Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology NASA Moon Space

NASA Awards Contract For Spacesuit of the Future 61

Posted by Soulskill from the new-threads-to-go-with-the-new-ride dept.
Guillermo brings news that NASA has awarded a contract for the development of the next generation of space suits for future use by astronauts in the Constellation program. The contract calls for two different levels of protection; a flexible, lightweight model for operations inside vehicles and stations, and a tougher, bulkier model built off the first for use on the moon. We've discussed spacesuit design (and what happens without them) in the past. "Suits and support systems will be needed for as many as four astronauts on moon voyages and as many as six space station travelers. For short trips to the moon, the suit design will support a week's worth of moon walks. The system also must be designed to support a significant number of moon walks during potential six-month lunar outpost expeditions. In addition, the spacesuit and support systems will provide contingency spacewalk capability and protection against the launch and landing environment, such as spacecraft cabin leaks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Awards Contract For Spacesuit of the Future More

NASA Awards Contract For Spacesuit of the Future

Comments Filter:

  • Space suit of the future! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Idimmu Xul ( 204345 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @12:54PM (#23781969) Homepage Journal

    Space suit of the past more like!

    Seriously, come back when we have sexy [typepad.com] space suits! [techeblog.com]

    --
    Free Playstation 3, XBox 360 and Nintendo Wii [free-toys.co.uk]

  • i always wondered (Score:4, Funny)

    by ionix5891 ( 1228718 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @01:08PM (#23782199)
    what happens in them suits you know when one gets an itch?
  • Seriously, why spend all the money to design a new space suit, when all they can come up with is what we already have. Same bubble shaped head. Same giant backpack.

    NASA managed to waste several million dollars, and paid someone to give us what we already had. Oh, but I guess the artists drawings give it a pretty blue color...
    • I agree. However, I think the new ones can be used more times before they have to be discarded. (just a guess)

    • Re:Looks like our existing space suits (Score:5, Informative)

      by iamlucky13 ( 795185 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @02:12PM (#23783183)

      Seriously, why spend all the money to design a new space suit, when all they can come up with is what we already have. Same bubble shaped head. Same giant backpack. NASA managed to waste several million dollars, and paid someone to give us what we already had. Oh, but I guess the artists drawings give it a pretty blue color...

      I don't really agree with modding this down. It's a mostly fair question, albeit rather snide and ignorant. He might as well ask why Boeing would bother designing the new 787, since it has the same round engines and is roughly the same size as planes they already build. Form follows function, but that doesn't tell you much about what's inside.

      This really is not very much like the current suits. NASA currently has two models:

      The first is the Advanced Crew Escape Suit, or ACES (I always like the fact that it shared its acronym with a type of ejection seat). This is not really a space suit, but a cross between a pressure suit and an ocean-survival suit. It's designed for escape protection up to about 50,000 feet and includes a parachute, 30 minutes of oxygen, a simple cooling system, and a survival pack with a radio and life raft. It weighs about 80 pounds.

      The second is the Extravehicular Mobility Unit, or EMU. This 200 pound suit is practically a one-man spacecraft with 8 hours of life support, attachments for a cold-gas rescue jetpack, and even micrometeorite protection and glove heaters (hands can get pretty cold during the 45 minute orbital night periods). These suits are designed for long 0g operations, not walking on the moon. They're definite overkill (too bulky and heavy) for launch, landing, and quick transfers between vehicles, and not well-suited for walking on the moon. They're also quite hard to manuever in.

      The Apollo EVA suits are a little outdated and no longer available. They were also pretty awkward.

      This new suit will provide more protection than the ACES in the first configuration, and more versatility and hopefully flexibility than the EMU in the second configuration.

    • Re:Looks like our existing space suits (Score:5, Informative)

      by confused one ( 671304 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @03:04PM (#23783923)
      Because the design of the current NASA suit dates to Apollo. It turns out that it does not have enough flexibility, the Apollo astronaughts had difficulty performing certain tasks. The new suit design is supposed to increase flexibility and dexterity.

      • the Apollo astronaughts had difficulty performing certain tasks.
        Well, I can forgive them that - it's hard to expect the absence of anything to do anything for you, regardless of whether it's in space or not.

  • Major Matt Mason type suit (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slashname3 ( 739398 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @01:17PM (#23782347)
    Doesn't that look an awful lot like the Major Matt Mason suits from the 70's? Maybe they had space flight and the Moon vehicles right way back then. Can't wait to see the crawler.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Matt_Mason [wikipedia.org]

    • Hah, thanks very much for that link. Just yesterday I was thinking back to the neat astronaut toys I had when I was a kid, circa 1973. They were rubber over a flexible metal frame. I don't remember having any accessories other than helmets for them - certainly not all the nifty stuff shown in the picture in the wikipedia article - so maybe my parents got them for me second-hand or something.

    • Doesn't that look an awful lot like the Major Matt Mason suits from the 70's? Maybe they had space flight and the Moon vehicles right way back then. Can't wait to see the crawler.

      God!!! I had the whole set when I was a kid. I had my ray pistol and would set up a complete moon base in the backyard. Mom almost killed me when I dug up a corner of the yard so I could create a moon-scape. But, this is the same mom that made me an Apollo control panel out of cardboard so I could lay on the bottom bunk of my bed and play with the panel above my head like I was going to the moon.

      Anyway, I lost the Major and couldn't find him, I'm think it was in 1970. Because the next summer, '71, was the first summer I could use the power mower. I was rounding the corner by the back fence and pieces of Major Matt Mason went flying out from under the mower. America had lost a hero, and Oxnard, CA contains the grave of one rubber bendy spaceman doll. RIP Major Matt Mason, the moon is your monument./P

  • Why not make it look like a Star Fleet uniform from TNG? Captain has four filled dots, 1st officer has three, etc. And a communicator that you sometimes have to touch in order to speak, and other times not, for who knows what reasons.
    • And a communicator that you sometimes have to touch in order to speak, and other times not, for who knows what reasons.

      If they didn't have to touch it, then that means the channel was already open. Which means five minutes before you saw him use his communicator without touching it, the bridge got to listen to Captain Picard heave a havana.
  • Which is the shit (sorry), why was this the first think I thought of...
    Gozer: The Choice is made!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Whoa! Ho! Ho! Whoa-oa!
    Gozer: The Traveller has come!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Nobody choosed anything!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Did you choose anything?
    Dr. Egon Spengler: No.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: [to Winston] Did YOU?
    Winston Zeddemore: My mind is totally blank.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: *I* didn't choose anything...
    Dr Ray Stantz: I couldn't help it. It just popped in there.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: [angrily] Wh

  • There's a problem with your browser.

    This site offers visitors an exciting, engaging interactive experience that takes advantage of the capabilities available through the most commonly used Web browsers. If you're seeing this message, you may be using a web browser that has since been updated and may want to consider obtaining the latest version.

    < Find out how to obtain updated Web browsers
    Hey, NASA, my User-Agent string is telling you I'm using a browser version that hasn't been released yet. How about you quit trying to guess what browser I'm using and assume that if it's not Internet Explorer it's Just Going To Work?

    (If you actually need Internet Explorer, now, then you've got an even bigger problem)
    • Using Firefox 3? How about you try enabling JavaScript (or allowing nasa.gov in NoScript) and then you'll see that it works just fine, thankyouverymuch.

      Thanks,
      NASA

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by argent ( 18001 )
        Using Camino, latest build, no paranoid javascript/ad/cookie blocking, thank you very much.

        User Agent is either the original, or one that says I'm using a higher version of Netscape than was ever released (to convince some other asshole website that they ought to let me play).

        It's not about me. It's about "grepping the user agent string for specific browsers is just plain stupid".

        • It's not about me. It's about "grepping the user agent string for specific browsers is just plain stupid".

          I agree. But that there are enough things that work differently between IE and browsers that are more standards-compliant that you have to make special allowances for them.

          Really, everyone should just code their pages so that they are W3C compliant, but people just don't seem to want to screw rendering up for a browser with 70% of the market share.

          • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

            by argent ( 18001 )
            But that there are enough things that work differently between IE and browsers that are more standards-compliant that you have to make special allowances for them.

            I think you have that backwards. You make special allowances for the one that's the exception.

    • To be precise: (Score:3, Informative)

      by argent ( 18001 )
      "function detectBrowserClass(modern)" does stuff like "if (nAgent.indexOf('Netscape') !=-1) { var strIndex = nAgent.indexOf('Netscape'); this.version = nAgent.substring((strIndex + 9), (strIndex + 12)); this.browser = 'netscape';}" and "var detectBrowser = new detectBrowserClass({'opera': 9,'safari': 2,'firefox': 1.5,'ie': 6});".

      Why on earth are you even looking at "Netscape" if it's not in your class list?

      Your test is going to fail on any non-Firefox Gecko-based browsers, Shiira or other non-Safari Webkit-
  • $300 million for a spacesuit? Seriously? You know the first person to try it on is going to tear a big hole in it. Do'h!

    • Re:A tad overpriced? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bughunter ( 10093 ) <bughunter.earthlink@net> on Friday June 13, 2008 @02:19PM (#23783289) Journal
      $300M is the contract value for option 1, and it's spread over 5 years -- mind you, that's the price to design, validate, and test it -- it is not the cost of a suit. Adding in option 2, and you get a tad over $560M. Furthermore, Option 2 is an "ID/IQ" contract, meaning that NASA is not obligated to actually give them a dime unless they feel like it.

      From looking at the concept, I'd make a SWAG order of magnitude estimate of $2M for the "per suit" recurring cost. Wouldn't be surprised if that is as high as $10M, though, especially by 2012.

      Considering the cost of one F-22 Raptor ($62Gig NRE, $140Meg recurring) [wikipedia.org], I think it's quite affordable. We could buy just one less F-22 and it would pay for an adequate supply of Lunar suits.

  • Gaaah, I actually wanted to know who'd been awarded it, and I needed to RTFA to find out..

    "The subcontractors to Oceaneering are Air-Lock Inc. of Milford, Conn., David Clark Co. of Worcester, Mass., Cimarron Software Services Inc. of Houston, Harris Corporation of Palm Bay, Fla., Honeywell International Inc. of Glendale, Ariz., Paragon Space Development Corp. of Tucson, Ariz., and United Space Alliance of Houston."
  • It would be nice to see some of the more recent advances in materials science, of which there have been many since the 1970s when the last prototypes were built, applied to the Space Activity Suit [wikipedia.org] concept. It really does offer some rather compelling advantages over the rigid body and fixed volume suits currently in use.

  • the suit design will support a week's worth of moon walks
    • 1955. Bill Bailey
    • 1969. Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin
    • 1984. Michael Jackson, Motown 25
    • 2020. ????
    • (????. Profit!*)


    What wonderful times we live.

    * Sorry. The post kinda fell into the pattern and I couldn't help myself. I'll get my coat.
  • At least we've finally come to realize that astronauts do in fact need a cup on the outside of their gear, just like Storm Troopers.

  • The two configurations (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tetsujin ( 103070 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @03:44PM (#23784529) Homepage Journal
    For those who haven't yet read the article, it breaks down like this.

    The first configuration is lightweight and flexible - giving just the protection one needs to survive and operate in a vacuum. It is great for closed environments where there's less risk of dust contamination, cosmic radiation, etc. It is commonly referred to as the "normal suit"

    The second type is known as the "mobile suit" - it provides substantially more protection in harsh environments, plus a comprehensive mobility package. It will work as an outer layer covering the normal suit.
    • Is the second type faster to don? Current suits require a considerable amount of effort and assistance to get operational.

  • We need Flash Gordon designers (Score:4, Funny)

    by smellsofbikes ( 890263 ) on Friday June 13, 2008 @05:15PM (#23785807) Journal
    Where the suits are slim, flexible, with lots of gold trim, and sport snazzy built-in guns.

    And the suits for women are, inexplicably, 80% transparent.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close