2mm hole in ISS

[YNM]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Currently Soyuz is the safest one. Just because the only flying.

Why having 1 ISP sucks !

7 hours ago, GearsNSuch said:

the lack of failures has led to complacency in the manufacturing process. A false sense of security, administrative errors, and lack of funding are most likely the culprits, rather than a flawed or poor design.

Tasked with 6 man-rated spacecraft launch every year with a funding of only 2 billion USD (10% of what NASA is given), what they're achieving is fairly impressive.

I hope the next Soyuz to be launched this October with Expedition 57 will not suffer from any problems at all.

Edited September 10, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

12 minutes ago, YNM said:

Why having 1 ISP sucks !

135 launches per spaceship model later we'll gather statistix.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

8 hours ago, GearsNSuch said:

I'm not entirely certain that everyone on the Soyuz construction team is a "skilled technician." Probably not a truckload of random fellows off the street, but equally unlikely for everyone to be the best of the best. After all, I'm sure they have the construction of the Soyuz down to a (supposedly foolproof) science. Also, due to pressure, sleep deprivation, or the effects of various substances, even someone with years of experience in the field might make a similar mistake. Whoever did it most likely didn't report it for fear of losing their job.

This is actually good example of how foolproof it is, considering it worked perfectly with a hole drilled through the pressure vessel.

8 hours ago, GearsNSuch said:

As far as the astronaut theory goes, there are much more effective ways to go home early, such as feigning severe illness or, to be honest, saying that the stress is too much. Not saying it's beyond them (they are people, after all), but very unlikely, considering that there are much better options.

Plus, they would almost certainly know that a 2mm hole wouldn't be a significant concern to the mission.

[Green Baron]

25 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Plus, they would almost certainly know that a 2mm hole wouldn't be a significant concern to the mission.

At least not while docked.

This brings me to a question: during ascend, do the kosmonauts wear full pressure suits and helmets until docked ? If not, how fast would the pressure in the small compartment be so low that they'd loose consciousness ... could be close i can imagine ...

Edited September 9, 2018 by Green Baron

[HebaruSan]

Could the incident have happened upstream, maybe at one of the sheet metal suppliers? We wouldn't have to speculate about cosmonauts or Soyuz fabrication staff if that piece showed up with a hole in it.

[Gargamel]

9 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Could the incident have happened upstream, maybe at one of the sheet metal suppliers?

No, paint was applied after fabrication.    You can see this as the other holes have paint applied to their ID's, while this one does not.    Paint is usually the last step after all your fab work is done.   You cut, drill, and then bend the pieces, and then you paint.    The hole in question was clearly done after the fabrication process was complete.   Plus, any one of the technicians working on it during the fab process would have said "Hey, there's an extra hole here!". 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Gargamel

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

Plus, they would almost certainly know that a 2mm hole wouldn't be a significant concern to the mission.

And it would put you in serious legal problems, faking an mental issue would cost you the job nothing more, you would even have an chance to get away with honorable discharge. 
So not an astronaut, that is unless they did modifications to the orbital module and messed up who I find unlikely.

Now I can imagine they do modifications after fabrications, they have to add equipment, insulation and wiring. 
Good chance its drilled more holes for this and they did not bother updating the blueprints use in manufacturing just to add an minor piece of hardware, they don't make so many each year and changing the blueprint is an long process. 
 

[Reactordrone]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

At least not while docked.

This brings me to a question: during ascend, do the kosmonauts wear full pressure suits and helmets until docked ? If not, how fast would the pressure in the small compartment be so low that they'd loose consciousness ... could be close i can imagine ...

They're suited up  during launch an re-entry and have been since the Soyuz 11 accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokol_space_suit

 

ETA- Time of useful consciousness at high altitudes is very small, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness

Edited September 10, 2018 by Reactordrone

[YNM]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

135 launches per spaceship model later we'll gather statistix.

A healthy competition is a good reason for innovation.

[Gargamel]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Now I can imagine they do modifications after fabrications, they have to add equipment, insulation and wiring. 
Good chance its drilled more holes for this and they did not bother updating the blueprints use in manufacturing just to add an minor piece of hardware, they don't make so many each year and changing the blueprint is an long process. 

This I quite doubt.  I've been working in fab for quite a bit now, currently as a machinist.   Some of the things I currently make are used in aerospace.  But anything I have ever worked on, you follow the print, to the letter.   If you have a question, or notice a problem, or see a need for a modification to a drawing, you go get the engineer in charge of the project, or at least the part you're working on.  They have to agree to and sign off on the change.  They'll make a little note, and a scribble on the drawing for that piece, and they'll go update the master drawing for future use, so they won't have to be bothered by the same question over and over.    In all the fab and machine shops I have worked in, this has always been the case. 

So if they were to add anything or make changes, the changes would have been done in a professional manner, not the rushed sloppiness we see here.   And then it would be added to the designs for later builds.   This wasn't the first capsule to be made, and it wasn't the last.  Any issues that might need on the shop floor changes like this would have surely popped up way before this build, and it would have become part of the intended design. 

I know smaller shops with less critical products can get away with random changes to their product, but this is a space craft we're talking about.  Roscosmos might not have the best reputation, but I'm pretty sure they at least follow standard manufacturing procedures and techniques.   

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

2 hours ago, Reactordrone said:

They're suited up  during launch an re-entry and have been since the Soyuz 11 accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokol_space_suit

 

ETA- Time of useful consciousness at high altitudes is very small, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_useful_consciousness

I would guess that the time it took for air to leak out from the (8.5 m³) interior would far exceed the time of useful consciousness.

@Gargamel It's also possible, although unlikely, that the drawings were wrong or out of date.

[Gargamel]

2 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

@Gargamel It's also possible, although unlikely, that the drawings were wrong or out of date.

Like I said, you build to the drawings, to the letter.  A space ship is not something you should be building "from memory".  They just don't make enough of them for that to even be a thing.  If the print is wrong, you get it changed, even if it's just an engineering scribbling the hole onto the drawing, as long as you've gotten approval, or at least a second opinion.    As we say in SCUBA, you plan your dive, your dive your plan.   You might have the best idea ever for the part of the project you are working on, but your little change but conflict with something in the big picture, you know, like a hole in the pressure hull. 

This is either individual negligence so gross it should be criminal, or was intentional.    If it's not, that means there are serious systematic deficiencies in their manufacturing process.  If so, I have serious reservations about using my tax money and risking my countrymen on vehicles that are not properly vetted.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

34 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Like I said, you build to the drawings, to the letter.  A space ship is not something you should be building "from memory".  They just don't make enough of them for that to even be a thing.  If the print is wrong, you get it changed, even if it's just an engineering scribbling the hole onto the drawing, as long as you've gotten approval, or at least a second opinion.    As we say in SCUBA, you plan your dive, your dive your plan.   You might have the best idea ever for the part of the project you are working on, but your little change but conflict with something in the big picture, you know, like a hole in the pressure hull. 

This is either individual negligence so gross it should be criminal, or was intentional.    If it's not, that means there are serious systematic deficiencies in their manufacturing process.  If so, I have serious reservations about using my tax money and risking my countrymen on vehicles that are not properly vetted.

I can imagine scenarios where this the hole could have been drilled through a series of smaller mistakes, but I agree that there must be larger problems with culture or post-manufacturing checks (or both) to allow this to happen.

[Xd the great]

Well, the soyuz rocket is pretty reliable in terms of the crew not dying...

Mental traumas and physocal injuries ignored.

Still, they should probably upgrade the production line.

[K^2]

8 hours ago, Gargamel said:

Like I said, you build to the drawings, to the letter.  A space ship is not something you should be building "from memory".  They just don't make enough of them for that to even be a thing.  If the print is wrong, you get it changed, even if it's just an engineering scribbling the hole onto the drawing, as long as you've gotten approval, or at least a second opinion.    As we say in SCUBA, you plan your dive, your dive your plan.   You might have the best idea ever for the part of the project you are working on, but your little change but conflict with something in the big picture, you know, like a hole in the pressure hull. 

This is either individual negligence so gross it should be criminal, or was intentional.    If it's not, that means there are serious systematic deficiencies in their manufacturing process.  If so, I have serious reservations about using my tax money and risking my countrymen on vehicles that are not properly vetted.

The manufacturing process involves instructions that state which instrument has to be picked up from which bin, used in what order, and where it should be placed afterwards. Never mind the exact placement of every hole drilled. If procedure was otherwise followed, even accidental damage is impossible.

The hole was almost certainly drilled deliberately, but it need not have been malicious. A plausible hypothesis was mentioned elsewhere, that the hole might have been necessary to patch through some wires used in testing, diagnosing a problem, or fixing it. Naturally, that would have been done in total violation of procedure, but I can see someone choosing to do that to avoid putting the construction out of schedule. Alternatively, there might be some portion of the process that regularly creates the difficulty in temporary wiring, and somebody probably ought to inspect other craft for similar shortcut holes.

Definitely not an excuse, but a hole like that, properly patched, won't present danger to the ship most of the time. So it's anybody's guess how many before it have flown with similar damage without it ever becoming known.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Gentlemen, if you ever gonna drill a hole in your spaceship, try this to patch it. 
(Chewing gum can stay there just for two months.)

Pay attention: two nuts are necessary.

 

[Green Baron]

Even if you probably mean that as a joke, a rivet as a plug and a sealant has been suggested before and is the best solution.

And it makes sense to use the same material as the hull for the plug. I'd just not combine stainless steel and aluminium if it is not absolutely sure that no currents flow never ever if the plug es expected to last for months and is in direct contact with the hull.

And imo all the guessing about the when why and how may be satisfying does not bring us forward ... :-)

Edited September 10, 2018 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

The joke was about intentions and chewing gum. The two-nutted bolt was a serious semi-joke.

[sh1pman]

2 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Even if you probably mean that as a joke,

@kerbiloid always puts jokes inside spoilers.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

1 minute ago, sh1pman said:

@kerbiloid always puts jokes inside spoilers.

Yes, but not everything he puts inside spoilers are jokes.

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by kerbiloid

[sh1pman]

Video just released. Showing the hole after repairs.

 

[tater]

There were multiple attempts to make the hole, too. You can see false starts, and marks from a chattering drill bit on the surface.

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

Maybe they were just trying a just bought drill on the closest happened piece of metal.
Nerds are such nerds... They notice nothing around when involved with a new toy..

 

[Racescort666]

@Gargamel not to mention inspection. For prototype and low volume stuff (like spacecraft low volume, not cars low volume) we usually do 100% dimensional inspection and an inspection report would include an extra hole that isn't on the print.

 

6 hours ago, K^2 said:

The manufacturing process involves instructions that state which instrument has to be picked up from which bin, used in what order, and where it should be placed afterwards. Never mind the exact placement of every hole drilled. If procedure was otherwise followed, even accidental damage is impossible.

Are you referencing the actual build instructions for the Soyuz module? I haven't seen build instructions this detailed for parts that are hand fabricated i.e. drilled holes by hand. At an assembly level where pilot holes are in 1 part and holes are drilled to match at assembly, parts are held together with clecos as holes are drilled and rivets installed, I could see maybe a misplaced hole but these didn't involve that detailed of instructions either. The idea being, the longer the instructions, the less likely someone is to read them. (same applies to forum posts)

Where I have seen that level of detail is high volume assembly instructions where cycle time is critical. i.e. use this tool for these 3 fasteners, and the tool measures the torque of each fastener as it goes in and tells the operator if something gets screwed up. The tools also have automatic shutoff when they reach a given torque range. Also, this has to be done in 30-45 seconds or else the plant won't produce enough cars for the day. 

[Gargamel]

11 hours ago, K^2 said:

The hole was almost certainly drilled deliberately, but it need not have been malicious. A plausible hypothesis was mentioned elsewhere, that the hole might have been necessary to patch through some wires used in testing, diagnosing a problem, or fixing it. Naturally, that would have been done in total violation of procedure, but I can see someone choosing to do that to avoid putting the construction out of schedule. Alternatively, there might be some portion of the process that regularly creates the difficulty in temporary wiring, and somebody probably ought to inspect other craft for similar shortcut holes.

Definitely not an excuse, but a hole like that, properly patched, won't present danger to the ship most of the time. So it's anybody's guess how many before it have flown with similar damage without it ever becoming known.

OK, that's an explanation I can accept, but yeah, severely broke protocol. 

8 hours ago, sh1pman said:

@kerbiloid always puts jokes inside spoilers.

Ok..... that explains so much.... for so long..... 

4 hours ago, Racescort666 said:

@Gargamel not to mention inspection. For prototype and low volume stuff (like spacecraft low volume, not cars low volume) we usually do 100% dimensional inspection and an inspection report would include an extra hole that isn't on the print.

But if you're inspecting a ships hull, you don't drill through it.  QA should know that much.   For inspections of this type, there are non destructive methods, ie Xray, sonogram, etc.