It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia says space station leak could be deliberate sabotage

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: punkinworks10



Here's the way I look at it .

Purple Arrow : evidence of spalling at the top of the hole.


Look at the blue arrow, the green arrow and the top lines. They are all straight and are the most glaring evidence to me of them not being drill skips.

You might have a drill skip straight once in a while. But you're not going to have three straight line skips with no other mistakes. Anybody that has worked metals knows virtually impossible .



The spalling would work out radially from the impact and the pain removal would be more uniform you’re also ignoring the other imperfections above that have no explanation the marking can not be spalling IMO.




posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Look at the area indicated by the purple arrow, it's beaded which shows evidence of heat .


Do you now concede your point about the "skip"marks .
edit on 4-9-2018 by 14377 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Oops
edit on 4-9-2018 by 14377 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Look at the area indicated by the purple arrow, it's beaded which shows evidence of heat .


Do you now concede your point about the "skip"marks .

Was that second piece a question or a statement, I’d be inclined to consider them spall marks if they weren’t all nearly parallel with each other if the came off radially from the hole I’d say sure that’s some odd spalling but with the other questionable areas it looks like a huge screwup on the ground that wasn’t caught. I don’t think it was necessarily purposeful but I do think it screams of a human screw up to me.



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Look at the area indicated by the purple arrow, it's beaded which shows evidence of heat .


Do you now concede your point about the "skip"marks .

I’d be inclined to consider them spall marks if they weren’t all nearly parallel with each other if the came off radially from the hole I’d say sure that’s some odd spalling but with the other questionable areas it looks like a huge screwup on the ground that wasn’t caught. I don’t think it was necessarily purposeful but I do think it screams of a human screw up to me.


Then we agree to disagree.


Truthfully I think this is just more Russian propaganda. Why did this happen shortly after the US announced we wouldn't be using Russian lift off vehicles anymore?

The timing seems odd to me .



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Look at the area indicated by the purple arrow, it's beaded which shows evidence of heat .


Do you now concede your point about the "skip"marks .

I’d be inclined to consider them spall marks if they weren’t all nearly parallel with each other if the came off radially from the hole I’d say sure that’s some odd spalling but with the other questionable areas it looks like a huge screwup on the ground that wasn’t caught. I don’t think it was necessarily purposeful but I do think it screams of a human screw up to me.


Then we agree to disagree.


Truthfully I think this is just more Russian propaganda. Why did this happen shortly after the US announced we wouldn't be using Russian lift off vehicles anymore?

The timing seems odd to me .



Agreed.

See I see the propaganda another way, I think they found that it wasn’t a MM impact, and instead of admitting it might be a flaw in the great Russian Aerospace Industry’s workmanship and quality control so instead they scream sabotage to cover their arse. If it was a MM strike I don’t see reason for them arguing with the consenseous prior to them bringing this up. They’re on damage control IMO.



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

that's a great point !

I was thinking about the claims that the damage occurred on earth. I just can't believe that a unmanned supply capsules wasn't pressure tested before they strapped it to a launch vehicle .

It doesn't make sense to go through all the man power and money to send a capsule up that might be defective.
edit on 4-9-2018 by 14377 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

that's a great point !

I was thinking about the claims that the damage occurred on earth. I just can't believe that a unmanned supply capsules wasn't pressure tested before they strapped it to a launch vehicle .

It doesn't make sense to go through all the man power and money to send a capsule up that might be defective.

You’d think but I’m sure the lowest bidder syndrome exists in mother Russia as well. Maybe there was an exterior panel that allowed it to pass a pressurization test but once on orbit whatever was holding the pressure on the exterior got stressed enough to let go, I’m just speculating of course but this will be very interesting to keep an eye on.



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

If there was an exterior patch. In the vacuum of space it would inload not outload.



I'm sure the lowest bidder applies. But from what I've read about space agencies they triple check and triple check the triple check just to be sure .


So basically what I'm saying is I think the Russians are full of s#it . Lol



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

If there was an exterior patch. In the vacuum of space it would inload not outload.



I'm sure the lowest bidder applies. But from what I've read about space agencies they triple check and triple check the triple check just to be sure .


So basically what I'm saying is I think the Russians are full of s#it . Lol

How would it inload? The pressure would be moving from high in the cabin to low in space so would be pushed outwards. They very well could be I just don’t see the point of it especially since they’ve been iffy about transporting our crews for a while now it’s not just something that up and happened over night they’d been raising prices and making noise for a while.
edit on 9/4/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Actually a couple minutes after I posted that I knew I was wrong . Lol

Yeah the inside pressure would definitely blow outward .


Still can't figure out how I got something so simple crossed up ?


Cheers!

^ did you see what I did there ?



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Actually a couple minutes after I posted that I knew I was wrong . Lol

Yeah the inside pressure would definitely blow outward .


Still can't figure out how I got something so simple crossed up ?


Cheers!

^ did you see what I did there ?





If you were thinking of a ground pressurization test it’d be an easy mistake to make. Personally I have dyslexia to blame when I screw up like that lol.
Actually no whatever it was flew over my head.

You have a good one we’ll leave this convo for when we find out anymore info on this, I’d be happy to be proved wrong and humbly apologize for my ignorance. We shall see...


ETA Now I’m confused a pressure test on the ground would still outload, only way it would inload would be if they pulled a vacuum in the capsule but I doubt they test that way.
edit on 9/4/2018 by BigDave-AR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: BigDave-AR

Dyslexia Yep I have it too. Besides spelling and grammar it's a gift for me.



posted on Sep, 4 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Definitely a drilled hole. From the inside no doubt and someone plugged it to pass a pressure test so they wouldn't get in trouble. I've drilled lots of holes in all metals in the job. What bothers me is that it somehow passed a visual inspection. Unless it was done hastily after the fact. Definitely not a meteorite though. Those are flying faster than a bullet and would have passed completely through the structure. At least that's what I think. A mistake that only the culprit knew about. Like the Challenger fiasco. Someone was hoping it would go unnoticed. Also, can't they check if someone used a drill and bit on the ISS? Don't they have cameras?
edit on 4-9-2018 by Starhooker because: Jus cuz



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Looks drilled, freshly. If it had been filled to hide it then I don't think we'd see the scrapes where the drill has missed, they could have been sanded out.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 03:25 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

people keep saying that

from which side [ bear inmind that the pic is the station side ]

and hey - it has spalling [ station side ] consistant with a hi vvelocity object

NOT a drill bit



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I've drilled a hole in a aluminum/aluminium window frame once and it had markings like this. It skipped over the paint in a straight line because I rested the chuck against the frame itself so I could drill it in a lower part. I chipped the paint next to the hole (that ended up on another spot than I intended it to be) and also chipped the, higher, part of the frame where the chuck of the drill scraped it.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: snewpers

please drill ha hole like this :



frpm the side the photo is taken from



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I noticed that spalling but had no reason to believe the photos where of tge same hole.



posted on Sep, 5 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I'll try but it will never be like that. It's a photo that is not related to this event.

ETA:

Reverse image search goes back to 2014, didn't bother to check if it was published even earlier. That image is from space debris.

Space Debris
edit on 5-9-2018 by snewpers because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2018 by snewpers because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join