Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Space-Suit Drama Could Delay Our Trip To the Moon (thedailybeast.com)
Zorro quotes a report from The Daily Beast: After years of planning, NASA is finally launching a new effort to send astronauts back to the moon and then onward to Mars. But one important piece of technology is missing: a new space suit. Fifty-three years after astronaut Ed White stepped outside his Gemini 4 capsule on the first-ever spacewalk for an American, NASA is stuck using decades-old suits that critics say are too old, too bulky, too rigid, and too few in number for America's new era of space exploration.
Astronauts could need as many as three different kinds of space suits for a single mission. NASA has plenty of flight-suit options, but its extravehicular activity or EVA suits are old and dwindling in number. And the agency doesn't have any suits specifically for surface missions. Time is running out to make up the space suit shortfalls. NASA plans to launch Exploration Mission 1, the first test of Orion and its heavy rocket, as early as 2020. The Lunar Gateway station could be ready for use five or six years later. Despite these looming deadlines, NASA "remains years away from having a flight-ready space suit... suitable for use on future exploration missions," the agency's inspector general warned in a 2017 audit.
Astronauts could need as many as three different kinds of space suits for a single mission. NASA has plenty of flight-suit options, but its extravehicular activity or EVA suits are old and dwindling in number. And the agency doesn't have any suits specifically for surface missions. Time is running out to make up the space suit shortfalls. NASA plans to launch Exploration Mission 1, the first test of Orion and its heavy rocket, as early as 2020. The Lunar Gateway station could be ready for use five or six years later. Despite these looming deadlines, NASA "remains years away from having a flight-ready space suit... suitable for use on future exploration missions," the agency's inspector general warned in a 2017 audit.
The people pushing manned space are morons and tourist mongers. There is nowhere to go and no reason to send human petri dishes. This is beyond retarded. People who don't understand the scales involved romanticize the idea.
If "mankind" is going to go far places and do things, robots are going there first to lay the groundwork. Anything else is just space-force stable genius shit, with Virgin Galactic trying to sell you quarter-million dollar roller coaster rides.
If what NASA currently has isn't good enough, how about buying from the Europeans, Russians or Chinese? They should have suitable suits for extravehicular activity.
Delaying the mission seems worse than having to partially rely on foreign technology.
Suits for surface missions might be a problem, as no one has done such missions recently. But a cooperation with the Chinese who are planning their own mission to the moon might work.
Apparently they do, I well remember a few years ago they did a big media splash about a 'design project' wanting public input, mostly on what colour and fashion style they should be.
Perhaps if they had spent just a little more time designing an actual space suit, and less time on PR/Public Image, then they may have one.
Here we go, 2014 (a random story pre, and the results post)..
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/179157-nasa-shows-off-next-generation-z-2-spacesuits-makes-us-question-its-fashion-sense
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-s-next-prototype-spacesuit-has-a-brand-new-look-and-it-s-all-thanks-to-you
Nonsense, time passes, stuff gets old and unused skills are lost.
Those are no factors that make conspiracy theories any more probable and the mirror is still there for anyone to check.
Come on. How long did it take to design and fabricate the Apollo moon suits?
Coincidentally, down in the "Related Links" I see: "We're All Getting Dumber, Says Science".
There was only one sentence.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
TFS fails to mention that we've spent a giant pile of money on next generation EVA suits already, and what's missing is... A mission to build the suits for.
NASA has no manned Mars mission scheduled, no manned Moon mission scheduled, and no capability to put men in orbit. Through that lens saying spacesuits are going to delay our moon trip is 9% dumb.
Our next major manned spaceflight objective beyond ISS is an orbit around the moon and the "Deep space gateway", another space station that will hoover up the majority of NASA's budget for a generation.
Just buy SpaceX's suits, or pay them to develop one if the existing ones don't meet the requirements. I bet it would cost 1/1000 of NASA's existing budget projections.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Uhh, the blueprints are not lost. What do you think these are?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I'm no moon landing conspiracy theorist but the combination of losing the Saturn blue prints
Evidently you are a moon landing conspiracy theorist because you could have easily verified that we still have the blue prints for the Saturn V as well as the Rocketdyne F1 engines used in the Saturn V. That isn't the problem with rebuilding them though. Here is a video explaining why we cannot simply remake the Rocketdyne F1 engines in their original glory. Short version is that the blue prints don't record a lot of important details about HOW these were actually fabricated. Each engine was custom made by hand by skilled individuals who didn't record every detail about how they did what they did. And even if they had, we don't make things the same way today so the design doesn't really make any sense to replicate anymore.
and not having a viable ship to get to the moon and not having space suits that can allow a person to survive on the moon a pretty strong factors to consider.
There is an example of the ship used to get to the moon in the Smithsonian museum as well as the space suits actually used. Furthermore all the hardware is still there on the moon to be inspected if you care to get close enough to look for yourself.
If you use those plans to make a new flying space car, you will not go to space.
First, NASA is not likely to be the primary entity running the next moon mission. They will participate, but that will be done by private enterprise.
Second, of all of the blockers in the way to a lunar mission, a lunar surface suit is smaller in magnitude than things like a lunar lander, which nobody has at the moment. Consider, for example, a SpaceX mission to the moon. The Dragon 2 capsule is not capable of landing and returning on its own. They would need a vehicle for the Dragon 2 to sit on top of. And the Falcon 9 stages are not appropriate, because they are not cryogenic - they don't work when exposed to cold for more than a few hours.
SpaceX BFR still has a lot of risk and is a long way away. ULA is developing a cryogenic stage, but that's also a long way away.
Bruce Perens.
I don't usually respond to ACs, especially when they're spouting easily and repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories. But, in the interests of correcting the internet:
YouTuber Curious Droid, who creates videos about lots of rocket and aeronautic history, just recently put out a video about recreating the F-1 engine. Short answer: the blueprints aren't lost, but they do not contain all the necessary information about how to make the engine. A lot of that information about assembly technique was not well documented. Each engine, although more or less the same, was practically hand-made by skilled technicians.
NASA does have suits that went to the Moon. For instance, the Smithsonian has been carefully restoring and documenting Armstrong's lunar EVA suit for permanent display. I am a backer of that successful kickstarter effort, and have been getting regular updates as they prepare for its debut next year (50th anniversary).
Thanks for the mental image of the crusty space prospector in his vacsuit make from poorly tanned beaver pelts and burlap.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Given the existence of BFR as a working thing; rather than a dream just being staffed up for development, as it is today; I think there will be a lot of cargo business. Given that, extension of it into a man-capable platform can be achieved economically, as Boeing achieved the 707 after being paid to make some similarly-sized Air Force jets.
Lunar lander: we have the part that holds the people, not the part that gets it down to the moon and back. Remember, the original design for Apollo by Boeing was for the command-service module to land on the moon and take off again, without the LEM, and that the actual CSM was overpowered because of that. A Dragon 2 based mission would look like a CSM.
Human-rated launch vehicle: on the way. Take your pick of Boeing or SpaceX. Not counting SLS, which IMO is an expensive albatross around NASA's neck.
Transport Capsule: about to see its first test flight. Boeing's some time later.
Mission equipment: lunar surface suits are necessary. I would not consider the other items to be blockers on the path to a lunar surface mission.
A decade? Possibly. We could be surprised.
Bruce Perens.
And it probably should not take a Billion dollars for private enterprise to make a space suit. I bet you could start an SME to do it.
Bruce Perens.
Fascinating story overall, a book called Space Gear mentioned when the contract was finally awarded for the Apollo EVA suit, the ILC guy at a dinner party threw the prototype suit in the fire place in front of the NASA guy, "now you know how I really feel the way we were treated" (or something like that). Since then there have been documentaries that show the old ladies (ILC selected the best seamstresses for this group) sewing the spacesuits (and yes they too wanted to walk the surface of the moon). ILC manager recalls watching Neil and Buzz on the lunar surface thinking, "finish up! finish up! get back into the LM!" because he knew all the things that could fail on the suit. These suits are not exactly indestructible.
There was a program at NASA Ames of a hardsuit design, not bulky with many flexible joints and with higher than 5 psi pressure so reduce the 4-hour prebreath time. John Young wrote in his bio book about spacesuit designs of various ideas but NASA kept with its "monster suit."
Overall maybe need someone with the technical, managerial, leadership talent to head up a spacesuit design. Be able to harness resources and battle the bureaucracy for a usable space suit. But forget about Mars (it will always be 20 years into the future a Mars EVA suit will be needed).
mfwright@batnet.com
Describe "pittance". Every time someone thinks recreating old space tech is cheap or easy, I have to bring up a car analogy: If you found a junked classic car like a '64 Ford Mustang, would it be a "pittance" to restore a single car?
No. It would cost you many times what the car originally cost to make. That's with the ability to source some original parts as it was a consumer product. That's with the possibility that you could sell a restored Mustang for more than your cost to restore. However, that Mustang does not meet current safety standards. It requires a lead substitute.
Now let's look at a space suit. Since this wasn't a consumer product, there are not a lot of sources for spare parts nor is there any financial incentive for someone to hold these parts. All parts have to be remanufactured. Unlike a Mustang where you could apply for an exception when it comes to certain standards, NASA does not that option. All parts have to brought up to current standards. For example, the suits will have to have current radio communications equipment as the oldsuits may not be broadcasting on the same frequencies.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Indeed. The probability of hitting the existing schedule is roughly less than 10% based on their estimation history.
There is less professional risk in making optimistic estimates than making pessimistic estimates because pessimism will hurt your career now, versus say 5 years away. Would you rather get slapped now, or in 2023? One may not even be with the same org in 5 years.
The only thing likely to stop the slip is another nation embarrassing us with some dazzling space activity: AKA "Sputnik 2.0"
Table-ized A.I.