Russian Cosmonauts Say That the Hole in the Soyuz Was Drilled from the Inside
universetoday.com
universetoday.com
"So fasten x to y with a screw."
"Do I drill through and into the workbench too?"
"Why would you do that?!"
(In my mind) well I saw someone else fastening a work piece to the bench temporarily like that and why would the screw be this long then? Oh wait yeah that makes zero sense. My logic centre isn't working fast at all.
I'm slowly trying to figure out what kind of disciplinarian I'm going to be with my boys.
Frankly, they’re young and even when they’ve done something on purpose or are being bratty I try to coach them up again, sometimes I lose it and get mad- but I never use derision or name calling.
Losing it is usually just “Why? WHY?! Why did you just pull the step stool out and use the Christmas tree as a punching bag after I told you to stay back because it will fall over?!”
I use my logic brain to try and rationalize myself into a calm state, “well you told them to be careful with the jug of water, you didn’t say don’t pour it all over the dining room table”.
Man, they find some awesome ways to make a disaster sometimes...
I was so mad ;)
But generally, yeah, I talk to him about stuff and go over consequences and empathy and such, and I agree it works pretty well.
I'm not proud of it but I acknowledge that it's in my wiring.
Pro-tip, though: don't kick walls. Broken toes suck.
This can flash with my kids, but frankly I’m surprised at how much patience I naturally have with them. I work on it, as I mentioned before, but the level of empathy I have is many multiples of what I was capable of before my first child was born- and this might be one the best gifts (as of yet) that fatherhood has bestowed upon me. It’s made me a better person all around.
I too good around and wrestle with my kids, it’s pretty much my favorite thing to do with them, but there is nothing that can make me see red (literally and figuratively) like taking an adorable little foot to the nose, eye, and/or balls. My dad would get mad, as is my natural inclination, and I still remember how shitty I would feel. It takes everything I can muster not to get mad when it happens, but I usually just drop to the ground (only sometimes is it voluntary) and put on a show (only partially exaggerated) of daddy being hurt.
This has had unanticipated consequences, like them thinking it’s funny that if you hit dad in the groin, you can make mom laugh and jump on him while watching tears roll down his cheek. So we nipped that with the same “if it’s on purpose you’re in trouble” method.
Recent anecdote to add: I replaced our third TV in 18 months yesterday. Our middle previously killed it on accident with a super soaker he brought in the house to get his brother with. The second time he was using his plastic sword to fight the pirates on TV at grandmas, and this time he was swinging the wooden fishing pole he got as a Christmas present, it left his hands and took out the display panel.
The TV is mounted 6’ high and he wasn’t being malicious. Other than at grandmas he wasn’t even trying to interact with th TV. So how the hell can I punish him for (really expensive) accidents? I told him it takes two weeks for me to work to be able to afford to fix it. He’s got to do a couple extra basic chores in the morning and night, and I had him give me ideas for how we could prevent it in the future. Most of which involved force fields and elaborate structures and didn’t address not using the living room as a jungle gym, but still...
Now that I’m thinking of it, I need to call my parents and apologize for my entire childhood. Again.
It's probably easier to create teaching moments when your kid does something negligent or thoughtless, rather than downright malicious.
update:spelling
But to make us kids at least try, if we didn't finish our meals or we're being picky. He would put the plate on the counter and make us stand there until we finished. It was effective. It wasn't cruel, it was simply a method of making sure I finished my meal and tried new things. A solid balance in my opinion.
That approach has been linked to the obesity crisis. MacDonalds knows all about it, the need to finish what is given to you regardless of whether you are still hungry. They observe the lengths customers go to get that last fry at the bottom of the container. We should at least consider teaching kids today to not eat everything on the plate every time. Perhaps they should learn to stop on their own.
I'm not sure what 80% full is either? Is it satiated rather than full?
If I ate 80-90 percent and said I was full that was fine. When I was simply being picky because it was new, that's where that tactic came into play.
Learning how to suffer fools and survive foolish aggresses is a real thing in some jobs, and it will quickly make you abandon curiosity.
Your logic centre was working plenty fast enough. It's just hard for someone who already knows to procedure to appreciate just how open-ended the possible space of procedures is. It seems obvious to them, but only because their mental filters are already blocking out other possible solutions.
Still, at least in this first month, I wouldn't want to change methods.
Sometimes it's infuriating.
It is a bit like developers with a new js framework I suppose.
2. Drill was hand-held - again due to the marks where drill bit was trying to find it's way around.
3. No any markings from pen/pencil or anything that would show that any kind of measurements were done beforehand. Which means that the hole was not part of any specific fixture/attachment or construction element.
Which strengthens hypothesis that the purpose of the hole was the hole itself. Location and/or precision of the hole was not important as much as the hole itself.
At this point precise inspection is needed to find the tool used as well as determine which person's suit/clothing/outfit/personal belongings (astronaut's or technician) contain the traces of the metal that fall off as a result of the hole drilling effort.
I wouldn't be so sure about that --- "we need to mount an X, it needs to be roughly in this area", while possibly questionable in space, is not uncommon in other construction. It could be a similar scenario, except whoever was responsible identified the wrong area.
as well as determine which person's suit/clothing/outfit/personal belongings (astronaut's or technician) contain the traces of the metal that fall off as a result of the hole drilling effort
If it was done on the ground during construction, where many holes are drilled, I don't think that would work.
I bet every spacecraft has a couple non conformances like that.
When you hand hold a piece like this you rely on gravity and can put your weight down firmly against it so it doesn't move, even after punching through. Much tougher to do in space with no gravity, you need to use the frame itself to push against. If this was done on the ground it would have to be by a complete incompetent or drunk individual to make 8-11 damaging marks on the frame. Secondly in the second photo you see a padding that would partially cover this, it looks undamaged, meaning they lifted this padding for the explicit purpose of using that jig jog dead space in the frame as their 'punch through area.'
Lastly, since I've been in this situation many times, whatever they were drilling through would not fit on the frame in the orientation they needed for some of the holes they were planning on drilling, and thus this is likely why they missed their dead space safety area. The debris from this would now be floating where ever so impossible to use that to determine guilt from clothing. The only thing they can use is either preflight photos (the padding covered most the damage perhaps) or send every drill bit on the station back to earth for analysis; drifting your bit even on aluminum alloy will leave a signature. Correlate that with use records for component replacement times. You're also looking for components with holes in them that don't match the blueprints. When you're on a 'boat' though, sometimes these types of repairs are assumed and undocumented though (especially when you screw up.)
50/50 chance this was an astronaut or a very drunk contractor on ground. The most disturbing evidence here is the drift mark before the hole among the other bit tap marks. It implies the person drilling it did not have mental focus.
It is possible the drilling was done well away from line of sight, say somebody drilling near the top of the capsule while standing on the acceleration couch after the stack was erected. Tough to control a drill when your arms are near full extension.
How about two guys, one on the others shoulders, they get up there, find they need to drill a bunch of holes into the component they're trying to install. Now it's more trouble to come down and do it right. "Just hurry up, you're heavy!"
Then why did they seal it with glue (that later failed)?
We have established the hole was made very badly, so you can not also say the person making it knew exactly the right kind and amount of glue that would fail at just the right time.
This seems like an accident to me, and someone tried to cover it up.
... and exactly why I'm not either ;)
Sure, but in the hull of the spacecraft that's leaking my air away, I'd still put a wad a chewing gum in the hole to patch it.
It would have worked if it weren't for a rubber column inside just next to the hole which required my tape to be curved at a right angle - screwing up any proper insulation.
I understand space to be unbelivably boring.
My understanding is once there, you work 16 hour days non-stop.
I think most people would describe being on the ISS as anything else but "boring".
(The joke is based on Russian pun: slang word for policeman is literally garbage, the title of the painting is "space garbage").
Maybe?
I mean, surely there must be some kind of testing step where they test that the craft is completely airtight. And no one is going to be drilling anything after that point.
To me that excludes sabotage, and instead points of error that someone tried to cover up. It also points to someone low-level/unskilled since they did a bad job of sealing it.
Yeah, makes total sense.
Based on the tracks around the actual hole it looks accidental to me.
1. Done by a right handed person on space (crew) or on earth (builders/crew/other).
2. Done accidentally (a drill machine slips) or with a purpose.
3. The purpose can be seen as good or bad for the mission. The result here was neither good nor very bad, so can be neutral also.
4. A neutral purpose can still serve a role as a tool to alter the status of the cosmonauts either punishing them or improving their situation (like in: returning home faster or somebody drills a small hole to be able to fix it later as an hero).
They should look for shaving cream in trash and check it.
But that's without considering that the simplest explanation is usually the right one and the at-orbit sabotage is just not that.
>Sealed with epoxy and resin [from photo caption]
I'm kindof confused, was it resin-impregnated gauze?
I'm also curious: If the hole was in a more-critical location, like one of the station's modules, would that be the repair process? Or would they be doing welding in space?
> Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand? > Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one