Are rescue spacesuits useless?

[kerbiloid]

Looking at these Star Wars / Starship _(sic!)Troopers / (Ivan the) Space Biker  imperial uniform which Space-X calls spacesuit, especially the boots and shoulders, I always have a strong feeling that they are just trolling.

***

About 300 space flights have been happen for today.

4 in-flight catastrophes: parachute failure, decompression, booster explosion, unavoidable crash during reentry due to the mechanical damage at the launch phase.
1 catastrophe on the launchpad: fire in cabin.

3 capsule ejectiona: LES on launchpad, LES in flight, upper stage before the orbit.

Numberless cases when the heat protection of shuttles was nearly destroyed, and the ship was nearly crashed.
Several Soyuzes had problems with separation on reentry, so the service and reentry modules were following each other like a bolas until the cables were burned away.
One Apollo partially exploded on the way to Moon.
One Soyuz had a trouble with deorbit engine, could either burst or stay in orbit.

A Progress (derived from Soyuz and using same launcher) was lost due to the upper stage explosion.

***

Exactly 0 (zero) rescue missions have been ever performed or even seriously prepared.
Exactly 0 (zero) rescue ships ever stayed on launchpad ready to start.
Exactly 0 (zero) unplanned dockings have been ever performed, including exactly 0 (zero) rescue dockings.

Probably the only rescue mission in space ever shown is Marooned (1969), and it includes a maneuvering Voskhod (who irl had no engines to maneuver) and a mini-spaceplane.

***

As we can see, the only case when spacesuits could help is Soyuz-11 decompression, which became a trigger to force everybody wear the spacesuits on start.

In absolutely all other cases the spacesuits could do absolutely nothing.

The only case when they can help is the cabin decompression.
But it doesn't just happen.  It's can be caused :
1) either by mechanical damage of the cabin by some explosion or collision, but then the capsule will most likely be destroyed on reentry, while the crew be killed even earlier;
2) or if the cabin construction and production quality are totally sick like in the early Soyuzes, but then the ship just can't be used.

Any high-orbit or lunar expedition make the spacesuits totally useless at all. The capsule hardly survives the reentry even being intact, and definitely no rescue mission will be ever performed, except in LLO by a special rescue spaceship docked to LOP-G (was it ever planned?)

***

Probably the only case when the spacesuits can actually help (leaving aside the rescue ships and other sci-fish space opera) is when the booster explodes at 20 km, the capsule gets cracked, but the crew stays alive, and has to survive for several minutes till the 3 km height.
Of course, the parachutes should first survive the damage making cracks in hull, and should not stick in the deformed container.

***

Even if they crash on docking so hard that hull got cracked, but were wearing spacesuits, who can help them?
How should they reentry with the cracked hull, who can dock them when their docking port is exactly that part they crashed with, and any spaceship docked to ISS has fuel just for deorbit?

***

So, looks like the only purpose of the spacesuits is to be an amulet.
And an excuse if the amulet failed.

But since 1971 this spacesuitomania makes to create larger and heavier capsules.

So, a uniform from Star Wars or a jedi's mantle is exactly what's needed, and could be even not sealed.

Isn't it so?

Edited July 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[SOXBLOX]

Well...they're not really spacesuits, since they don't do EVA. (I don't think so, anyways.) They're pressure suits, designed to keep the astronaut alive in the event of loss of pressure, until an abort is completed or the leak is fixed. For a total failure of the spacecraft, you are right, they'd do nothing to save the cosmo/astronauts, but for something more benign, they would save lives.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, SOXBLOX said:

They're pressure suits, designed to keep the astronaut alive in the event of loss of pressure, until an abort is completed or the leak is fixed.

They can't fix a leak during the ascent or descent, but the leak never happened suddenly, except in Soyuz-11 with its absolutely bad design, totally reworked in Soyuz-12.

So, it's just a question of ground tests (the thing usually omitted by Korolev's bureau tending to keep using artillery methods in space design)

Edited July 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Exactly 0 (zero) rescue ships ever stayed on launchpad ready to start.

This is not true. STS-125 did have a rescue shuttle sitting on the pad.

 

[kerbiloid]

Ok, 1 rescue mission was on launchpad (though as they never actually trained something like that in space, it was mostly psychological).

Upd.
Anyway, shuttle had enough room to keep the suits packed rather than wear them on themselves.

Edited July 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

1) either by mechanical damage of the cabin by some explosion or collision, but then the capsule will most likely be destroyed on reentry, while the crew be killed even earlier;

https://spacenews.com/soyuz-capsule-suffered-partial-depressurization-during-april-landing/

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They can't fix a leak during the ascent or descent, but the leak never happened suddenly, except in Soyuz-11 with its absolutely bad design, totally reworked in Soyuz-12.

So, it's just a question of ground tests (the thing usually omitted by Korolev's bureau tending to keep using artillery methods in space design)

This is true however pressure suits are also standard on high attitude military flights like U2 and the SR71. Now these planes might well have an higher chance for pressure loss than capsules who are designed to fly in space. 
The suits are only worn on takeoff, docking and landing. 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

https://spacenews.com/soyuz-capsule-suffered-partial-depressurization-during-april-landing/

Landing.

Quote

A buckle that is part of the parachute system struck the capsule.

Parachute.

When they use chutes (<= 7 km), they don't need suits. Just oxy masks (10..12 km).

Spoiler

 

***

43 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

high attitude military flights like U2 and the SR71

Flights. Horizontally, for hours, with probable ejection.

[RealKerbal3x]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Landing

They do wear the IVA suits during landing as well, you know.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

They do wear the IVA suits during landing as well, you know.

They do doesn't mean they have to.

[RealKerbal3x]

3 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

They do doesn't mean they have to.

What about when there's a leak? If the crew weren't wearing suits during that Soyuz re-entry, then they probably would have died. In fact, the crew of Soyuz 11 died due to a capsule depressurisation during re-entry. They would have lived if they were wearing suits.

[kerbiloid]

13 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

What about when there's a leak?

Below the 7 km altitude? Not critical. Anyway, a breathing mask would be enough for comfort.

13 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

the crew of Soyuz 11 died due to a capsule depressurisation during re-entry. They would have lived if they were wearing suits.

1. They would live even with aircraft masks, as their bodies were not damaged, they died from suffocation.
The decompression was not explosive, there was just a finger-thick opening.
If the hole was bigger, they would die like Columbia, from midair crash.

2. A tiny flap or gag with a tiny spring would close that vent hole in a second until the pressure gets normal, so even masks would not be required.
That was a stupid construction of the vent valve and lack of on-ground testing. It was replaced and never happened again.

Edited July 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[Nuke]

when i think a rescue suit i think one of those spherical beachball things. i dont think that makes any sense though as thats the kind of gear you use for passengers to hold up in until a rescue mission launches. once you get in there and get it inflated and turn on your transponder, there is not a damn thing you can do to save yourself. you simply wait for rescue and hope the rescue team has enough delta-v to pick up your ball. so that's totally useless right now. of course, add a few more orbital stations and a larger orbital population and these things start making sense. you can start supporting a few full time on station space rescue craft in orbit to retrieve these things. and they will more than certainly come in handy in partial decompression scenarios involving large stations. 

[kerbiloid]

And btw, about diving.

Soyuz-23 had splashed in a winter lake, the crew (and partially the rescue team) were nearly gone, but after heroic efforts, survived.
One of Mercuries nearly sunk when they saved the pilot.

So, even scuba gears look more important onboard than the pressure suits.

[Kerbart]

11 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They can't fix a leak during the ascent or descent, but the leak never happened suddenly, except in Soyuz-11 with its absolutely bad design, totally reworked in Soyuz-12.

So, it's just a question of ground tests (the thing usually omitted by Korolev's bureau tending to keep using artillery methods in space design)

If it's "just a question of ground tests" we can simplify the design of spacecraft considerably, with all the benefits (weight, cost, reliability) that come with it:

• No more Launch Escape System needed
• No outward opening hatches needed (a lot simpler - pressure will keep them shut tight)
• Cut down on reserves for oxygen, food and water

The point of safety measures is not that we can be sloppy on other fronts; it's that if everything else failed, we still have a chance on saving lives. Just because an emergency requiring pressure suits (almost) never happened doesn't mean you shouldn't carry them, especially if it potentially can result in "totally avoidable casualties"

Commercial air flight doesn't supply pressure suits or parachutes. And once spaceflight has similar safety records (millions of passengers per day, years without accidents) those pressure suits will be deemed just as unnecessary; we're just not there yet.

[DStaal]

NASA did develop procedures after STS-107 for theoretical rescue-in-orbit for missions where the shuttle was too damaged to return to Earth, but was stable in orbit.  You could do the same with a slow leak that developed during launch if necessary, and I'll bet SpaceX would be more likely to be able to get a rescue craft ready in time.

[Guest]

Commercial flight has many options for doing something about decompression than a space mission. Diving a Boeing 747 is not a common occurrence, but it can be done, and it's more or less what they do if a commercial airliner loses pressure. A spacecraft in orbit, on the other hand, has no options for quickly descending to low altitude. Masks alone would not suffice, because the pressure in a space is so low that it would cause the astronauts' bodies to swell, impeding their ability to operate controls. This is an unlikely event on orbit, but it can happen, for example if the spacecraft collides with something during docking. 

It should be definitely considered to integrate splashdown gear (thermal insulation, flotation and oxygen supply) into the suits, though. Even if nominal procedures don't assume a splashdown, it's good to be prepared, and an emergency can possibly drop you anywhere, including in the middle of a stormy sea. There has to be equipment aboard to facilitate rescuing the crew in such conditions. Space Shuttle ACES suits were designed that way, because just about the only way to abort a Shuttle flight that couldn't be landed safely would have been to bail out of the hatch. That's why the suits were orange, BTW, it contrasts very well with water.

[kerbiloid]

55 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

If it's "just a question of ground tests" we can simplify the design of spacecraft considerably, with all the benefits (weight, cost, reliability) that come with it:

• No more Launch Escape System needed
• No outward opening hatches needed (a lot simpler - pressure will keep them shut tight)
• Cut down on reserves for oxygen, food and water

The valve construction was considered ill, and it was replaced.
The situation never happened again.

The valve was not something that one can test only in space. Actually, they are used since XVIII century.
It was just a lack of testing, specific for particular designers.

Another nice example (not in Soyuz) of the same bureau was a relay switch which worked perfectly in on-ground tests, but several times didn't work during the launch.
Because on ground they tested it with opened hatch, and never tried to do this with closed. The switch just sticked into the closed hatch and couldn't switch.

Or Soyuz-1 parachutes, which got frozen and were packed into the chute box with a sledgehammer.

So, exactly this particular Soyuz-11 valve was a stupid blunder, not a rocket science.

 

55 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

No more Launch Escape System needed

LES is needed because it helped at least three times, and can save the crew in various situations. Nothing common with suits.

 

55 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

No outward opening hatches needed (a lot simpler - pressure will keep them shut tight)

Not sure if I get it right what is "outward opening hatch", but probably you mean the hatch door which can be quickly opened not inside another compartment.
Soyuz doesn't have it. The only hatch is in the ceiling, and you need to open one more hatch in the toilet habitat and one more in the shroud. So, it's easier to do LES.

Though, Apollo-1 had the hatch, and this didn't help, while Soyuzes never had problem with hatches.

As a nice and proper hatch example, we can look at the (guess, what?) VA of TKS.
It had no shroud.
Its hatch couldn't be nicely opened and closed like in Apollo after the crew got inside, without external assistance.
But it had springs which on the handle turn would threw away the hatch door, to let the crew quickly escape. (The Apollo-1 fear legacy).

55 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Cut down on reserves for oxygen, food and water

Two orbit turns (3 h) is enough to select position and land, after separation from life support.

Rescue ships were planned many times, but never actually funded (well, except SLS-107).

55 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

The point of safety measures is not that we can be sloppy on other fronts; it's that if everything else failed, we still have a chance on saving lives.

Safety measures are planned to allow one failure without a catastrophe. It's a standard defiinition.
They are never "if everything else failed". Otherwise no airplanes and spaceships would appear at all.

Rescue spacesuits look adding nothing to the actual crew safety.
They require either possible-but-nobody-will-give-money rescue missions, or should be tougher than heat-protected aluminium capsule.

55 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Commercial air flight doesn't supply pressure suits or parachutes.

Because a herd of pax would more probably overturn the plane than successfully bail out.
So, the risk is lower if they just keep sitting and waiting.

27 minutes ago, DStaal said:

You could do the same with a slow leak that developed during launch if necessary, and I'll bet SpaceX would be more likely to be able to get a rescue craft ready in time.

Maybe (though all previous plans were cut at the funding phase).
But even in this case you don't need a spacesuit already put on. They can be packed and used on demand.
Though, anyway unlikely rescue ships will ever have place before the orbital infrastructure gets really populated, so the need in rescue missions becomes daily.

***

Actually, TKS was the only spaceship where the suits actually made sense on docking (though, anyway not on launch or descent).
Just because it had two separated cabins, and the docking operations were performed at the opposite to the escape capsule end of the ship.
So, even if the docking end was crashed and smashed, the capsule stayed intact (it was separated even electrically, absolutely independent subship) and had its own deorbit retrorocket.
But exactly there there was no need to put them on, and they could be stored in the service module if the spacesuit-on-launch requirement wasn't forcing.
 

Edited July 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[DStaal]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Maybe (though all previous plans were cut at the funding phase).
But even in this case you don't need a spacesuit already put on. They can be packed and used on demand.
Though, anyway unlikely rescue ships will ever have place before the orbital infrastructure gets really populated, so the need in rescue missions becomes daily.

Depends on your definition of 'slow', and what *else* they have to deal with.  If you're assuming they can be packed and used on demand, you also assume that in the case they need them they have the time, room, and ability to get out of their seats, put on the suits, and get back to whatever they were doing (like trying to fix the ship...).  That may not be the case - a moderately slow leak  (in the range of 'depressurize in a few minutes) may need immediate action during ascent, and the astronauts may have to deal with it while still under launch acceleration.  Best to have the backup in place first.

Also, from what I understand the seats are designed to fit the suits - so you'd have to have a seat that works with or without the suit, and then switch it between modes.  Which introduces more complexity where it isn't needed, when you can just wear the suit and have only one in-use layout.

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Not sure if I get it right what is "outward opening hatch", but probably you mean the hatch door which can be quickly opened not inside another compartment.
Soyuz doesn't have it.

The hatch on Apollo 1 opened by swinging inside the capsule. In space, the internal pressure pushed the hatch against the shell, helping to seal the hatch. But such a hatch is impossible to open if the capsule pressure exceeds the outside pressure, which it did during the test (20 psi pure oxygen absolute pressure compared to ~14.7psi outside). The fire caused the pressure to rise even more. It’s a similar effect to trying To open a car door underwater before the interior is flooded. 

Having the hatch swing outwards (as it was redesigned to after the accident) makes it more challenging to seal, as the internal pressure tries to blow the hatch open. I suppose if it sank they could just crank up the internal pressure. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by StrandedonEarth

[DStaal]

11 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Having the hatch swing outwards (as it was redesigned to after the accident) makes it more challenging to seal, as the internal pressure tries to blow the hatch open. I suppose if it sank they could just crank up the internal pressure. 

You could also put in an emergency depressurization valve someplace - something easier to open and seal than a full door.

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, DStaal said:

If you're assuming they can be packed and used on demand, you also assume that in the case they need them they have the time, room, and ability to get out of their seats, put on the suits, and get back to whatever they were doing (like trying to fix the ship...).

I assume that if the capsule hull got cracked and depressurized, the suits can just extend the agony, as airbreaking is probably impossible and theonly chance to escape is the rescue mission.
So, if they wear suits, this won't save them.

If the hull is intact, they don't need the suits.

10 minutes ago, DStaal said:

a moderately slow leak  (in the range of 'depressurize in a few minutes) may need immediate action during ascent, and the astronauts may have to deal with it while still under launch acceleration. 

1. Unlikely they can do anything but LES under 4 g overloads if the hull starts leaking. But LES is operated from ground.

2. The hull yet didn't start leaking with no reason on launch. It should be either smashed so strong that it cracks, then LES is the only option they do anyway.
If this happens above the stratosphere, unlikely the cracked capsule will survive reentry.
If this happens below, it's enough to have breathe masks.

3. The astronauts should be a speaking cargo on ascent. They can't pilot the rocket with joystick, they don't need to know anything but "all systems go".
The ground staff anyway gets telemetry and responds, they are piloting the rocket. If the ground stops responding, it's an abort situation, but the hull is still intact, so they don't need suits.

17 minutes ago, DStaal said:

Also, from what I understand the seats are designed to fit the suits - so you'd have to have a seat that works with or without the suit, and then switch it between modes. 

Fighter pilot seats also fit the pilot's figure, and they are in some degree adjustable. Overloads are comparable.

[Kerbart]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

LES is needed because it helped at least three times, and can save the crew in various situations. Nothing common with suits.

Wouldn't that just be a matter of "proper ground procedures" so you can prevent needing the LES?

You're hammering on "if we checked valve X those suits aren't needed."

The problem with that statement, which is why I mentioned the LES, is that you can apply it to any safety measure. And the problem with that is that while we know what went wrong, and check for it, we don't know what else will go wrong in the future. We don't have suits because 'we don't trust comrade Pavel to check the valve." We have suits because "we're not so arrogant that we think we have safeguarded *every* point of failure"

That's why the response to the Apollo One hatch wasn't a mere "let's make sure all wires are properly insulated and grounded" -- even though I'm sure the engineers were pretty confident a fire like that couldn't happen again,  they still redesigned the hatch. Why? Because you never know what else might come around to bite you. And if a second fire happened and the crew could once again not escape because the hatch opened inward? Would "well, this fire had a different source" be an acceptable excuse?

The LES is a glaringly obvious safety measure you wouldn't leave out, despite a "we analyzed the problem last time you needed it. And we assure you, that won't happen again!" The fact that an LES was apparently used three times shows the folly of that statement. Leaving out the suits? We have identified the root cause of that particular problem and eliminated it. So you don't need a pressure suit anymore." Do you really think your highly trained astronauts would be comfortable with that?

 

"Your crew died because of X" - while "there's nothing we could have done about it" is not a very satisfying answer, "we could have avoided it, but we just thought it wouldn't happen" might very well end your manned program.

[kerbiloid]

18 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Wouldn't that just be a matter of "proper ground procedures" so you can prevent needing the LES?

No, because LES allows to parry multiple factors of different nature, various possible events of low probability.

The only thing where the spacesuit can help is to not suffocate for 2 hours if the hull is crashed and depressurized. It's btw absolutely insufficient even for a rescue mission.
But the conditions of the hull depressurization are either killing the suit as well, or leaving the temporarily survived crew in lethal situation without help (stuck in orbit), or can be eliminated by better part testing and breathe masks.

You don't put a third backup chute, in case if 1st backup failed.
You don't add ejection seats.
Also there is no scuba gear onboard, and usually even a pistol.
 

Edited July 28, 2020 by kerbiloid

[RCgothic]

The main threat to spacecraft on orbit is micrometeoroid damage. Those produce punctures, that may be behind trim or panels and not immediately accessible. That's what the pressure suits are for. Cabins can depressurise alarmingly quickly through surprisingly small holes.

Punctures are not necessarily structurally critical. And although there may also be crew injuries and suit punctures, these are at least accessible. A pressure suit allows crew to survive until re-entry, or until repairs can be effected.

Just because punctures haven't caused mission critical incidents yet is not a good excuse not to be prepared for a foreseeable solution.