NASA's Commercial Spacesuit Program Just Hit a Major Snag (arstechnica.com) 83
Slashdot reader Required Snark shared this article from Ars Technica:
Almost exactly two years ago, as it prepared for the next generation of human spaceflight, NASA chose a pair of private companies to design and develop new spacesuits. These were to be new spacesuits that would allow astronauts to both perform spacewalks outside the International Space Station as well as walk on the Moon as part of the Artemis program. Now, that plan appears to be in trouble, with one of the spacesuit providers — Collins Aerospace — expected to back out, Ars has learned. It's a blow for NASA, because the space agency really needs modern spacesuits.
NASA's Apollo-era suits have long been retired. The current suits used for spacewalks in low-Earth orbit are four decades old. "These new capabilities will allow us to continue on the International Space Station and allows us to do the Artemis program and continue on to Mars," said the director of Johnson Space Center, Vanessa Wyche, during a celebratory news conference in Houston two years ago. The two winning teams were led by Collins Aerospace and Axiom Space, respectively. They were eligible for task orders worth up to $3.5 billion — in essence NASA would rent the use of these suits for a couple of decades. Since then, NASA has designated Axiom to work primarily on a suit for the Moon and the Artemis Program, and Collins with developing a suit for operations in-orbit, such as space station servicing...
The agency has been experiencing periodic problems with the maintenance of the suits built decades ago, known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit, which made its debut in the 1980s. NASA has acknowledged the suit has exceeded its planned design lifetime. Just this Monday, the agency had to halt a spacewalk after the airlock had been de-pressurized and the hatch opened due to a water leak in the service and cooling umbilical unit of Tracy Dyson's spacesuit. As a result of this problem, NASA will likely only be able to conduct a single spacewalk this summer, after initially planning three, to complete work outside the International Space Station.
Collins designed the original Apollo suits, according to the article. But a person familiar with the situation told Ars Technica that "Collins has admitted they have drastically underperformed and have overspent" on their work, "culminating in a request to be taken off the contract or renegotiate the scope and their budget."
Ironically, the company's top's post on their account on Twitter/X is still a repost of NASA's February announcement that they're "getting a nextx-generation spacesuit" developed by Collins Aerospace, and saying that the company "recently completed a key NASA design milestone aboard a commercial microgravity aircraft."
NASA's post said they needed the suit "In order to advance NASA's spacewalking capabilities in low Earth orbit and to support continued maintenance and operations at the Space Station."
NASA's Apollo-era suits have long been retired. The current suits used for spacewalks in low-Earth orbit are four decades old. "These new capabilities will allow us to continue on the International Space Station and allows us to do the Artemis program and continue on to Mars," said the director of Johnson Space Center, Vanessa Wyche, during a celebratory news conference in Houston two years ago. The two winning teams were led by Collins Aerospace and Axiom Space, respectively. They were eligible for task orders worth up to $3.5 billion — in essence NASA would rent the use of these suits for a couple of decades. Since then, NASA has designated Axiom to work primarily on a suit for the Moon and the Artemis Program, and Collins with developing a suit for operations in-orbit, such as space station servicing...
The agency has been experiencing periodic problems with the maintenance of the suits built decades ago, known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit, which made its debut in the 1980s. NASA has acknowledged the suit has exceeded its planned design lifetime. Just this Monday, the agency had to halt a spacewalk after the airlock had been de-pressurized and the hatch opened due to a water leak in the service and cooling umbilical unit of Tracy Dyson's spacesuit. As a result of this problem, NASA will likely only be able to conduct a single spacewalk this summer, after initially planning three, to complete work outside the International Space Station.
Collins designed the original Apollo suits, according to the article. But a person familiar with the situation told Ars Technica that "Collins has admitted they have drastically underperformed and have overspent" on their work, "culminating in a request to be taken off the contract or renegotiate the scope and their budget."
Ironically, the company's top's post on their account on Twitter/X is still a repost of NASA's February announcement that they're "getting a nextx-generation spacesuit" developed by Collins Aerospace, and saying that the company "recently completed a key NASA design milestone aboard a commercial microgravity aircraft."
NASA's post said they needed the suit "In order to advance NASA's spacewalking capabilities in low Earth orbit and to support continued maintenance and operations at the Space Station."
Re:Send Robots (Score:4, Funny)
Gronk said it!
There is no use trying to leave the cave!
We can't live out there!
Stop wasting your time, we always lived in the cave!
Gronk!
Re: (Score:1)
Gronk said it!
There is no use trying to leave the cave!
We can't live out there!
Stop wasting your time, we always lived in the cave!
Gronk!
Caves !
We never should have come down from the trees.
trees !
We never should have left the oceans.
Re: Send Robots (Score:2, Informative)
Leaving the cave for the lush savannah is categorically different from leaving a habitable planet for the sterility of space.
Nowhere else in the universe, as far as we know, is even remotely friendly to life.
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving the cave for the lush savannah is categorically different from leaving a habitable planet for the sterility of space.
Nowhere else in the universe, as far as we know, is even remotely friendly to life.
Well then it's a good thing we left the cave to discover that the savannah is... indeed... friendly to life.
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
The savannah always had life.
The idea that there's a bustling ecosystem out there for us just beyond our current space travel limits is... unsupported by evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
You're benefitting from hindsight. It sounds as though you suggest we stop looking for evidence...?
Once upon a time we had evidence that the earth was flat, that everything revolved around the earth, and so on. Imagine if we didn't do any looking.
Re: (Score:1)
Given the resources being spent on space, the total absence of evidence of any value to be gained, and the immediacy and urgency of the existential level problems we face here on Earth, I'm suggesting we pause our efforts in space, and stabilize and secure our survival on Earth first.
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
Apparently we suck at doing anything related to our own survival. And the resources spent on space are not "basically nothing".
Re: (Score:2)
Given the resources being spent on space, the total absence of evidence of any value to be gained, and the immediacy and urgency of the existential level problems we face here on Earth, I'm suggesting we pause our efforts in space, and stabilize and secure our survival on Earth first.
According to Google, the USA spent about 0.48% of GDP on space exploration. Not sure how that translates world-wide, but confidently the percentage drops when we tally everything.
California spends 6% of it's budget on homelessness... and it is not working, since California has more homeless people than ever.
I realize I'm conflating a couple of issues, but the reality is that space exploration employs more people and is much harder to "restart".
You're worried about survival on earth first, fair - but from th
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
I love how the planet we both live on is "my cause" and preserving it is something I need to convince you to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how the planet we both live on is "my cause" and preserving it is something I need to convince you to do.
Can you please point out where I said saving the planet is merely your cause?
I'll point out that I asked you to "make a list". So, fine - have it your way. Let's save the planet, together. How do you propose we begin changing the spending of 0.48% of GDP?
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
Like, it's literally the last two words in your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Like, it's literally the last two words in your comment.
"of GDP".
Those are, like, literally the last two words. Be specific - present solutions or stop complaining.
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
Obviously I meant your other comment you retarded potato. How do you expect me to engage in a bonna fide discussion when you clearly have no intellectual honesty.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously I meant your other comment you retarded potato. How do you expect me to engage in a bonna fide discussion when you clearly have no intellectual honesty.
Point taken - Why the name calling?
How are we going to spend 0.48% to preserve our world?
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
Ok so 0.48% might sound like a small number, but it works out to about 120 billion dollars.
I can think of a LOT of things to spend that on, but there is one thing above all.
The biggest problem we face in addressing the environmental problem is special interest groups and industry lobby groups undermining our political system to ensure that profit goes above science and the national interest.
The total spent on lobby activities in the USA is about $9b annually.
That $120b is enough to outspend all other lobby
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the government already spends around 2% on environmental protection, the lobbyists are already outspent. So how do you wish to out lobby the lobbyists, specifically?
Also, what do we do with all the space jobs that disappear overnight?
But that doable with just one fifteenth of that "tiny" 0.48.
Never said it was a small amount, but okay.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you've gone quiet. I guess you don't have ideas that we can get behind...
Re: (Score:1)
You're clearly emotionally invested in not getting behind anything.
That is 2% of government budget, not GDP. Know the difference. Secondly it is spent on various programs with varying effectiveness. Many of them are greenwashing and perfunctory, and none seriously challenge the problem that destructive exploitation of the environment is profitable. That you don't know the difference betwe
Re: (Score:2)
Good grief man... go quiet for all I care... trying to engage and you're being a jerk about it. See you around another thread, perhaps...
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
The laws of biology and physics are hard limits.
But I guess you're right, we might colonize the stars one day who knows what's possible in a few centuries. Assuming we survive the destruction of our own planet at our own hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
Pretty sure the meaning of what I said was clear. I mean, when we tell kids to "reach for the stars" are aren't baiting them to engage in a suicidal mission to handle coronal plasma.
Re: (Score:1)
It's really hard. Let's not try.
Hopefully you're not in charge of anything in the real world.
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
That's like putting your whole savings in bitcoins and saying its fine, it keeps going up.
Re: Send Robots (Score:2)
No, going to space is like putting your savings into Bitcoin in the vain hope that one day it will actually be worth something other than hot air.
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
It was your metaphor. If it's dumb then you shouldn't have used it in the first place.
Re: Send Robots (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
even the best robots can't do what a person could do
robots have their place in space but then, so do we ...
No need to panic (Score:2)
They can manage without a suit, it's not like they can't rely on the safety of a fully functional return capsule built by our most competent aerospace company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They don't need a re-entry vehicle either. They can surf down like in Dsrkstsr.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the one from heavy metal. I don't get why they keep spending all this money if you can just use old Caddie convertibles.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh damn that was brilliant, too! Thanks for the reminder, I saw Darkstar 2 months ago but haven't seen HM in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Is darkstar2 worth watching? I didn't even know it was a thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, that was "I saw darkstar. I saw it two months ago". There was no sequel I'm aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
yah, it's too late for panic, the ship is sunk
classism has doomed our civilization
Re: (Score:1)
Put some research dollars into this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with this but I wish to note that it is still in the early prototyping phase. Even if research began today, it's still a decade off at best.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been under development for a decade or more now, so a lot of the research is already on the books. They've got a working prototype showing that it works as far as mobility and maintaining pressure goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I certainly doubt that NASA is ignoring the spin-off companies because it secretly doesn't want a good space suit.
Just another example (Score:2)
Of America's decline.
Re: Just another example (Score:2)
I love how everyone is trying to treat a comparison of NASA to things such as a business as if that's rational in the slightest.
The same people who ensure government programs of all kinds are as bloated and inefficient as possible are the same small group of rich assholes getting billions for basically nothing. Government programs and projects suck because they're designed to make a private business alternative look like the only and obvious solution.
If I can make billions in profit providing a half assed p
Re: (Score:1)
What you say is essentially true. I'm not going to nitpick the few things I'm not 100% on.
In this case though I don't see it as NASA vs anyone and being compared as a business, etc.
It's not like this was a big surprise or news that the current suits are ancient. I never really thought about it that they re-use the same suits for each mission but NASA certainly was aware. My issue here is no matter the funding source or cost or anything else going on, how could they let 40 years go by and not have a solid
Re: (Score:2)
not just America, our global civilization
classism and corruption are worldwide
At least they were honest (Score:5, Interesting)
"Collins has admitted they have drastically underperformed and have overspent" on their work, "culminating in a request to be taken off the contract or renegotiate the scope and their budget."
While disappointing, at least they admitted they're not performing as expected and rather than keep taking taxpayer money, stopped the bleeding.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're being generous here. I read it as they are bleeding but are worried they won't get paid for continuing to bleed.
SpaceX (Score:2)
Is SpaceX's suit worthy?
Re: (Score:2)
'Is SpaceX's suit worthy?'
It's not expensive enough, tax-dollars have to be spread amongst many senators.
Re: (Score:2)
It's as worthy as any other untested 3D rendering or marketing poster.
It has a long way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
The first space walks with the suit may be as early as next month [observer.com] (July 2024):
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, their suit right now is umbilical based - a line carrying the oxygen and taking the CO2 back to the Dragon. The space walk planned is basically stick your head out and look around. Question is in terms of having the ability to go further afield where that doesn't work and you need those systems self contained, and, what the endurance of these is if you are actually doing work outside the ship vs taking in the views (both standing up to the wear and tear, and time you can be out of the ship and o
Re: SpaceX (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how the other spacesuits were developed: first a suit with an umbilical; then the umbilical leads to a backpack instead of the ship.
Re: (Score:2)
That's very different than a suit meant to be worn outside the spacecraft. The upcoming Polaris mission will test that. It differs from the flight suit by, for instance, having some rigid structures (like flexible ball bearings) through the joints, and
Re: (Score:2)
or Just tell them the ceo and bean counters (Score:3)
Re: or Just tell them the ceo and bean counters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am i missing something? (Score:3)
In 2019 they decide to do a manned moon landing in 2024, in 2022 they commission some spacesuits. Shouldn't that have been picked up earlier? I can't think of any Apollo moonwalks which were done without spacesuits.
Re:Am i missing something? (Score:4, Funny)
They were relying on later research by Jackson, M et al. according to which spacesuits are not required for moonwalks.
Re: (Score:2)
And you only got one glove.
There are old concepts to revisit (Score:3)
Why a space suit for space 'walks' when you could have a microship?
It looks a lot less awesome, but a box with a domed port for vision and a couple of arms on it would be easy to get into, astronauts could wipe their faces and scratch itches, use a full computer interface, access a drink pouch, etc. One size would truly fit all, astronauts would adust their position on the ship's interior with simple Velcro straps.
Thermal regulation is also a lot easier when you don't need to run pipes all over the astronaut's body. You just use a fan on the ship's internal air.
And a real bonus is less need for an airlock - the back of the ship can directly mount to a port for access. You might put the docking room behind a bulkhead just in case of a leak, but generally you wouldn't be worrying about cycling air.
Re: (Score:2)
Suits Need Evolution--Not Revolution (Score:3)
one has to ask (Score:2)
We LITERALLY did this work with slide rules 50 years ago.
Why can't we accomplish it today? Simple question.
Russia doing something right (Score:3)
Russia uses incremental improvements to keep costs down and reliability up. Overall it works.
US's throw-it-out-and-start-over mentality is NOT working on space shit. With consumer products, consumers are (unwitting) guinea pigs and eventually help the company work out the kinks via mass trial and error.
But the "error" part is very bad in space. In space, everyone can see you fail.
We should have kept Apollo with incremental tweaks. It would have been overall cheaper than the Shuttle et. al. even without reuse. If a mission needs a bigger crew, then launch 2. When the commercial satellite launchers perfect re-use, THEN use it on manned missions. Let satellites be the guinea pigs, not humans.
Just tweak the old suits a bit, they are time-tested.
Throw-it-and-start-over has also fucked up IT, at least ordinary internal CRUD, but that's a rant for another day. Learn from my lawn while getting off it!
Get Hugo Boss (Score:2)
They did some nice work about 100 years ago.
Isn't ISS to be decommisioned in a few years? (Score:2)
2030 or thereabouts?
If so why are they looking to make more spacesuits for use outside the ISS?
If commercial space stations are going to be build, shouldn't the commercial companies come up with their own space suits (following whatever NASA standards - mobility, connectors, capability, etc)?