Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

NASA Engineers Work on New Spacesuits 105

Posted by Hemos from the avoiding-diaper-jokes dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.

NASA Engineers Work on New Spacesuits More

NASA Engineers Work on New Spacesuits

Comments Filter:

  • Fishbowl helmets yet? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:30AM (#18486551)
    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 [amazon.com] ). This nonsense about a white helmet with just a gold visor is making millions of children apathetic to the space program.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by imikem ( 767509 )
      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
      • I read an article awhile ago that was about how NASA had actually gotten in touch with the team who designed the prop spacesuits for e.g. Armageddon for that very reason. Looking at the pictures in the article, it seems that that plan didn't really go anywhere.

        It's too bad, because I agree with you. Although personally my favourite were the ones in 2001/2010.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kelbear ( 870538 )
        Well, posts farther down on this article make remarks about skintight suits, even one imagining a spray-on suit.

        Toss in well-toned female astronauts, and you've go lots, and lots of captured imagination for NASA.

    • Re:Fishbowl helmets yet? (Score:5, Funny)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @09:38AM (#18487155) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ChrisA90278 ( 905188 )
        "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 t

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by orgelspieler ( 865795 )

          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....

      • Actually the suit pictured in the article doesn't look like it would eliminate peripheral vision. In the second image the cut of the "collar" on the suit doesn't look like it would encompass the head. Rather it looks like it would cup the head had an angle with the top part covering the back of the head and tapering down in front of the ears to the neck. While this isn't a full transparent-aluminum bubble it would allow for a greater degree of peripheral vision than present suits assuming that the remain

    • Re:Fishbowl helmets yet? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @11:45AM (#18488509) Homepage
      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? (Score:5, Funny)

        by CrazedWalrus ( 901897 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:22PM (#18488981) Journal

        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? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @12:36PM (#18489201) Homepage
        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.
        • The skin tight suit is something I've heard of before. I think a professor at MIT is working on one of those. It's called a biosuit and although it's not finished yet, it was on display at the Nextfest Convention last year. The only problem is, it's easy to rip and you need to have a full body scan just so you can get a suit. It's really promising because of its interchangeable parts though. This site should have something on that. http://www.eeexperience.com/ [eeexperience.com]
          • The skintight leotard spacesuit was proposed back in the heady days of the seventies (L5! Solar solar power sats! VTAL shuttles!) and was prominently used in Niven and Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye". So some work was done by NASA and others before that book was published -- Pournelle has long been a astronautics consultant, and put in in the book. But budget cuts made everything die.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by robinsc ( 84714 )
          Plus it would match what betazoid cousellors in star trek are wearing ! :)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by tknn ( 675865 )
        Why not have a spray-on pressure suit then? You just coat yourself in a disposable flexible material that shrinks slightly when it dries? Peel it off or dissolve it somehow when you are done... A fishbowl helmet would be awesome though.

      • 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).


        Am I the only one who thought of Batman's cape when reading this?

  • Liquid Oxygen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:33AM (#18486571) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • New LOX-fuelled vacuum flask wearing overlords. Let me be the first to write it. However, would it really be wise to use something like this? At least compressed gas involves only relatively straightforward mechanical design, well proven over many generations. Portable cryogenics look like an interesting engineering design too far. If, which is admittedly totally improbable, I were to have to depend on one of these things, I would want to know I was relying on an extremely mature technology.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jimstapleton ( 999106 )
      You know what would be even better than that, at least if you asked the astronauts?

      In-suit coffee makers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconeu ( 64226 )
        Probably not, because that increases the problem of urine removal!

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Moofie ( 22272 )
          Well, you need cooling fluid too, right? There's your solution!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ced_Ex ( 789138 )
            Most urine comes out pretty warm.

            You can test this fact sitting right where you are. Just relax... and let it go... that's it. See! Warm, isn't it?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by PPH ( 736903 )
          That's not a problem. NASA has made some significant advances in diaper technology lately.

      • In-suit coffee makers.

        Actually, compared to the other problems faced when designing a space suit, that seems trivial.

        There was a low-tech solution for allowing SCUBA divers to drink fresh water/juice while diving to avoid dehydration that basically involved a sealed bag and a straw (though those seem to be frowned upon by serious divers). I'd say something like that could be easily adopted for usage inside a space suit, but it would make far more sense to me to see to such problems as coffee/food/wate

        • There was a low-tech solution for allowing SCUBA divers to drink fresh water/juice while diving to avoid dehydration that ba/sically involved a sealed bag and a straw (though those seem to be frowned upon by serious divers).

          Apollo suits for the long duration EVAs had a drink bag and straw which worked most of the time. All the suits had a one way valve in the helmet which you could use to squirt water into the mouth from a water gun. Air would leak out while the gun was in the valve, but you would be less

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dr. Eggman ( 932300 )
      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 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'
        • I would expect the easiest way to reverse the reaction is the same as on Earth: photosynthesis. Green plants converting CO2 to oxygen. It's not alway going to be practical, but I would bet its feasable in some applications. If not, some kind of electricty driven reaction fueled by a photocell/battery combination or in gravitational environments (Moon, Mars, etc) perhaps some kind of kinetic generator, like the kind found in some watches, only on a larger scale.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 )
        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

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )
          Well... getting C is a little bit harder, but CH4 (which a spaceship may well want more than C) is reasonable. This could then be dissociated with high temperatures into C and H2 if that was preferable for some reason. CO2 + 4H2 => CH4 + 2H2O with a nickel or ruthenium on alumina catalyst via the Sabatier process (high temperature, high pressure) would do the trick. Of course, as you note, that's not exactly small or low power ;) Of course, to get the CO2 isolated, you'll need to scrub it with the mo
          • The efficiency of plants doesn't really matter as much; they're still our main source of food. You'd be able to supply sufficient solar energy to your hydroponic* bay on a mars trip rather trivialy, whereas creating a solar array to generate the necessary power to split CO2 would be a difficult tasking. At least with the hydroponics you'd be serving a double purpose-CO2&H2O scrubbing and generation of additional food for the journey.

            You're right about methane production, though most uses of it would

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rei ( 128717 )
              You think it's trivial to use something that's so horribly inefficient (and even less space efficient) to scrub your CO2 and create oxygen when launch costs just to LEO are thousands of dollars per kilogram? I'm not sure why you'd think that.
              • Ummm... Because you'd not only get rid of your scrubbers and bottles* but a good bit of food storage?

                Please note that in my context any sort of CO2 splitting by mechanical or biological means only comes into play for extremely long duration space habitation. The trip to Mars, the establishment of a moonbase, etc... Nothing less than 6 months between resupplies, preferably into the years.

                I'd imagine that you'd be able to create a hydroponics bay fairly easily, whether you use direct exposure or some sort o

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Rei ( 128717 )
                  And you'd have the additional challenge of keeping the plants alive. Want to produce the variety of fertilizers that plants need to grow *in space*?

                  Hydroponics is not just "seed + water + carbon dioxide + light".
                  • Plants don't actually need a wide variety of fertilizers to grow, especially if you select the right ones. They do need trace minerals, but that's far more compact than bulk food storage.

                    Besides, I'd envisioned it being a mostly complete recycling solution; most of the fertalizer would be obtained from traditional sources, though treated to prevent disease spread.

                    Hydroponics is not just "seed + water + carbon dioxide + light".

                    Duh... But you should be able to recycle just about everything else you need.

                    I'l

                    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                      by Rei ( 128717 )
                      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 a
                    • If you go back to one of my earlier posts, you'll see that I mention that the 'hydroponics' might not actually be such. They may still end up using some sort of potting material, and I've seen some fascinating research on aereoponics, where the roots aren't even placed in water.

                      Yes, there are many complications, which is why I'd love to see some more serious research on it. A test module on the ISS, for example.

                      This single mix will work fine... for a while. However, the soluable ion ratios get messed up b
    • But it should allow for easy recharge. And this time, have the rover carry lots of power and O2. Once you do that, then you can extend the trips. Keep in mind that weight does not matter in space (the bulk and ease of moving around does). Of course, on the planet, the weight does matter. But I think that a requirement that says that I am within an hour of my rover is probably not a big deal.
    • Should be easy to have a Dewer flask in space. Just have a hole between the cylinders opening to the outside and let the vacuum of space take care of things.

  • FTFA... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mizled ( 1000175 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:41AM (#18486617) Homepage

    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... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tygerstripes ( 832644 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:42AM (#18486623)
    To quote the tragically-underexposed '80s BBC film-noir-in-space show Star Cops [imdb.com], 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:46AM (#18486651) Homepage

    Wven with the current USD-Sterling exchange rate.

    Wait... did you mean that it "weighs" 39.2857 cloves [clara.net]?

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

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

    • Wven with the...
      Maybe you shouldn't use welsh on what is a primarily english forum?
      • I typed an E on a Metric keyboard, but Slashdot's Imperial software rotated it 90 degrees. I mean. PI/2 radians.
    • At first I thought this was just another joke.. But I am confused on the 275Lbs. being the"weight" on earth or moon. Here giving a value for the suite mass would actually make much more sense.

  • Yes but . . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by scottennis ( 225462 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:50AM (#18486679) Homepage
    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.)

  • No User Servicable Parts Inside (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @09:14AM (#18486891)

    [...] 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timster ( 32400 )
      My modern $15 portable radio from walmart is more high-tech than radios of the 1940s, and requires much less maintenance.

      • My modern $15 portable radio from walmart is more high-tech than radios of the 1940s

        ...and will happily fail a couple of days later at the most critically important moment.

        What costs in NASA equipment is not only the tech or maintenance of it, but all the certifications that make sure that critical equipment won't fail unexpectedly at the worse possible time.
        And the space suit seems to be one of those things that must have redundancy and extremely low and predictable failure rate.

      • So as soon as you can get a space suit at Walmart (the one they'll build on Mars) we should be set.

    • Re:No User Servicable Parts Inside (Score:4, Informative)

      by GospelHead821 ( 466923 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @10:40AM (#18487761)
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Thuktun ( 221615 )

      [...] 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 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Miamicanes ( 730264 )
    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

    • Re:Mars hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gruturo ( 141223 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @09:34AM (#18487113)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by First Person ( 51018 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @10:06AM (#18487441)

        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 [wikipedia.org].

        • 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

          • ...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

            "We've got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it, what sort of image it has for them."
            The crowd were tense. They were expecting something wonderful from Ford [Prefect].
            "Stick it up your nose," he said.
            "Which is precisely

        • 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.

          You might be surprised to learn, if you actually read the article you linked to, that space activity suits are largely the stuff of fiction. Hardly any research has been done on them, and zero development.

        • Human skin is fairly resistant to vacuum. Abrasion, radiation protection, thermal insulation are more important considerations

          We may not survive as long as space lichen [slashdot.org] or Mir fungus [slashdot.org], but data compiled by the Nasa [nasa.gov] shows that humans can survive deep space vacuum for a short period of time. Skin is elastic enough to keep the bod fluid from instantly exploding/vaporizing.

          To quote the NASA link :

          If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute of so is unlikely to produce permanent in

        • Huh. I wrote most of that article about three years ago, after reading a description of the suit in Kings of the High Frontier and finding out that it was based on actual research. I was going to post a comment here linking to it, but a variety of people beat me to the punch.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Miamicanes ( 730264 )
      > 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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      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 th

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 )
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by J05H ( 5625 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @09:28AM (#18487043)
    "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
    • Maybe their new "suit" is actually a suite? Kind of like how a regular suit has multiple pieces suitable for outdoors and indoors? you know a jacket, shirt, vest and maybe an overcoat for those in cold climates.

      NASA could easily have in mind a suit that is component oriented for multiple environments.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by J05H ( 5625 )
        The new suit does sound like a suite, so to speak. From the photos it doesn't incorporate an MCP undersuit, which I think is critical for Mars. MCP and constant-volume balloon suits are incompatible, both on the "skin" layer and in the life support system (they have different requirements, generally). For the article it sounds like they will be swapping backpacks and possibly torso segments per task. It still doesn't make the new suits quite right for Mars, but they should work on the moon. Still wouldn't w
    • Martian gravity is 1/3 of Earth wheras the Moon is 1/6, so looks like they've got to shed 50% weight right out of the box...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by J05H ( 5625 )
        My concern is more for Mars, Lunar exploration will probably continue with heavy balloon suits. Even at .38G a 100lb (earth mass) suit is going to wear heavily after 6-8 hours, enough that simulated suit studies on Devon Island always point to mass reduction as priority #1.

  • Who needs new shuttles? (Score:4, Funny)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @09:40AM (#18487181) Homepage
    1. Have spacesuit
    2. Wander around on Earth until ETs pick them up
    3. Will travel!

  • AIAA covered this a year ago (Score:3, Informative)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @10:16AM (#18487523) Homepage Journal
    For those who are interested, the AIAA covered this [aiaa.org] [PDF] in the July 2006 issue of Aerospace America.
  • This is a boondoggle in search of a problem because let's face facts, kids, manned spaceflight will come to an end with the end of the ISS program. We're not going back to the moon, we're not going to Mars. End of story. They might as well spend their effort building protective shelters for the 140 degree earth we'll have to live on soon.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rs232 ( 849320 )
      'manned spaceflight will come to an end with the end of the ISS'

      The trouble is that an Astronaut in a spacesuit can't actually do a lot. For an example, put on a pair of boxing gloves and try and wire a three pin plug.

      --

      Malda: why are my posts stuck in pending for ages ..
    • Ah, yes, the end is coming! You must Confess your Sins to the Goracle before it is Too Late! REPENT ALL YEE SINNERS!!!

      Seriously, how 'bout 20 years from now I look you up and cook you a nice dinner of "Incontinent Truth" DVD's, and paper printouts of your comment?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gelfling ( 6534 )
        It's not that Global Warming is a particularly real or interesting problem or not. It's just an example. But the fact remains that the public, and their government are no longer interested in manned spaceflight, there is no wider mission. Republicans and their ilk as well as trust fund liberals all love to point to NASA as the biggest waste of money in the world, as if 40% of the cost of one B-2 bomber is going to save all the white/brown straight/gay rich/poor people. No - face facts - when the ISS ends we
        • I guess you haven't been paying attention - not only is manned space flight not 10 years in the future, we've actually been doing it for about 4 decades now.

          As to "the public, and their government" not being interested in spaceflight, that's just nonsense. Bush has ordered NASA to get a new moon program rolling. The Chinese want to land a man on the moon. The EU has it's own space agency now. Space programs world-wide may only be growing at a slow rate, but they ARE growing. I don't know where you're g

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gelfling ( 6534 )
            MANNED spaceflight. Decreasing interest is obvious. Too expensive and not enough nationalistic pride generated as a result.
            • Wait until the first Chinese Taikonaut lands on the Moon, or (god forbid) Mars, and plants a big red flag while another one holds and aims the HD video camera that's uplinking via 2 or 3 satellites to every major TV network on Earth. I guarantee you'll see a resurgence of American nationalism-driven space exploration on a scale that hasn't existed since the 1960s.

              All kidding aside, I hope the Chinese openly claim ownership of a chunk or two of the moon and/or Mars while they're at it (say, a hundred square

  • I've seen other articles where they explain that human skin is airtight enough to survive space exposure, it just doesn't stand up to the negative pressure very well.

    Why not simply have several layers of suit based upon the needs of the situation.

    • EVA: Pressure suit, Heavy Life Support, Radiation Insulation, Temperature Insulation, zero G equipment
    • Moon: Pressure suit, Heavy Life Support, Radiation Insulation, Temperature Insulation, Low G equipment
    • Mars: Pressure suit, Light Life Support, Heavy Cold Temp
  • so I could give a damn.
  • I bet we end up seeing the same weight, or maybe more, but to counteract the suit NASA will incorporate some sort of motors or something to make the suit easier to use. Kinda like an exoskeleton.
  • crazy Nasa pilot[tes] can fit into my space suit? And is there a back door?
  • Why the hell are we even bothering with putting so much effort into spacesuits? The vast majority of our EVAs are in space right now, rather than on the moon or any other body. Since most of space is uninteresting, those EVAs tend to occur only a short distance outside of the spacecraft or station that the astronaut has just been aboard. This being the case, I suggest that rather than remove people from the relative safety and comfort of their craft, sticking them into restrictive, uncomfortable suits just

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close