NASA Engineers Work on New Spacesuits

NotCoward writes "In labs at Johnson Space Center, away from the buzz about NASA's new spaceship and its new missions to the moon and Mars, a group of engineers are plodding away at another piece of the puzzle: spacesuits. Astronaut apparel has evolved over the decades from Mercury's aluminum foil-looking outfits to the bulky, 275-pound whites now used on jaunts outside the space station. While it's too early in the process to know how the new space suits will look, the space agency is hoping to make new suits both high-tech and low-maintenance."

Comments

Fishbowl helmets yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

We won't feel that we're living in the future and its a wonderful time to be alive until they introduce fishbowl helmets like in golden age-style sci-fi cover art (e.g. Flynn's Lodestar ). This nonsense about a white helmet with just a gold visor is making millions of children apathetic to the space program.

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[imikem]

I'm not sure if the poster was being serious or not, but imo there may be something to the idea in any case. The current generations are accustomed after dozens of space operas to seeing what amounts to "bling in space" on their fictional astronauts. The real thing and NASA seem stodgy and dull by comparison. Catching the imagination of the masses today is not going to happen with stuff that looks like the 60s. The spacesuits are one area where it might pay dividends to (quietly) approach apparel designers to get some ideas, if these can be reconciled with the safety and utility that must always come first. Even some gratuitous high tech looking items might be useful for marketing. These needn't even necessarily go up in the spacecraft, just demo it on the ground.

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[hey!]

My first reaction to the suit pictured in TFA was "don't astronauts ever need peripheral vision?" Especially as the helmet does not turn with their head.

I suppose current generation astronauts just need to see whatever they working on, which is right in front of them. But I'd think that it would be psychologically uncomfortable to have your awareness of what is going on to either side cut off for long periods at a time. What if some evil, tentacled creature crawled out of a crater and was heading right for you? You'd never see it.

Not to mention the risk of getting run over by a moon buggy while you are crossing the grounds of your base.

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[Rei]

Some designs under consideration are very sci-fi like. Even retro sci-fi. Currently, we use pressure suits. These are suits with an inner bladder that contains the air, and an outer layer that helps retain the bladder and conform it to the right shape. While they're designed to make it so that the suit is constant volume (because changing the volume takes extra work), you still waste a lot of energy bending the suit. There are two radical departures from this.

1) Hard shell: These suits look like sci-fi powered armor, minus the power. There's already a few suits like this used for deep-sea diving. A hard shell suit is a rigid exoskeleton with smooth-sliding ball joints. The joints are the hardest point of the design, as you can't afford for them to leak, but you can't afford for them to resist your motion much, either. It takes many joints for a good suit to not constrain the wearers' motion too heavily.

2) Skintight: Like in retro sci-fi where everyone walks around in spandex, this is actually a serious design. The tight suit itself provides direct pressure on the body. Even better, the fabric is slightly porous so that you can sweat into the vaccuum of space, so you don't need cooling. There's one big downside that has prevented widespread adoption of such suits: they're currently almost impossible to get on or off. Such a suit, to be practical, would need to be made of a fabric that can change size when exposed to a certain stimulus (electricity, air pressure, etc).

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[ChrisA90278]

"But I'd think that it would be psychologically uncomfortable to have your awareness of what is going on to either side cut off for long periods at a time. What if some evil, tentacled creature crawled out of a crater and was heading right for you? You'd never see it." Not really. Many people actually like the narrower point of view. There are many, many commercial divers in the world. Working underwater is much like being in space. Both environments require life support equipment, both can have poor to no lighting so your field of vision is restricted to where you light is aimed. So we know a lot about working in in forgien environments with helmets that provide less than 180 degree fields of view. In space you may not want the wide field, harsh sunlight hitting your face may not be what you need. Gare in the inside of the helmet is an issue too. You do NOT want light hitting the back side of the glas you are trying to look out from. I prefer glack silcon skirts on my mask for that reason -- a clearer, higher contrast view. Put it this way: Have you ever used your hands cupped around your face to peek through a window. You need to block the light that comes in from the sides. I'd not want a fish bowel helmet if there was a light source in back of me or to may side. Which would work out to 75% of the time I suspect these new helmits are designed with input from astronaughts and maybe some divers too.

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[CrazedWalrus]

outer layer that helps retain the bladder

Speaking of retaining the bladder, will new designs incorporate strategically-located zippers? Or are we still going the Depends (tm) route? There's just something non-sexy about being a pee-pee-pants in space.

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[Catbeller]

I've always thought the skintight model was the way to go, if you really wanted to colonize zero g or any of the planets. The hardshell suit is just too complex and expensive. I wish NASA had the money to spend on some engineering studies again. Or that we had any imaginative engineers left in that field. NASA has been a trucking company for too long.

I dunno about the actual work done on the skintight suits. Divers wear pretty tight outfits, and they manage somehow. Has any engineering been done in the last twenty years? As you say, new material are available.

With a skintight suit, you could throw on a "parka" in the freezing shade, or wear a beadouin's cloak in the harsh sunlight. On Mars, you could toss on a really well insulated snowsuit and some good boots. In contruction zones in zero g or the moon, you could wear some sports armor to guard your knees and elbows.

A skintight would be a lot less fatiguing to wear, be lighter to carry, leaks aren't the spectacular death that hardshell wearers worry over, and importantly, you can turn yor head. And if it were comfortable enough to wear full time, explosive decompression of the ship or habitat would be handled by slapping down your visor rather than, oh, dying 'cause it takes 90 minutes to suit up.

Re:Fishbowl helmets yet?

[orgelspieler]

I'd not want a fish bowel helmet if there was a light source in back of me or to may side.

I would not want a "fish bowel helmet" even if there wasn't a light source in back of me.

ewwww....

Liquid Oxygen

[MichaelSmith]

The apollo suits used two tanks of gaseous oxygen. The main tank at just over 1000 psi and the OPS backup tank at 6000 psi. The main tank was filled from a hose inside the LM. The OPS tank was filled once only on the ground.

EVA time was limited first by the quantity of water for the sublimators and second by oxygen quantity. The battery life was also a limiting factor, but I think it came third by a long margin.

Its not hard to carry more water for cooling. The reason it was in short supply on the moon was that the original designs for the PLSS didn't allow enough space.

But those high pressure oxygen tanks are a real pain. The structure contributes to the overall mass. The volume pushes the mass up because it takes space. Temperature is a problem anyway because it increases gas pressure and reduces density.

So if we are designing new suits I think we should find ways of stocking them with LOX. Probably in something like a vacuum flask. Maybe that is the next big step.

Re:Liquid Oxygen

[jimstapleton]

You know what would be even better than that, at least if you asked the astronauts?

In-suit coffee makers.

Re:Liquid Oxygen

[Dr. Eggman]

Why are all life support systems so temporary? Shouldn't there be some way to duplicate the process of the human body that transforms breathable air into exaust, but in the opposite direction? I could see something like that being very bulky and definatly not the next step, but perhaps the next leap should be towards an suit that maintains a balanced environment cycle by recycling human exausts.

Re:Liquid Oxygen

[Anonymous Coward]

The chemistry of that seems a little difficult. Human metabolism works by a redox reaction with atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer. That's convenient for us as we don't have to store an oxidizer in our tissues, only the fuel.

As in any redox reaction, the exhaust -- CO2 in this case -- is a lower energy state. Moving the process in the opposite would require quite a bit of energy. In a small device like a space suit, the only practical source of large amounts of energy is a chemical reaction. So now we're back to needing an oxidizer anyway. Maybe you could find one more convenient than oxygen, but the inefficiencies of the process are likely to undo any gains.

Re:Liquid Oxygen

[Firethorn]

We could, but the reason we don't re-split in most cases is power.

For example, a spaceship on a journey to mars, powered by a nuclear reactor could indeed use a system to split CO2/H20 back into C, H2, and O2. It'd take loads of juice and likely be quite bulky, but it'd work. You stick the hydrogen into the fuel tanks, breath the O2 again, and either store or eject the carbon. It might even make sense over carrying six months to two years* of O2. This is, of course, assuming that we don't go the organic route and have some sort of greenhouse that'll do the splitting naturally, as well as generate food doing it.

Now, due to said power and bulk requirements, it's cheaper even for the shuttle to merely use CO2 scrubbers and compressed air cylinders to provide life support. This is doubly true for space suits where weight and size are paramount, duration not so much. You're not going to be spending weeks in a space-suit, nor are you going to be spending years in a space shuttle.

*Margins, redundancy, and mission duration.

Re:Liquid Oxygen

[Moofie]

Well, you need cooling fluid too, right? There's your solution!

Re:Liquid Oxygen

[Rei]

I'm assuming that you've never done hydroponics before, based on what you've written. It's no trivial task. First off, your nutrient solution is typically something like a mixture of calcium nitrate, potassium nitrate, magnesium sulfate, monopotassium phosphate, potassium sulfate, and various other soluable mineral salts. A typical mix may have a dozen or so. This single mix will work fine... for a while. However, the soluable ion ratios get messed up by the plants' selective absorption over time, in addition to plant waste products. On Earth, you typically toss the solution and refill it. Won't work in space. You'll have to use a rather elaborate testing method and fill each of the salts just right, and remove all of the plant waste products. Of course, not all waste products will be in the soil. For example, plants release ethylene gas. It's far more deadly to plants than carbon monoxide is to humans, and much harder to detect/extract. Commercial greenhouses deal with this through venting into the atmosphere and taking in fresh air. Won't work for you here.

Anyways, back to the minerals. Where are you going to get all of them? You can't just "compost" plants in an isolated environment; waste gasses will build up quickly. Just one example: ammonia. Are you going to just vent it? Then you're losing your precious nitrogen. Going to refine it? Then you'll need a whole refinery, just for that one waste product. What you get out of compost is *not* something that you can just throw into the water for your hydroponics solution, anyways.

FTFA...

[Mizled]

From the article...

At the top of the list is making the next spacesuit smaller and lighter - engineers are hoping to halve the 200-pound weight of the suit and life support backpack that Apollo astronauts lugged around.

It will be interesting to see what type of designs they come up with and how they will strip the suits of a good 125-130 pounds. It would be funny to see them go back to something more retro looking like the new Spaceshuttle they're building. =p

Sound advice...

[tygerstripes]

To quote the tragically-underexposed '80s BBC film-noir-in-space show Star Cops, regarding space:

"Anything you forget to take with you will kill you; anything you do remember to bring but that doesn't work will kill you; and if you're in any doubt, assume everything will kill you."

Sound advice, although I suspect the missus takes it to heart whenever we go on holiday for a weekend.

"275-pound[s]"? That sounds awfully cheap

[Rogerborg]

Wven with the current USD-Sterling exchange rate.

Wait... did you mean that it "weighs" 39.2857 cloves?

Seriously; can we please try to use metric consistently, as NASA are finally doing themselves.

Yes but . . .

[scottennis]

Will they come with a knife, rubber mallet, bb gun, tubing and pepper spray?
You never know when an astronaut might need those things.
(I'm assuming the diapers will still be included.)

Re:Yes but . . .

[jackalope]

You forgot to include the towel. Never go anywhere without a towel.

Re:"275-pound[s]"? That sounds awfully cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... Pounds Sterling? Do they still use those? If they weighed the suit in stones would it make you feel better?

No User Servicable Parts Inside

[Chelloveck]

[...] the space agency is hoping to make new suits both high-tech and low-maintenance.

Nothing like setting out with two mutually exclusive goals.

Re:No User Servicable Parts Inside

[timster]

My modern $15 portable radio from walmart is more high-tech than radios of the 1940s, and requires much less maintenance.

Re:No User Servicable Parts Inside

[GospelHead821]

You're neglecting the third corner of the triangle. They can design a high-tech, low-maintenance space suit, but it will be monstrously expensive.

Re:No User Servicable Parts Inside

[Thuktun]

[...] the space agency is hoping to make new suits both high-tech and low-maintenance. Nothing like setting out with two mutually exclusive goals. Correct, it is indeed nothing like that.

Mars hyperbole

[Miamicanes]

They won't be using the new suits on Mars (for any extended period of time, at least), and NASA damn well knows it.

For one thing, Mars has an atmosphere. Not directly breathable, of course... but not toxic either. So there's no need for Mars explorers to carry both oxygen AND "bulk" gas (like nitrogen) to give it volume and pressure. Instead, they can do what airplanes do... pressurize the outside air, warm it up, and inject small amounts of pure oxygen into it.

Likewise, a suit for outdoor use on Mars doesn't have to be pressurized beyond respiratory needs, or even airtight. Think: what would you wear to safely go outside at the South Pole in the middle of winter when it's -100C outside and windy. It needs to be highly insulated, and probably incorporate electric or chemical heat... but doesn't need the sheer bulk of moonsuits and EVA suits. If a Mars suit were torn, you might end up with a nasty case of frostbite, but as long as you were able to hook up to a good power and oxygen source you'd probably make it home with treatable injuries.

I fully expect to see NASA testing suits in Antarctica within a decade, both to get practical user evaluations of prototype designs AND solve a few nasty problems we have TODAY down there (if something goes wrong at the South Pole midwinter that requires outdoor travel, right now it's VERY dangerous to go outside there). Antarctica is nowhere near as cold, but I see lots of potential for spinoff technologies down there (like the iBot vs Segway).

Re:Mars hyperbole

[Gruturo]

Are you joking?

Mars' atmosphere is a lot thinner than Earth's, and the pressure at surface level is only 0.6% of Earth's. Even if supplied with breathable air, and heating, you wouldn't survive in the martian environment due to the extremely low pressure. The suits *have* to be airtight.

Re:Mars hyperbole

[First Person]

The suits *have* to be airtight.

You might be surprised to learn that this is not the case. Human skin is fairly resistant to vacuum. Abrasion, radiation protection, thermal insulation are more important considerations. Please read this article on space activity suits.

Re:Mars hyperbole

[Miamicanes]

> The intrepid explorers will then feel an incredible burning sensation in their mouth, throat, and lungs
> before dying the quick but allegedly-painful death of CO2 poisoning. The atmosphere of Mars is mostly carbon dioxide.

Oops. Guilty as charged. For some inane reason I thought it was mostly nitrogen.

On the other hand, CO2 is even better, because CO2 can be converted into molecular Oxygen through direct electrolysis. So... the hardware for quick jaunts outside is more complex than it would be under a mostly-nitrogen atmosphere, but longer trips are easier to handle as long as reliable power is available.

Re:Mars hyperbole

[WindBourne]

So there's no need for Mars explorers to carry both oxygen AND "bulk" gas (like nitrogen)

You have already been taken to task about parts of this, but not on one. Keep in mind, that none of the space suits store "bulk" gas. The N2 that is in the air is not used by us. It enters our lungs and generally exits in the same concentrations. All in all, you use the N2 that you entered with. But the CO2 needs to removed and O2 injected. All you store on any of these suits is O2, Of which there is damn little in the martian air. They will still have create and carry O2.

Re:Mars hyperbole

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Who do you expect us to trust? Some Wikipedia article, or years of solid TV and movie dramatisations of space exploration?

I for one would fully expect, nay demand, that even the most microscopic of punctures in the suits skin must quickly lead to blood curdling screams followed by the astronaught either gratuitiously exploding within their suit, or the suit itself rupturing and spraying copious amounts of gore in all directions. Furthermore, the screams and sounds of exploding organs should carry across the vacuum.

We spend millions on our space programs. The public should demand nothing less.

Re:Mars hyperbole

[Catbeller]

Mars' atmosphere has no free oxygen, as the element combines readily and quickly. Earth has free O2 because it has plants converting CO2 to O2. Mars' air is mostly CO2, and the air pressure at ground level is measured in millibars, or thousandths of Earth's sea-level air pressure. It's enough to blow dust during energetic wind storms, but is practically vaccuum for us. Think of air pressure at oh, 15 miles above sea level here, wild guess, close enough.

Wishful thinking

[J05H]

"NASA wants to make the new spacesuit usable for launch, at the space station and on the moon and Mars."

There's one little problem with this. A suit designed for vacuum won't work properly on Mars. The Apollo suits (and STS/ISS EVA suits) use a form of insulation that will cause major user overheating in Mars' atmosphere. Also, most proposed Mars suits would use a life support system more like SCUBA tanks than current spacesuits, extremely low-power, easily re-filled and simple to maintain. It's more than just swapping out the upper parts of the suit based on task, some of what the article proposes won't work. The fundamental differences in environments will seriously hinder that plan.

Another issue is that for a single-suit strategy this means that the astronauts coming back from the Moon will be bringing their filthy suits back with them. This means several days of breathing the dust, plus the dust will saturate the Orion capsule's cabin. Not a good plan for a reusable vehicle.

Some of these issues can be resolved, others are just the different natures of the planets. Can tech developed for lunar exploration help with Mars? Sure, but it's not going to be the same spacesuits across all uses. Interfaces, communications, maybe parts of the life support pack, materials and assembly techniques will find crossover. The thing you don't want is to land on Mars only to realize that the vacuum-insulation in your suits is totally wrong and you can't do EVA without overheating. Even the difference between orbital suits and the lunar suits are huge, they are all different environments.

The right suit for Mars is based, IMHO, around Mechanical Counter-Pressure (MCP) principals instead of constant-volume balloon suits. The MIT "BioSuit" and NASA's old Space Activity Suit are excellent examples. MCP suits (and SCUBA-type air supply) are the only current approaches that can lead to sub-100lb (~40kg for you metrics) suits for Mars exploration. The only spacesuit concept that might work across environments would be a Newtsuit-type hard suit, and even then it's going to be heavy.

Josh

Who needs new shuttles?

[AndroidCat]

1. Have spacesuit
2. Wander around on Earth until ETs pick them up
3. Will travel!

AIAA covered this a year ago

[sconeu]

For those who are interested, the AIAA covered this [PDF] in the July 2006 issue of Aerospace America.