Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
ISS Space

After Half a Decade, the Russian Space Station Segment Stopped Leaking (arstechnica.com) 39

A small section of the International Space Station that has experienced persistent leaks for years appears to have stopped venting atmosphere into space. ArsTechnica: The leaks were caused by microscopic structural cracks inside the small PrK module on the Russian segment of the space station, which lies between a Progress spacecraft airlock and the Zvezda module. The problem has been a long-running worry for Russian and US operators of the station, especially after the rate of leakage doubled in 2024. This prompted NASA officials to label the leak as a "high likelihood" and "high consequence" risk. However, recently two sources indicated that the leaks have stopped. And NASA has now confirmed this.

"Following additional inspections and sealing activities, the pressure in the transfer tunnel attached to the Zvezda Service Module of the International Space Station, known as the PrK, is holding steady in a stable configuration," a space agency spokesman, Josh Finch, told Ars. "NASA and Roscosmos continue to monitor and investigate the previously observed cracks for any future changes that may occur."

For the better part of half a decade, Russian cosmonauts have been searching for the small leaks like a proverbial needle in a haystack. They would periodically close the hatch leading to the PrK module and then, upon re-opening it, look for tiny accumulations of dust to indicate the leak sites. Then the Russian cosmonauts would apply a sealant known as Germetall-1 (which has now been patented) to the cracks. They would close the hatch again, monitor the pressure inside the PrK module, and begin the search anew for additional leaks. This process went on for years.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

After Half a Decade, the Russian Space Station Segment Stopped Leaking

Comments Filter:
  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Saturday January 03, 2026 @08:40AM (#65898761)
    Get Phil Swift up there to instantly patch, bond, seal and repair.
  • I'm reminded of all the BMW cars I've previously owned where it was often said "If there's no oil under it, there's no oil in it"...

  • My first thought was that if it was microscopic structural cracks that enough dust just finally accumulated around and in the cracks to provide an effective seal like a clogged air filter.
    But it does say that they did deliberate sealing activities, so I wonder what those were, if they did anything beyond spraying "germetall-1"

    • The headline says stopped leaking, the summary says it's been fixed.

      The enshittification of Slashdot proceeds apace.

      • by caseih ( 160668 )

        Can't blame slashdot for that in this case though. Both the headline and the summary can't straight from ars technica.

        • Can't blame slashdot for that in this case though.

          I can blame them for calling the people who post stories "editors" ;)

          • You know, I don't wish Slashdot had an edit function (I've defended the use of Preview many times) but I do wish it had append.

            Anyhoo

            I should also add that I have actually harassed Ars about their headlines on Faceboot, and even got a thumb reacc from them about it on one occasion.

          • So they won't make you an editor. For God's sake, let it go.

      • The headline says stopped leaking, the summary says it's been fixed.

        I would say that the fact that is stopped leaking is reasonable evidence that the fix worked.

        • I would say that the fact that is stopped leaking is reasonable evidence that the fix worked.

          The headline implies that it stopped itself. It was stopped, it didn't just stop miraculously without explanation.

          • I would say that the fact that is stopped leaking is reasonable evidence that the fix worked.

            The headline implies that it stopped itself.

            The headline said stopped. If you are adding "by itself" to the headline, that is your addition, not what was written.

            It was stopped, it didn't just stop miraculously without explanation.

            The explanation is right there in the summary. And if you wanted more, you could even try reading the article, although that could be a bit too much to expect.

            • by cusco ( 717999 )

              RTFA? You heretic!

            • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

              The headline said stopped. If you are adding "by itself" to the headline, that is your addition, not what was written.

              No, that's actually the only correct interpretation of those words in English. If someone's actions caused the leaking to stop, then a native English speaker would say, "After Half a Decade, the Russian Space Station Segment Leaks Are Fixed" or "... Leaks Have Been Stopped/Fixed". (Or they would avoid passive voice and explicitly say who stopped it.)

              Saying that something stopped is different from saying that something was stopped. That helping verb indicates that there is another actor other than the lea

              • I'm a native speaker of English. If you say something stopped, that sentence gives no information about how or why.

                In English, you don't make huge complicated sentences such that the entire article with all its details is written in a single sentence that you can conveniently also use as the headline. The headline is not the article. "There is information in the article that isn't in the headline!" is not a valid criticism.

  • The Russian politburo has determined it's not possible for there to be any, therefore, there are none!

  • Russian Engineering: I might take a lot longer, but then it surprises you, all of a sudden.
  • Fixing one bug reveals 30 more. Would you want to trust your life to that software with a thousand band-aids? On the other hand, we probably do just that every day, without realizing it.

  • It probably corroded shut and sealed itself.

  • Go around the inside shell and seal every surface. That is not years of work.

  • Is there a reason the OP chose "half a decade" rather than simply saying "five years"? I can't for the life of me understand what it adds to the story to use such a roundabout way to give a time span. Why not say "five percent of a century", or "260 weeks", or "60 months"? Or if you really want to raise the alarm, "over 2.6 million hours" would do nicely.
  • Why was the epoxy and cloth patented? I googled Germetall-1 and found it's apparently a patent on the materials and technique. The gist of it is that they soak some cloth in epoxy and cover the hole. I've done this with a broken toenail (though for that use case, cyanoacrylate is more biocompatible than epoxy).

    Anybody else know more details about what's new with this technique? It sounds like a standard composite use.

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings

Working...