2mm hole in ISS

[Man in the Mun]

On 8/30/2018 at 4:15 PM, YNM said:

In reality it's called speed tape isn't it ?

In the Airforce, speed tape is sticky aluminium patches thats quite stiff. We use it to hold down annoying dzus fasteners that keep on popping up.

I believe duct tape can be more plastic ?

You can see 3 speed tape patches on the panel just behind and below the pilot

[YNM]

36 minutes ago, Man in the Mun said:

I believe duct tape can be more plastic ?

I think the space-grade ones are made out of Kapton or something, not exactly the usual plastic !

[Cunjo Carl]

2 hours ago, YNM said:

I think the space-grade ones are made out of Kapton or something, not exactly the usual plastic !

Good call! I decided to dig into this and found confirmation. https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2018/08/30/international-space-station-status-2/

It feels like a really sensible choice because kapton tape is excellent in terms of high-temp performance, vacuum stability, radiation hardness, high voltages (dielectric strength), chemical resistance, and looking awesome (it's a translucent orange/amber). If there's one thing I've learned from commercial space suit development it's that looking awesome in space is important! The big downside of Kapton is for a given flexibility it's much less elastic and tough than duct tape, and lacks the abrasion/cut resistance of Aluminum tape.

I'm a ductape makes the world go 'round guy so for me that picture is amazing, @Man in the Mun! I had never considered the panel fasteners would pop up on a plane. Can I ask why something simpler like lever latches aren't used?

@kerbiloid, agreed about the lack of center punching. I think that makes it unlikely to have been done 'mistakenly on purpose'.

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, Cunjo Carl said:

Wow, How'd I miss this! So long as no one's in danger, I love these stories. My day job involves accident reporting/discovering/mitigation in a fabrication environment, and something I've discovered is that if you don't provide an anonymous means to report accidents, there's a decidedly low chance that people will report this sort of thing. But then, if you do provide an anonymous means to report accidents, no one uses it and they just come to tell you in person! It's kinda silly, but that's human nature, eh?

 

Interestingly you need a special solder to do Aluminum, or some killer flux. Typical electrical solders  (Lead Tin / Silver Tin) just won't stick to Al surfaces. That said there are special Aluminum brazing rods made specifically for low temperature Aluminum repair that do exactly what you're talking about! The one I've seen with the biggest hype is "HTS-2000", and it has some fun youtube videos. It actually performs like in the videos and is as fun to play with as it looks.

 

So, has anyone else noticed the wander marks? That drill bit looks like it slipped a lot before catching, and over a ~1cm area. That suggests the 'culprit' was using a high spindle speed / long shank bit, but something that comes to mind is, that'd be pretty noisy, yeah? In the videos I've seen there's a good bit of white noise on the ISS, but still, you wouldn't go at it with reckless abandon, would you? Even hand drills are loud and make a distinct sound. It also looks like a bit of an awkward place to put a hole with a hand drill, being right next to that ~2cm ledge. If you just wanted to make a hole you'd do it more in the middle, right? I'm not claiming I know anything, they're just my first thoughts.

On the other hand, it's also weird to imagine a total accident causing that. It's really not uncommon to have someone put item A onto flat surface B in order to drill it and then have the bit go all the way through to B by accident, but it makes different looking markings. Also, long shank 2mm (or for me, 1/16") bits are pretty floppy. If you slip with one and accidentally hit it down on a plate of aluminum you'd most likely just gouge the aluminum a little and break the bit!

For what it's worth, in my experience, something like 70-80% of accidents that aren't caused by machine malfunction are caused by people being tired/rushed/distracted and doing something extremely silly (like trying a shortcut), or alternatively not being properly trained for what they're doing. I feel like the hole placement and the drill bit wander marks are signs of these, but on the other hand the hole actually making it through are signs of purpose... I wonder maybe if it happened early in the fabrication process? I think that's where I'd check first.

  Reveal hidden contents

Something like, the part got bodged and wasn't supposed to go into the final construction, but accidentally did anyways, and then by the time it was noticed it was too late to remove. So, being on a time crunch, they fixed it up as best they could. Doesn't quite sound right, but I think it would be up there in my working hypotheses for troubleshooting the original cause.

I wish the best for the astronauts and cosmonauts up on the station! As I hear it they keep busy schedules so I hope this doesn't bite into their free time too hard.

 

Right? Or some bike tire Green Slime.

This image make me suspect they wanted an hole in the profile with the large holes. Probably for some clip or stuff to hold padding or cables. 
The worker messed up and drilled an hole in the pressure compartment. 
This would be an major thing so he or his superiors plugged it in an way who focused on hiding it rater than making it secure. 
 

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The worker messed up and drilled an hole in the pressure compartment.

I have issues with the "misplaced hole"' theory. 

The marks around the supposed pilot hole are not indicative of a skilled technician.  Usually when drilling holes in specific locations, the location is clearly measured and marked, and then a small center punch is used to create a small divot or hole itself in the desired location.  This center punch is much easier to exactly line up on the mark, and then a tap with a hammer leaves the intended indent.  Then you drill using the indent to keep the pilot hole bit in place.   That pilot hole is then used to drill the final hole if it requires a much larger size.    This way, the center of the hole is exactly where it needs to be, and the drill bits will not walk across the surface of the material.   You can clearly see the walk marks across the surface here. 

It also appears to me that the hole is not square to the surface of the material, indicating the drill was held at an angle to the surface, which again indicates an unskilled hand.   This just may be an artifact of the photo angle though. 

Also, you can see the surface paint on the bigger holes was applied after they were drilled, where as the smaller hole was obviously drilled later. 

These photos show an unskilled hand tried to drill these.  The marks indicate there was no center hole to keep the bit in place, and the driller did not really care where the hole ended up, as long as there was a hole., and that they were in a rush to get it done quickly.    All of these indications would also occur if somebody was not properly braced in a zero g environment. 

I am making no conclusions here, other than the idea that this was a factory worker who misread a print is very hard to believe, as they would have started to drill the hole properly before realizing their mistake. 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Gargamel

[YNM]

6 hours ago, Gargamel said:

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

The worker messed up and drilled an hole in the pressure compartment. 

... The marks around the supposed pilot hole are not indicative of a skilled technician. ...

Maybe they were intoxicated ? XD

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Gargamel said:

All of these indications would also occur if somebody was not properly braced in a zero g environment. 

If he hasn't flown away on the drilling begin.

Edited September 9, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Lisias]

23 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

If he hasn't flown away on the drilling begin.

I think it's unlikely (huge unlikely) the drilling happened on space.

The reverberation would run unchecked through the metal structure, fatally reaching some sensor.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/ubnt.html

Edited September 9, 2018 by Lisias

[magnemoe]

7 hours ago, Gargamel said:

I have issues with the "misplaced hole"' theory. 

The marks around the supposed pilot hole are not indicative of a skilled technician.  Usually when drilling holes in specific locations, the location is clearly measured and marked, and then a small center punch is used to create a small divot or hole itself in the desired location.  This center punch is much easier to exactly line up on the mark, and then a tap with a hammer leaves the intended indent.  Then you drill using the indent to keep the pilot hole bit in place.   That pilot hole is then used to drill the final hole if it requires a much larger size.    This way, the center of the hole is exactly where it needs to be, and the drill bits will not walk across the surface of the material.   You can clearly see the walk marks across the surface here. 

It also appears to me that the hole is not square to the surface of the material, indicating the drill was held at an angle to the surface, which again indicates an unskilled hand.   This just may be an artifact of the photo angle though. 

Also, you can see the surface paint on the bigger holes was applied after they were drilled, where as the smaller hole was obviously drilled later. 

These photos show an unskilled hand tried to drill these.  The marks indicate there was no center hole to keep the bit in place, and the driller did not really care where the hole ended up, as long as there was a hole., and that they were in a rush to get it done quickly.    All of these indications would also occur if somebody was not properly braced in a zero g environment. 

I am making no conclusions here, other than the idea that this was a factory worker who misread a print is very hard to believe, as they would have started to drill the hole properly before realizing their mistake. 

Yes the drilling was messy but you don't use an pilot hole for an 2 mm hole, that would be the size of an pilot hole itself.
And some worker messing up is far more likely than some astronaut sabotaging an spaceship in an very inefficient way. 
 

[Xd the great]

4 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes the drilling was messy but you don't use an pilot hole for an 2 mm hole, that would be the size of an pilot hole itself.
And some worker messing up is far more likely than some astronaut sabotaging an spaceship in an very inefficient way. 
 

Well, it was highly survivable. Not too bad when u wanna live and go home, and sabotage something that makes you live.

What if the hole is made by a drill bit rotating in space?

 

[Laie]

On 9/8/2018 at 4:48 AM, Cunjo Carl said:

My day job involves accident reporting/discovering/mitigation in a fabrication environment, and something I've discovered is that if you don't provide an anonymous means to report accidents, [...] But then, if you do provide an anonymous means to report accidents, no one uses it and they just come to tell you in person! It's kinda silly, but that's human nature, eh?

Establishing a healthy security and safety culture is difficult. On the factory floor it easily becomes machismo, "in this shop we make no mistakes." If the mere existence of an anonymous channel relieves the peer pressure, that's cool.

On 9/8/2018 at 4:48 AM, Cunjo Carl said:

For what it's worth, in my experience, something like 70-80% of accidents that aren't caused by machine malfunction are caused by people being tired/rushed/distracted and doing something extremely silly (like trying a shortcut), or alternatively not being properly trained for what they're doing.

Yup, same here. No matter how evil that hole and the scratches look, I'm totally open to the notion that someone has blundered, and was then too embarrassed to admit it. Ever thrown away the gum while putting the wrapper in your mouth? That kind of silly can and does happen in production environments, too.

[Nightfury]

4 hours ago, Lisias said:

I think it's unlikely (huge unlikely) the drilling happened on space.

The reverberation would run unchecked through the metal structure, fatally reaching some sensor.

Small question: Is there even a way of drilling a hole in Space (on the ISS)? I know they have "screwdrivers" for EVA's, but is there a suitable drill head for that ?

[kerbiloid]

25 minutes ago, Nightfury said:

Small question: Is there even a way of drilling a hole in Space (on the ISS)? I know they have "screwdrivers" for EVA's, but is there a suitable drill head for that ?

Looks like there is.

and

http://translate.google.com.tr/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.popmech.ru/technologies/313702-kosmicheskaya-drel-nasa-instrument-dlya-rabot-na-orbite/&edit-text=

So, the question is: do they also have spiral drill bits to drill. As the drill is probably also a screwdriver.

 

P.S.
Now I know what is a spaceplane.

Spoiler

This but in space

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by kerbiloid

[GearsNSuch]

19 hours ago, Gargamel said:

skilled technician

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.

 

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.

Edited September 9, 2018 by GearsNSuch

[Scotius]

Never, ever underestimate human potential and propensity for doing truly, outrageously stupid things out of the blue sky. Once, at work, i asked my friend (with whom i worked for close to three years) to hand me a nail. He did so - straight into my outstretched palm, sharp end first. I still have the scar He was simply distracted, didn't think about what he was doing, and to this day i don't know which one of us was more shocked. Accidents happen.

But sabotage? Unless it was done on absolute impulse, i don't think it would be done so shoddily.

Unless you'd want it to look like an accident

[YNM]

1 hour ago, GearsNSuch said:

I'm not entirely certain that everyone on the Soyuz construction team is a "skilled technician."

One of Sukhoi's own engineer died here while servicing our sukhois.

The SSJ100 also crashed here flying straight into a mountain, in a terrain unknown to the test pilots and ignoring the aircraft's own warning.

Russians seems to have some tendency to let it all stang out.

[Green Baron]

I personally find this unfair. The Soyuz spacecraft has one of the if not the best safety record of all manned spacecrafts, topping even Apollo if you include ground accidents.

[tater]

21 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

I personally find this unfair. The Soyuz spacecraft has one of the if not the best safety record of all manned spacecrafts, topping even Apollo if you include ground accidents.

It's slightly better than Shuttle (2 LOC incidents in 138 manned flights vs 2 in 135 for Shuttle). There were also at least 2 uses of launch abort system, and numerous docking failures. There are not many orbital crew vehicles, so "one of the best" is a low bar.

Edited September 9, 2018 by tater

[Green Baron]

Well, in this case it is not that every shuttle flight went as planned and the one or other returned luckily despite of lost tiles or a stuttering engine ... and we should not count the loss of lives.

Be it as it may, i find that bashing a nation in general for the apparent mistake of probably a single worker or a small team is no good. Thinks me :-)

[tater]

No, I agree about bashing the whole program over a single (known) incident being a problem.

I was counting just Loss Of Crew (LOC) incidents on Shuttle vs Soyuz, BTW.

One thing I will generalize about WRT Soyuz regards the current Commercial Crew Program. The 1:270 LOC requirement, and how they get to that vs the default of using Soyuz for years, with literally no information about the details of the system (at the level required to certify Starliner and Dragon, plus modified Atlas Centaur and Falcon 9).

This incident would halt crew flights at NASA for months if it happened here. They'd literally be forced to strip down any spacecraft already constructed or under construction and go over them with a fine-toothed comb before they'd allow crew on. This is a legitimate "bash," IMO, there is a Soyuz launch in a month, are they taking the spacecraft apart right now?

Edited September 9, 2018 by tater

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Green Baron said:

The Soyuz spacecraft has one of the if not the best safety record of all manned spacecrafts, topping even Apollo if you include ground accidents.

This was also what made Challenger and Columbia disasters possible.

If you do have a mistake, admit it and fix it.

 

EDIT : And on scrutiny, we haven't even talked the previous misfortunes of the Briz upper stage and of Progress.

This is not to say other manufacturers are mistake-free, but it's also to remind that we should pursuit perfection as much as possible.

Edited September 9, 2018 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

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

1 hour ago, tater said:

It's slightly better than Shuttle (2 LOC incidents in 138 manned flights vs 2 in 135 for Shuttle)

Reading the chronicles I have a feeling that almost 1 per 3 flights of both were not far from LOC.

47 minutes ago, tater said:

1:270 LOC requirement

Probably 270 = 135 * 2?
"twice as reliable as Soyuz or Shuttle together"?
Other wise why not "1:300" ???

Edited September 9, 2018 by kerbiloid

[tater]

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

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

You've got me there!

 

7 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Reading the chronicles I have a feeling that almost 1 per 3 flights of both were not far from LOC.

There were clearly issues with the design of Shuttle.

That said, for Soyuz I think it's also fair to look at Progress launches, and indeed the launch vehicle itself. I don't have the stats on all Soyuz (launch vehicle) failures, but suffice it to say that it's certainly worse than 1:270.

 

[Gargamel]

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes the drilling was messy but you don't use an pilot hole for an 2 mm hole, that would be the size of an pilot hole itself.
And some worker messing up is far more likely than some astronaut sabotaging an spaceship in an very inefficient way. 

The 2mm IS the pilot hole for something bigger.  You use a center punch to place the 2mm hole. 

And as I said, the only conclusion I am reaching is that this is clearly not just a correctly drilled hole in the wrong spot. 

[GearsNSuch]

The Soyuz spacecraft itself is an incredible feat of engineering with an amazing safety record. It is the oldest and most reliable craft currently available. If I had to guess, however, 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.

To summarize: Soyuz program good, management bad. Soyuz goes to space, management drills holes.

 

Maybe the Kerbals did it...

 

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by GearsNSuch