World Space Walk Simultaneously Puts Three Mars-Capable Spacesuits To the Test 39
Zothecula writes "On October 8, three teams in various parts of the world participated in an unprecedented simultaneous test of three experimental spacesuits. Coordinated from a mission control center in Innsbruck, Austria run by the Austrian Space Forum (OeWF), World Space Walk 2013 aims at setting standards for developing suits for the future exploration of the planet Mars."
That's great... (Score:1)
now all we have to do is get there.
Not sure why 3 needed to be tested simultaneously either other then to say look at us we have 3 Mars spacesuits (and no way to get to Mars).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As a supporter of and somewhat-participant in the commercial space industry, I would prefer the term 'infant' to 'infantile' - the connotations are entirely different. :)
OTOH, it's true there are some in this industry (as in all industries) with a big too much hope and not quite enough reason! The public image of space, especially as presented in the media, has encouraged people think that it's really not rocket science any more. My great hope is that commercial space efforts will take the ball away from
Re:That's great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe NASA can pay the Russians to ferry them to Mars.
Baby steps (Score:5, Insightful)
Another important experiment that we need to perform - and that somehow never gets talked about - is radiation proofing an interplanetary spaceship. The only reason we can leave people in orbit for extensive periods is because they are within enough of the Earth's electromagnetic field to be protected from the bulk of solar radiation, making it easier to shield. The biggest obstacle in going to Mars will likely prove to be shielding a spacecraft from extreme radiation over the long transit time.
Re:Baby steps (Score:4, Interesting)
The biggest obstacle in going to Mars will likely prove to be shielding a spacecraft from extreme radiation over the long transit time.
You need mass with protons in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think the term you're looking for is brehmsstralung. No chance of misspelling that. ;-)
Re:Baby steps (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Build the spaceship on the Moon - plenty of mass for shielding and fuel on the moon (use sunlight to extract water and separate into H2 & O2).
Get the basic structure and fuel into Linar orbit, and mate with components from Earth. Only rocket engines and some minimal control & guidance stuff would have to get from Earth to the Moon's surface.
The crew for the voyage to Mars would join in Lunar orbit.
You would a few people on the Moon to oversee construction, but a lot of the hard work could be automa
Re: (Score:3)
zeppelins got nothing on space-poo: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/mars-mission-to-use-astronaut-feces-as-radiation-shield/article4471834.ece [thehindubusinessline.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you put it that way, it makes me disappointed that most radiation shielding consists of really heavy metals (and/or plastic; remember kids, shield your beta emitters properly!) and not giant zeppelins. That would be so much cooler. Yes. Zeppelins.
You could combine the two approaches, but I'm not sure that Jimmy Page would appreciate being used that way. At least Bonzo won't complain too much.
Re: (Score:3)
The mass has been estimated in the hundreds of tons: wiki [wikipedia.org]
The propellant mass required to accelerate it to a Mars transfer orbit will be pretty enormous, but maybe not impossibly large, especially if we use reusable rockets to get it into Earth orbit. I wonder if the majority of the acceleration could be done over a multi-year time frame using ion engines, and then the Mars transfer spacecraft docks with the crew capsule and puts in the rest of the delta-V using chemical engines. In any case, this shielded
Re: (Score:2)
The propellant mass required to accelerate it to a Mars transfer orbit will be pretty enormous
No reason the propellant couldn't be part of the radiation shield mass. After all, you will need some propellant, if you plan to land anything on Mars larger than a small rover.
So it's a one-way shielded trip to Mars.
Unless you produce propellant on Mars or Phobos for the return trip.
It might even be possible to send the return spacecraft (unmanned) on a large looping orbit that upon intersecting Mars changes into a fast Mars-Earth transfer orbit.
Buzz Aldrin called this the Mars cycler [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, a more practical shielded spacecraft will likely be a cycler, so it would be used for both the forward and return trips. We would need to develop the technology for docking in solar orbit rather than Earth orbit, which I imagine has much less error margin.
Even though these space transportation techniques seem feasible, it is just so unlikely that we'll do any of it given the current political climate. Even a mission to a near-Earth asteroid seems unlikely. Is the argument that manned space fight is a
Is it really a space suit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Summary (Score:1)
tl;dr version - you have two amateur groups and one university group re-creating basic experiments first performed at least forty plus years ago in space suit simulators that don't appear to have any notable fidelity.
I fail to see the point.
Re: (Score:3)
Technology has now gotten good enough that amateur and university groups can do this type of work. You don't think that's cool? I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Amateur and university groups have been doing this in the past. One group that I do think is impressive is this effort by Copenhagen Suborbitals [youtube.com], as they are motivated by real world constraints and the fact they are going to put this spacesuit around a person who actually will be in the vacuum of space.
While it is certainly a technology that needs to be developed in order to actually get into space, it is hardly the most important thing. If they were showing how to make spacesuits on the cheap (like the C
Re: (Score:2)
"Technology" has been good enough to dress up in space suit costumes for decades. It's only recently that amateur and university groups have arrived at the mistaken conclusion that doing so represents anything useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, naive one. The point is to maintain NASA's funding.
Uggly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Air pressure (Score:2)
1. Radiation shielding.
2. Atmospheric pressure.
3. Decent air supply
4. Range of motion as dicta
Re: (Score:2)
IANA suit expert, but it seems to me that for the primary need of keeping one's insides where they belong, there is minimal need for air inside the suit, except possibly the head - really just the breathing system and the eyes. The key thing for most of the suit is to replace the air pressure we are used to with some other form of constraint. Today I watched a thing about those Speedo swim suits that MIchael Phelps et al used in their record Olympic swims. Among other things, they were very tight fitting
Upcoming Paper should be interesting (Score:2)
They are publishing results in Astrobiology to create a standard metric for analog space suits. Operating standardization is a great next step for this field.
On a human-factors standpoint it will be interesting to see the energetic differences between the suits. One issue is they are being tested in different place with different wearers.