 #12 Share Posted August 31, 2018 29 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said: How would a micro-meteoroid cause a fire? Friction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted August 31, 2018 #13 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, taniwha said: Friction. What, you mean in the same way that people that have been shot always burst into flames? Oh, hang on a minute, they don't. There is very little friction. On impact the micro-meteoroid will pretty much vaporise. Since it is tiny the amount of energy that it releases will also be tiny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted August 31, 2018 #14 Share Posted August 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said: What, you mean in the same way that people that have been shot always burst into flames? Oh, hang on a minute, they don't. There is very little friction. On impact the micro-meteoroid will pretty much vaporise. Since it is tiny the amount of energy that it releases will also be tiny. To "vaporise" requires total conversion of kinetic energy to heat. In this case aluminium has a vaporisation temperature of 2327C and releases 10530kJ/kg energy. It is the environmental characteristics that will determine whether high temperature oxidisation takes place. Friction in such a scenario is of course very high breaching the mechanical integrity of the molecular bonds that leads to vaporisation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the frog Posted September 4, 2018 #15 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) On 8/31/2018 at 4:08 PM, Waspie_Dwarf said: Only when there is six crew. When three crew return home there is just one Soyuz until the next compliment arrives, then there are two again. Each Soyuz can only hold 3 crew. When the ISS is fully manned it would need both Soyuz to evacuate. Yep. No redundancy at all, whether there is one or two (or in a few very rare cases three) present. It costs several tens of millions of dollars tomalunch each astronaut/cosmonaut. It is simply too expensive to have extra Soyuz seats available. Are you going to present evidence for this or are you just guessing? Of course you won't present evidence, you can't because your claim is incorrect. The reality is that the ENTIRE station is quite rugged. It is designed to survive in orbit for decades, not just six months. The Soyuz, on the other hand, is based on 1960's designs. From a NASA article: (My emphasis). Source: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/laboratories/hypervelocity/mmod.html That is is an impact far larger than the one that holed the Soyuz. You still haven't answered the question: Well don't need to be rude ? I'm not always here on the forum and it's not a personal attack against you. 1) Soyuz are quite rugged, Resisting reentry need a rugged aircraft... They have done ballistic reentry with the servie module stuck on with faulty explosive bolt. So it's rugged. Can the ISS do that ? nope but ISS and Soyuz are two totally different type of machinery, but one is expandable, the other not. ISS need to be build for the long term. The Soyuz is build to go back to earth while keeping is load in one piece. Expandable mean they can trow it away and the Russian will bring another in no time. So losing the life boat for me is far less dangerous than having a ISS leak provoking an abandon ship situation. 2) The Soyuz MS used presently is maybe based on an old design... but they started building this new specification for the ISS in 2016... so it's far younger than the ISS... The ISS need to resist in the long term and quite possibly multiple hit from small object. But losing the ISS would be a bigger problem than losing a Soyuz craft... Just looking at the situation, to lose an expandable asset like the life boat is far better choice than losing the boat and probably the crew... Edited September 4, 2018 by Jon the frog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now