[ordu]

> For every complex, difficult and hard problem, there is a simple, easy and wrong solution. > Paint obviously is not the right tool for making seals air tight.

So my obvious solution is obviously too obvious to be right, and obviously the right solution is not obvious.

The sad thing, is you are just reiterating what I've said already, without providing any useful answer. "Paint obviously is not the right tool" is a statement that not just not obvious for me, it looks simply wrong. They search for microcracks and use a sealant to seal them. Sealant is not a paint obviously, but in the same ballpark.

[IAmBroom]

The sealant has to be self-setting; it cannot rely on atmosphere to "dry" it, because the side facing the hole will never dry. In order for it to dry, it would have to be air-permeable, so not a good sealant at all.

So, the sealant has to be either a 2-part epoxy (harder to mix and apply), or a UV-cured epoxy. It has to adhere to a vast array of surfaces, since we cannot predict if the next leak will be in aluminum, cracked ceramic, silicone gasket, rubber gasket, plastic.... Anything it outgasses must be extremely inert, so that it doesn't cause a new problem when it reacts with a different surface (the gas on the ISS is never diluted by a giant planetwide reservoir).

Paint is obviously not a two-part epoxy nor a UV-curing epoxy; nor is it guaranteed to have fully inert outgases; finally it is not likely to be adherent to all the possible surfaces.

It's as if the situation requires a robotic diamond drill, and you propose we hit it with a big rock. The big rock won't do.