Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MIT Team Designs a New, Sleek, Skintight Spacesuit

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Jul 16, 2007 04:46 PM
from the spandex-makes-a-comeback dept.
iamdrscience writes "MIT aeronautics professor Dava Newman has designed a new spacesuit along with her colleague, Jeff Hoffman and a group of students. This is far sleeker and lighter weight than the suits used by astronauts today, promising greater mobility than the traditional bulky suits of today which can weigh 300lbs or more. Instead of gas pressurization, the new prototype BioSuit employs "mechanical counter-pressure" in the form of skin-tight layers wrapped around the body."
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/biosuit-0716.html
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] NASA Engineers Work on New Spacesuits 105 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by taniwha (70410) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:49PM (#19881397) Homepage Journal
    is Margaret Thatcher modelling it?
  • obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by penp (1072374) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:50PM (#19881415)
    They're waiting for you, Gordon. In the Test Chamber.
  • Sci-Fi correlation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by perlhacker14 (1056902) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:50PM (#19881419)
    Is it just me, or does this sound like something out of Sci-Fi? Sleek, skintight, spacesuits? Anyway... Finally! A redesign of the spacesuits. This has been coming for a while, and most people probably should have forseen a new design. What amazes me is how futuristic and sci-fi this sounds... or is it just progress? What ever the case, this is real progress and innovation.
  • by ZeroExistenZ (721849) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:51PM (#19881425)
    All these skintight spacesuits on attractive women in science fiction movies are finally reality!
    • by goombah99 (560566) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:26PM (#19881821)
      I'm thinking this has some inherent drawbacks. With gas pressure regulation, the pressure inside the suite is the same regardless of whether you are inside the space capsule (at 16psi ambient pressure) or outside (at zero PSI ambient). It seems to me that if this thing is mechanically applying 16 PSI in vacuum then it must apply 32 PSI when inside the capsule. That's going to raise your blood pressure. Not by enough to be harmful, (after all scuba divers have the same). But more importantly, if you take our helmet off now you suffocate inside the space capusle. You suffocate first because you cannot physcally open your lungs with 32 PSI pressing on them in a 16psi atmosphere. And secondly even if you solved that, then you still have the problem of the 32 psi pressure making it harder to dissolve gas in your blood, so your cells cant get air or release CO2. And finally, if you took your kemet off then you have the extra 16 psi in your bloodstream pushing against the back of your eye-balls.

      I wonder how they dealt with that?

      One speculation might be that they made the suit not stretchy but just a fixed size that EXACTLY fits you. This way you have no pressure until you expand into the suit which then applies a counter force.

      However I cant' see that actually being possible, and having any flexibility. If You expand even slightly your blood pressure will drop. it would have to fit everywhere exactly, down to the gonads. cause you'd get enormous swelling in any place there was no counter-force.

      Finally, I can't see how this works around your head. If the suit is not pressurized then how do you maintain 16psi pressure on the face? Sure you could have the person breath through a regulator. But the face itself would not have pressure on it.

      Obviously I don't understand how this thing works or can work.

      • And what about room for the diaper? There's got to be room in the ass for expansion. How do you manage that with mechanical pressure?
      • by timeOday (582209) on Monday July 16 2007, @06:08PM (#19882195)

        It seems to me that if this thing is mechanically applying 16 PSI in vacuum then it must apply 32 PSI when inside the capsule. That's going to raise your blood pressure. Not by enough to be harmful, (after all scuba divers have the same).
        This gets at my question, which is why pressurization is needed at all. Diving from 1 to 2 atmospheres is no big deal. Why is going from 1 to 0 such a problem?
        • by goombah99 (560566) on Monday July 16 2007, @07:06PM (#19882585)
          I can't say I'm an expert sure but it seems to me it's not symmetrical. Water, i.e. you, is not compressible, but the dissolved gasses and air spaces which are equilibrated to 16 PSi can expand. (when you go from 1->2atm->1 in scuba, the dissolved gasses are still mostly equilibrated to 16psi if it's quick, but you have to decomress if you wait long enough at 2atm. )

          Even if you survived the air space expansion, You'd basically have the Bends in few minutes from the dissolved gas release I believe. In addition to the painful pressure they cause, expanded gasses can also do fun stuff like kill nerves.
      • Obviously I don't understand how this thing works or can work.

        I think it's just that you don't understand how lungs work.

        When you inhale you don't inflate your lungs by increasing their volume, like opening a bellows.

        The way you inhale is by lowering the pressure in your chest cavity by means of the diaphragm, which contracts downwards, increasing chest volume. As the pressure in your chest (outside your lungs) decreases, air forces itself into your lungs and inflates them.

        It seems to me that if this thing is mechanically applying 16 PSI in vacuum then it must apply 32 PSI when inside the capsule.

        Yeah, but there's air inside your body pushing out, too, remember. That's what the 16 PSI is there for, in fact - to restrain the gases within your body. That's why the suit has to be pressurized - to push back on the pressures within your body that, normally, the atmosphere will push back against.

        So, inside the capsule, you're facing 32 Psi minus the 16 psi pushing out from inside you, so you're only against the 16 psi tension of the suit. I imagine it's like breathing with an ace bandage (or, like, a bra) around your chest - more difficult but certainly not impossible.

        And secondly even if you solved that, then you still have the problem of the 32 psi pressure making it harder to dissolve gas in your blood, so your cells cant get air or release CO2.

        Higher PSI makes it easier, not harder, to dissolve gases in fluids.

        Finally, I can't see how this works around your head. If the suit is not pressurized then how do you maintain 16psi pressure on the face?

        Big bubble helmet pressurized to 16 psi, like always. I don't see the problem.
      • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Tuesday July 17 2007, @04:25AM (#19885459) Journal
        Well, ignoring for now that atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi, not 16 psi - there's no need for the suit or the occupant to actually be at sea level atmospheric pressure. In fact, it may be undesirable, as it means you need more powerful life support systems - more weight, more complexity.

        The human body is fine at 0.2 atmospheres so long as it's getting enough oxygen. While in the spacecraft without a helmet, with 0.2 atm (less than 4 psi) being pressed against your chest might be uncomfortable, it's not going to kill you.
  • 300 lbs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iluvcapra (782887) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:53PM (#19881441) Homepage

    ...can weigh 300lbs or more...

    Masses 300lbs, weighs nothing, but still no friend of mobility.

    • Re:300 lbs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BigMike1020 (943654) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:00PM (#19881533)

      ...Masses 300lbs...
      Masses 136kg, weighs nothing. Pound is a unit of force, not mass.
    • by A non-mouse Coward (1103675) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:00PM (#19881535)

      Masses 300 lbs, weighs nothing, but still no friend of mobility.
      Somebody who does this for a living will have to back me up (or shut me up), but isn't pounds (as in lbs.) a measurement of weight, as in the English-system unit of mass times the earth's gravitational acceleration, unlike the metric unit, grams, which is strictly-speakly a measurement of mass-only (as in free of gravitational acceleration)?

      And on that note, how is having 300 lbs (or mass-equivalent) less gear going to keep you from hopping off the moon into outerspace forever? Didn't the extra mass come in handy to keep people from flying away?
      • by eln (21727) * on Monday July 16 2007, @05:07PM (#19881637) Homepage

        And on that note, how is having 300 lbs (or mass-equivalent) less gear going to keep you from hopping off the moon into outerspace forever? Didn't the extra mass come in handy to keep people from flying away?
        Actually, the new space suit makes astronauts look sexier, thereby causing the moon to be more attracted to them. This increased attraction makes it less likely they will fly away. Of course, it also means they have to change back into the clunky old fashioned space suits when they want to take off, in order to decrease the Moon's attraction enough to let them go. It also means that the Moon may call them several times a day to try to get them to come back, and may occasionally drift closer to the Earth to get a better look at them, despite the restraining order barring the Moon from getting within 230,000 miles.

        Sure, this seems like a good idea, but it's really not cool to play around with the Moon's emotions like that. No one has visited it in 35 years, and it is getting pretty desperate for attention.
      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:11PM (#19881683) Homepage
        but isn't pounds (as in lbs.) a measurement of weight

        According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "pounds" originally and still may refer to force (weight). However the "pound avoirdupois", avoirdupois being the system used in the United States, is defined to be a measure of mass.

        And on that note, how is having 300 lbs (or mass-equivalent) less gear going to keep you from hopping off the moon into outerspace forever? Didn't the extra mass come in handy to keep people from flying away?

        Escape velocity from the moon is 2.4 km/s. I don't think that merely weighing 1/6th as much as you do on earth would allow you to launch yourself at that speed. The astronauts would be able to leap even farther than they could in the bulky spacesuits, though.
        • You can jump to a possibly more dangerous height without the extra mass/weight, but you'll quickly learn not to.

          Can you? Wouldn't you just land with whatever force you applied at the beginning of the jump? On Earth, I can jump a certain height unloaded and a lesser height while carrying a backpack full of rocks. I'll have farther to fall from the higher jump, but I'll have more mass getting attracted by gravity on the shorter jump. I think they would cancel each other out.

          Or, actually, there might

  • by Glowing Fish (155236) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:54PM (#19881471) Homepage
    The next thing they have to make is a chain metal bikini that can give Elven Warrior Maidens the protection from dragon fire they need.
  • Two thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tgd (2822) on Monday July 16 2007, @04:55PM (#19881487)
    One, how are they going to keep the astronaut warm/cool in it.

    Two, they talk about how its safer if it gets punctured because the hole can just be patched without affecting the rest of the suit. How are you going to puncture it in a way that doesn't puncture, you know... you? Even if the suit doesn't depressurize, it can't be good for your cardiovascular system to have a gaping wound exposed to vacuum or micropressures.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      One, how are they going to keep the astronaut warm/cool in it

      The main advantage of counter-pressure suits would be ditching the gas pressure that makes movement difficult. Additional layers could be added for radiation shielding and temperature/moisture control. As long as the additional layers did not inhibit movement as much as the traditional suit, it would still be a net gain development in the technology.

      Even if the suit doesn't depressurize, it can't be good for your cardiovascular system to have a
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Astronauts run the same risk in today's suits. The difference is with traditional suits, a puncture leads to your blood boiling and a quick asphyxiation from lack of atmosphere. Boy-o.

        Astronauts get into their spacesuits and decompress for quite awhile to a low pressure; about 3 psi if I remember correctly. A complete loss of pressure will not cause any decompression problems at this point. Even without decompression, your blood still would not boil if exposed to a vacuum. Your body maintains enough mech

    • by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday July 16 2007, @05:44PM (#19882009) Homepage Journal
      won't people see the diaper?

      • No it does NOT. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DrYak (748999) on Monday July 16 2007, @06:19PM (#19882269) Homepage

        Particularly since coagulation requires the presence of air in order to occur. Your wound wouldn't clot.


        No, it does NOT.
        If it was the case, you would die from internal bleeding at the slightest shock that would burst the smallest blood vessel.

        Contact to air is only 1 of the huge amount of conditions that can trigger cloting.
        Pretty much anything that isn't healthy un-wounded endothelium (the thing that covers the walls inside of blood vessels) can trigger clotting (thus the problems that can be encountered with prosthetic cardiac valves, or people who have damaged blood vessel walls because of way too much high cholesterol, or additive that are put inside glass container for blood sample handling).
        Bleeding in water is the only case where you don't clot easily. Not because water has some magical properties that prevents clotting, but just because the coagulation factors that are needed for clotting get diluted in the water.

        Back to the case, TFA mentions that bandage should be applied over the suit breach. Some pro-coagulant substance coating the middle of the bandage, where it goes over the hole, should help make sure the wound clots well.
  • Oh No.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MojoRilla (591502) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:00PM (#19881549)
    Welcome to a world where the Fantastic Four [imdb.com] get science right. Nooooooooooooo!
  • by White Shade (57215) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:04PM (#19881599)
    A book called The Millennial project was released several years ago that describes skin-tight space suits in very clear and specific terms, dicussing how a tight material is sufficient to handle the pressure, and how just a chest plate might be useful to provide radiation protection and protection from micrometeors and the like. I believe it described the use of tungsten..

    It's a really interesting book, talks about a lot of other technology, and seems pretty darn reasonable about most of it too.

    http://www.amazon.com/Millennial-Project-Colonizin g-Galaxy-Eight/dp/0316771635 [amazon.com]

  • Air Pressure (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrSteveSD (801820) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:05PM (#19881613)
    You can exert mechanical pressure but the real air pressure inside the suit is going to be zero. That means water is going to boil off. Presumably they have considered that issue.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      You can exert mechanical pressure but the real air pressure inside the suit is going to be zero. That means water is going to boil off. Presumably they have considered that issue.
      Of course -- it's a great way to keep the astronaut cool. Just add water (orally, thank you; like any athlete hydration is essential!)

      If that means "too cool" then a sweater or other insulation should be used. As long as it breaths. Gore-Tex is wonderful stuff.

  • It sure took a while (Score:5, Informative)

    by overshoot (39700) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:07PM (#19881639)
    Back when John Campbell was editor of Analog, one of the "Science Fact" articles proposed that spacesuits could be made of gas-permeable mesh that would let skin do what skin does: selective permeability. (Obviously, some parts such as the head still get air!) Provide pressure support but don't try to create an interior environment, and you eliminate a huge number of the worst design challenges of a spacesuit.

    You also make it a lot less vulnerable to life-threatening damage.

    Chalk up another one for the old Analog, right along with Giant Meteor Impact.

  • by tpr (267368) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:08PM (#19881649) Homepage
    The idea of using mechanical pressure instead of air pressure is not new; quite aside from the fantasies of SF writers through the years there have been serious attempts to make 'spandex spacesuits' before.

    Major problems I've heard of include joint mobility (imagine a tight spandex sleeve - now imagine flexing your arm at the elbow against the resistance of the material) and the sheer unbelievability of the idea for most people. Of course, most of us would look like crap in a tight spandex bodystocking anyway.

    Thermal and radiation protection could be handled much as they are now except that it wouldn't be tied to the pressure vessel aspects of the suit. Imagine rather chunky overalls, for example. I suppose the good news is that the outer parts would then be much more universal, making them easier to manufacture and maintain. You could even store them outside the rather cramped airlock and put them on outside in, say, the shuttle bay.
  • by PhotoGuy (189467) on Monday July 16 2007, @05:36PM (#19881935) Homepage
    "Feels like I'm wearing nothing at all... Nothing at all... Nothing at all..."
  • by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Monday July 16 2007, @06:35PM (#19882387)
    You can't just focus on one aspect of suit design.

    If you do, then, sure, you can optimize the heck to meet your goals, at the expense of everything else. Whopee ding.

    But in the real world, astronauts will be happy to trade off style for function. Especially life-saving functions.

    These spandex suits may look keen, but you've traded away:

    • Cooling and heating. The body has a very narrow temp range that is comfortable. You are not going to be comfortable in spandex with your sunward side near boiling and your shadowed side near absolute zero.
    • Ventilation. People sweat. You need a constant flow of air across the skin to take away the humidity, otherwise it's like wearing all-polyester clothes. Very uncomfortable after five minutes.
    • Speed of access. If your craft springs a leak it might be crucial to be able to do this stuff in a hurry. Ever try putting on a wet swimsuit when you're already wet?
    • Joints. If the elbows are not constant-volume, you waste energy bendig your elbows. oops.
    • RTFA (Score:4, Informative)

      by overshoot (39700) on Monday July 16 2007, @07:25PM (#19882705)

      * Cooling and heating. The body has a very narrow temp range that is comfortable. You are not going to be comfortable in spandex with your sunward side near boiling and your shadowed side near absolute zero.
      Ahem. Vacuum is a wonderful insulator. Your sunward side gets only a little more sun than it does at the beach, and that's assuming you don't have a (nonpressurized) reflective layer to minimize radiative transfer. The opposite side doesn't radiate that much more than it does on a clear night, same comment about screening.

      * Ventilation. People sweat. You need a constant flow of air across the skin to take away the humidity, otherwise it's like wearing all-polyester clothes. Very uncomfortable after five minutes.
      Air? We don't need no steenking air! Has it occurred to you that several light-years of vacuum is about as good as it gets in terms of removing bodily outgassing? (Yes, that includes flatulence. No more jokes about "as funny as a fart in a vac suit.")

      * Speed of access. If your craft springs a leak it might be crucial to be able to do this stuff in a hurry. Ever try putting on a wet swimsuit when you're already wet?
      In an emergency with the current suits, you're screwed. They aren't exactly quick-on devices either.

      * Joints. If the elbows are not constant-volume, you waste energy bendig your elbows. oops.
      Most of the problem from current suits comes from the fact that they aren't form-fitting. Your elbow is already constant-volume, after all. It's that layer of (pressurized) air around it that makes the suit so tiring to work in.
      • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by goodmanj (234846) on Tuesday July 17 2007, @12:56AM (#19884655)

        Ahem. Vacuum is a wonderful insulator. Your sunward side gets only a little more sun than it does at the beach, and that's assuming you don't have a (nonpressurized) reflective layer to minimize radiative transfer. The opposite side doesn't radiate that much more than it does on a clear night, same comment about screening.
        No. On a clear night, your body is radiating infrared energy with an effective temperature of 310 Kelvin, and the ground beneath you and the air above you is radiating infrared energy right back with an effective temperature of 250-300 K. In interplanetary space, the void around you radiates infrared energy back at you with an effective temperature near absolute zero K. (closer to 3k, but who's counting.) And the emitted energy goes like the fourth power of the temperature: this is a huge, huge difference. But it's easy to solve this the same way our current spacesuits solve it: several layers of reflective mylar film with vacuum between them, which reduce outgoing infrared to a manageable level.

        Air? We don't need no steenking air! Has it occurred to you that several light-years of vacuum is about as good as it gets in terms of removing bodily outgassing?
        I'd say the problem is more likely the other way around: losing too *much* water vapor. Vacuum has a humidity of zero; even worse, air provides a diffusive boundary layer which tends to trap water near the surface of the skin: the air molecules get in the way of the water molecules trying to escape. For skin within a porous fabric suit exposed to vacuum, evaporation is going to be far worse than the worst desert conditions imaginable on Earth.

        OK, you say, I'll just make sure to bring along some moisturizing lotion. There's another problem. A space suit of this type is basically a bottle of fixed volume. Suppose I take a 100-liter bottle and fill it with 95 liters of water plus a ziploc baggie containing 5 liters of air -- the 5 liters of air represents the astronaut's lung volume. Now, it's quite common for a hard-working person to lose a liter of water an hour through perspiration and respiration. Say we double that for the reasons given above. After an hour of hard work, the 100-liter bottle representing our space suit now holds 93 liters of water, and so must hold 7 liters of air. Uh-oh! our baggie can't hold that much air, and ruptures.

        I'm overstating the case a little bit, but the point remains that in a constant-volume suit like this, with no air space, any change in body volume, via perspiration, drinking, urination or defacation, comes at the expense of lung volume. If you don't keep things perfectly balanced, you don't get to breathe. On the longer term, if the astronaut goes off his diet and gains say 5 pounds of fat, that's 2-3 fewer liters of lung volume, and again, the astronaut can't breathe. They always said those twinkies would kill ya...

  • by shish (588640) on Monday July 16 2007, @07:04PM (#19882571) Homepage

    Just a few weeks back there was some anime / subliminal propoganda [shishnet.org] sponsored by the japanese equivalent of NASA, and they had suits which looked just like that [shishnet.org] :O

    (That series also introduced me to reverse polish calculators [shishnet.org], and it's true, I can no longer stand to use a regular calculator; RPN just seems so much more elegant...)

    • I thought most of the problems are because the spacesuit needs to insulate against the heat and cold, and protect from radiation?

      Heat and cold you handle with a reflective cover (yup, silver foil! another SF tradition upheld.)

      Heat especially is actually easier since human skin has built-in evaporative cooling. Can't beat vacuum for insulation. Most of the heating/cooling problems of current suits are self-inflicted by their bulky closed designs.

      Radiation? Nothing shorter than UV is going to be s