Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[Kryten]

The pumpkin is pretty soft and agile already (actually, it's very soft agile for a spacesuit). It may not be very recent, but it fits perfecty for an escape and emergency suit. I suppose SpaceX's suit will be a lot similar (they are actually creating a suit currently)

Given they're planning to fit seven people onto the thing, and no longer have bailout to worry about, I'd expect something more like the Sokol suits used on Soyuz; extremely streamlined, with no independent life support.

[AngelLestat]

If you see this picture someone may said, hey... these Sokol suits are not bad at all..

But that is not its true shape on vacuum, is this:

Gas-pressurized suits become very rigid in vacuum, the gloves and helmet from the Sokol also needs improvement even for no vacuum scenaries.

All the problems of these suits maximize if we are talking of 7 astronauts in a relative small volume all trying to move fast.

But it has to be a full pressure suit, including gloves and helmet, to be able to handle depressurization and windblast. It also has to be fire resistant, chemical resistant, and allow floatation. The undergarment is a "Maximum Absorbency Garment" for urine retention, and has tubings for cooling fluid.

To solve all spacesuit issues, we only need an elastic material or a material which tightness can be adjusted by other props.

For fire and chemical resistence, that is easy, you just select the outer layers materials according to your needs.

And about your "Maximum Absorbency Garment"... that is just a fancy name for diapers.

Edited September 12, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

All the problems of these suits maximize if we are talking of 7 astronauts in a relative small volume all trying to move fast.

Sokol has worked fine for literally decades for 3 to a 4 cubic metre Soyuz descent module, 7 to a 10 cubic metre dragon should work fine. The only time they'd actually be required to be 'agile' in one of these is leaving in an emergency sea landing, in which case they would not be pressurised anyway.

[AngelLestat]

Sokol has worked fine for literally decades for 3 to a 4 cubic metre Soyuz descent module, 7 to a 10 cubic metre dragon should work fine. The only time they'd actually be required to be 'agile' in one of these is leaving in an emergency sea landing, in which case they would not be pressurised anyway.

Why is fine to keep using something that has 3 decades?

Space should be in the edge of technology, because you need to extract the max efficiency from everything you use.

In any emergency, you need to be agile and fast enoght to resolve the situation as soon as possible.

So suits that are heavy and bulky, should be remplace it. Why we do exact that with divers suits but not with space suits?

[SargeRho]

Why is fine to keep using something that has 3 decades?

Space should be in the edge of technology, because you need to extract the max efficiency from everything you use.

In any emergency, you need to be agile and fast enoght to resolve the situation as soon as possible.

So suits that are heavy and bulky, should be remplace it. Why we do exact that with divers suits but not with space suits?

Because divers aren't moving at 25 times the speed of sound. Space is never at the cutting edge of technology - and it shouldn't be. It's a decade or two behind, because they can only use technology that has been shown to be reliable over long periods of time.

[AngelLestat]

Because divers aren't moving at 25 times the speed of sound. Space is never at the cutting edge of technology - and it shouldn't be. It's a decade or two behind, because they can only use technology that has been shown to be reliable over long periods of time.

??? what this has to do with the things I am saying?

Not sure if you know what "improvement" means.. If we can improve something.. why we should not ??

With that mentality we should remain for always in the 1960 space tech, then dont complaint if we dont achieve nothing else on space.

To those who dont wanna remain in the past, this is the obvious evolution:

[SargeRho]

Hardly, I'd rather my ship didn't get stranded in interplanetary space because some newfangled piece of cutting edge technology decided to die because it hasn't been tested enough.

[Ralathon]

??? what this has to do with the things I am saying?

Not sure if you know what "improvement" means.. If we can improve something.. why we should not ??

With that mentality we should remain for always in the 1960 space tech, then dont complaint if we dont achieve nothing else on space.

To those who dont wanna remain in the past, this is the obvious evolution:

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/Spacesuiteimage.jpg

Innovation is great. Until people start to die when things don't work as intended.

Suppose you're stuck on a desert island without water. You can pick between a 5 decades old, intensively tested and trusted desalination plant. Or you can pick a sleek new model that runs on solar power and is 20% more efficient due to state of the art nanomaterials, but nobody knows if it'll last more than 2 weeks. What one do you pick, knowing that you'll die a painful death if your desalinator breaks.

If people's lives are on the line you use tried and tested technology. If they build a new space suit I want to see half a decade of intensive testing before I'll even consider putting it on.

[sgt_flyer]

For their job, handling a depressurisation of the soyuz capsule, sokol suits are adapted. It's enough to protect the cosmonauts during the abort sequence until pressure normalize. (They still need the capsule itself to survive a landing anyway) remember that soyuz is built to operate in automatic mode - so even if the cosmonauts can't move because of their suits during the abort manoeuver, they wouldn't be able to do a lot more than what they can normally do anyway (if you have seen the launch videos, their movements are already severely restricted while they are strapped in to the point they use a stick with an handle to push buttons to do systems check up

Now, for sure, things like biosuits 1st layer would be interesting for the times astronauts would need to actively save themselves (ex, needing to move from a depressurised module to elsewhere by themselves)

[AngelLestat]

Hardly, I'd rather my ship didn't get stranded in interplanetary space because some newfangled piece of cutting edge technology decided to die because it hasn't been tested enough.

If people's lives are on the line you use tried and tested technology. If they build a new space suit I want to see half a decade of intensive testing before I'll even consider putting it on.

Ok here is when both are wrong.

Tell me real events (no test) where the sokol suits was expose to fire, vacuum, chemicals, or any other emergency circustance.

If there was a few or none.. those needs to be added to the testing which was done under its development..

Now you will realize that these suits does not have extra testing (beyond development) on circustances than matters.

So if you made a new suit with the same development testing, then you have a suit which was exposed to the same amount of circustances that should avoid in real scenarios.

[Kryten]

WIn any emergency, you need to be agile and fast enoght to resolve the situation as soon as possible.

No you don't, because experience has shown that isn't how emergencies in space happen. Apollo 13, Columbia, Challenger, Soyuz 11; all destroyed by failures in equipment that was not serviceable from inside the cabin. The only one a difference in spacesuits could have helped was Soyuz 11, and that's only because they weren't wearing any.

[SargeRho]

Things can fail many years down the line, That's why underpowered electronic hardware is used in spacecraft. Aerospace in general, is generally quite a few years behind the state of the art. And that's a good thing. State of the art technology is prone to failure. But after 5-15 years, most of the quirks will have been found and fixed.

[Bill Phil]

Space requires technology and hardware that's proven. It just takes time to prove. That's why I like the Delta II. Decades of hardware testing. Can't be beaten. It's just a bit small in payload size.

[CatastrophicFailure]

No you don't, because experience has shown that isn't how emergencies in space happen. Apollo 13, Columbia, Challenger, Soyuz 11; all destroyed by failures in equipment that was not serviceable from inside the cabin. The only one a difference in spacesuits could have helped was Soyuz 11, and that's only because they weren't wearing any.

Pressure suits and parachutes could have made ALL the difference in Challenger, just saying...

And no one has mentioned the economic aspect yet. SpaceX is already pushing that envelope developing an entirely new manned space craft. Developing an entirely new space suit, AND ship, AND reusable booster, AND all the little things...

its taking on too much at once like that that killed all the Shuttle replacements before they even reached the pad.

Evolution, not revolution.

[SargeRho]

They're mostly using technology that has been around for a while. Kerosene rockets, and on the dragon, Hypergolic rockets and ablative heat shield. They're not using the most advanced of efficient type of cycle in the Merlin engines either as far as I'm aware.

[AngelLestat]

No you don't, because experience has shown that isn't how emergencies in space happen. Apollo 13, Columbia, Challenger, Soyuz 11; all destroyed by failures in equipment that was not serviceable from inside the cabin. The only one a difference in spacesuits could have helped was Soyuz 11, and that's only because they weren't wearing any.

Following your point, then why they need to be fire and chemical resistance? If those was the emergencies, does not said nothing about the possible emergencies that might arise. So is pointless take an argument in base to this conditions.

The main point is: that if you need to do something fast or just with enoght confort to not fail. You cant.

The problem here is that you all think, that because things was done in this way.. it may be a reason behind it..

But the reason is for a complete lack of "will" and "vision", that is why after 45 years from apollo, we did nothing that really matters.

Things can fail many years down the line, That's why underpowered electronic hardware is used in spacecraft. Aerospace in general, is generally quite a few years behind the state of the art. And that's a good thing. State of the art technology is prone to failure. But after 5-15 years, most of the quirks will have been found and fixed.

Really? You know that the electrolysis device (elektron) that the space station use is the same which was used in the Mir, which is a terrible design that works with potassium, that is heavy, low efficient and with high chances to fail vs new PEM devices.

But they choose it because they are dumb. Yeah.. that is the main point of all their choices.

Right now the Elektron device was the main cause of accidents in the ISS, some involving fire.

I guess it was remplaced 2 times already, of course they can not change it now because all the ECKSS system already is designed in base to that equipment, so they need to change all (which they should, because it su-cks.)

Full ECLSS system:

And they just use the oxygen from the water, they vent the hydrogen (facepalm), can you tell me what part from the whole design is smart?

if they had done it right from the start they would save billions and billions in cargo toward the ISS. Money that can be used for other missions.

Space requires technology and hardware that's proven. It just takes time to prove. That's why I like the Delta II. Decades of hardware testing. Can't be beaten. It's just a bit small in payload size.

Yeah is prove it, is prove that is super expensive and inefficient.

That is why a random guy "Elon Musk" said: "I have a real oportunity here, the space industry is full of incompetent people."

And then.. he proves it.

I already explain why a new space suit will have the same testing than old space suits. The fact that astronauts wear all the time these spacesuits in the soyuz means nothing, because they just wear it, they are not exposed to vacuum, fire, etc.

All those test are made under development.

They're mostly using technology that has been around for a while. Kerosene rockets, and on the dragon, Hypergolic rockets and ablative heat shield. They're not using the most advanced of efficient type of cycle in the Merlin engines either as far as I'm aware.

All the things that spacex "alone vs the world" already accomplish in very few years and you are asking for more?

They are already designing a new type of engine, with a development cost much lower than previous engines, and the new engine will be efficient and cheap to make.. something that any engineer with brain should have into account from the begining.

[Bill Phil]

Delta II was one of the most inexpensive LVs ever.

The people aren't incompetent. It's the people that pay them.

There are always links in the design. Unexpected circumnstances. Just testing the suits like that doesn't mean anything. So many failure modes are possible for the suit, and the number of environments is so high, the no amount of testing over a few years is enough.

I'd rather wear a proven suit, one that works and has been proven to work for decades. Not one that works on paper. Not one that hasn't left the lab. But one that's operational.

[Robotengineer]

Anyone else think those De-Orbit Now and De-pressurize buttons should have covers so that they don't get pressed by stuff flying around in the cabin?

[tater]

Anyone else think those De-Orbit Now and De-pressurize buttons should have covers so that they don't get pressed by stuff flying around in the cabin?

I suppose they could require pressing and holding for a couple seconds, then the same for the confirmation button.

[AngelLestat]

I'd rather wear a proven suit, one that works and has been proven to work for decades. Not one that works on paper. Not one that hasn't left the lab. But one that's operational.

They just wear it, there is not extra prove in that. The only times they were under vacuum or other circustances was under development and testing post development.

The same level of testing that any new suit will have.

Anyone else think those De-Orbit Now and De-pressurize buttons should have covers so that they don't get pressed by stuff flying around in the cabin?

If you take a look, in the left there is a knob that I imagine turn On the entire board (or just a part because there are two knob), then you need to press deorbit plus execute. if "astronauts" still mess it with those simple commands, then they should not be astronauts. The good thing that is so simple than anybody can pilot it.

[Bill Phil]

Yes, but Murphy's Law can take 20, 30, or more years. I'd rather use one that's gone through that.

[Nibb31]

??? what this has to do with the things I am saying?

Not sure if you know what "improvement" means.. If we can improve something.. why we should not ??

It's only an improvement if it meets better requirements. If the improvement is to look ...., but it doesn't cope as well with extreme conditions or provide the same comfort and survivability, then it isn't an improvement. It's fluff.

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/Spacesuiteimage.jpg

.... skin suit won't look as good when you're wearing diapers underneath. Don't forget, you need a thermal layer, you need a coolant loop, you need room for the air and fluid to circulate inside the suit, and you need protection from windblast.

There might be room for improvement in terms of bulk and lightness and comfort. I don't know, I haven't worn a Sokol or an ACES, but you don't design a space suit based on looks. That's as ridiculous as putting wings on a space probe. There is zero reason for a skin suit, unless you're mission is to film space .... (or Star Trek), because there is zero reason to beleive that it will be better for the job.

The Sokol or the ACES suits are perfectly adequate for their job. Why would you want to redesign something from scratch if the old one meets all requirements?

Also, the Commercial Crew vehicles are designed for 7 crew members, but it's unlikely that they will actually carry more than 4.

- - - Updated - - -

Pressure suits and parachutes could have made ALL the difference in Challenger, just saying...

They had pressure suits, but no way to bail out and probably no way to move (because of the G forces, not because their suits were bulky). We don't really know how much consciousness they had. Their visors weren't down and some didn't have their gloves on. The only way the crew would have been saved was if they were in a capsule and the capsule had parachutes.

The biggest flaw of the Space Shuttle was that it was designed for looks, because a spaceship with wings seemed like an "improvement", when it was just a huge liability.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Nibb31

[CatastrophicFailure]

- - - Updated - - -

They had pressure suits, but no way to bail out and probably no way to move (because of the G forces, not because their suits were bulky). We don't really know how much consciousness they had. Their visors weren't down and some didn't have their gloves on. The only way the crew would have been saved was if they were in a capsule and the capsule had parachutes.

The biggest flaw of the Space Shuttle was that it was designed for looks, because a spaceship with wings seemed like an "improvement", when it was just a huge liability.

Naw man, in Challenger they still flew in shirt sleeves and helmets. It was BECAUSE of Challenger that they went to full ACES suits. We know they were conscious enough to activate their supplemental air supplies (useless at 80k feet), and to flip switches on the panel to try to restore power.

If they'd had pressure suits and parachutes, it's at least possible they could have bailed out after the initial breakup.

But yeah, the shuttle was a prime example of trying to do too much for too many. Those great big wings were only there cuz the Air Force wanted enough cross range ability to launch polar & overfly the USSR... which never actually happened.

[Frozen_Heart]

If space should only use technology that's been proven for 20 or more years, then surely we can never develop new spacecraft and launchers?

A new vehicle or suit will always be untested at the start.

Yes the Falcon has had various hiccups and a failure but that's all part of improving the Launch vehicle and making sure it doesn't happen again. I'm sure the SpaceX suit will go through extensive testing to make sure it does the job well enough and won't fail, just like every other spacesuit ever made.

[Rune]

It's only an improvement if it meets better requirements. If the improvement is to look ...., but it doesn't cope as well with extreme conditions or provide the same comfort and survivability, then it isn't an improvement. It's fluff.

.... skin suit won't look as good when you're wearing diapers underneath. Don't forget, you need a thermal layer, you need a coolant loop, you need room for the air and fluid to circulate inside the suit, and you need protection from windblast.

There might be room for improvement in terms of bulk and lightness and comfort. I don't know, I haven't worn a Sokol or an ACES, but you don't design a space suit based on looks. That's as ridiculous as putting wings on a space probe. There is zero reason for a skin suit, unless you're mission is to film space .... (or Star Trek), because there is zero reason to beleive that it will be better for the job.

The Sokol or the ACES suits are perfectly adequate for their job. Why would you want to redesign something from scratch if the old one meets all requirements?

Also, the Commercial Crew vehicles are designed for 7 crew members, but it's unlikely that they will actually carry more than 4..

Actually, a mechanical counter-pressure suit would greatly increase dexterity, while decreasing fatigue and improving the movement efficiency of the astronauts (i.e: more movement per calorie consumed). Of course it won't look like the ones in Start Trek, since it will have the same outer garments as a standard suit would (thermal, MMOD, etc). So it'll probably look like the ones on Apollo, only the astronaut inside will be able to bend much more easily and they would look a bit deflated, like they do under the atmospheric pressure of museums (i.e: just like they look on movies). The big downside it that the inner pressure garment would have to be custom-tailored, meaning one suit fits one astronaut (like the Apollo gloves, IIRC), and that putting it on is quite the chore. The coolest thing is how they can do thermal control: done right, you can actually use the astronaut's sweat glands, running an open cycle water cooling, letting the sweat evaporate through the pressure suit and vent into space.

Of course, those benefits would only really work for surface operations, which is the big reason nobody has built one yet: they would not have been ready for Apollo, and since then all spacesuits have flown in microgravity. Incidentally, Apollo soft suits would still be the most efficient surface suit that we have "operational", the ones used on ISS are armored hulks totally unsuited for walking (but very well adapted for microgravity EVAs, of course). For a capsule, an ACES/Sokol type thing is perfectly fine, and therefore the engineer in me says KISS.

Rune. Now if only they figured out mechanical counter-pressure gloves. Those would be something.