NASA was fully aware of drowning risk with ISS space suits

[Tarrow]

Guys, this kind of statistics is totally meaningless, just stop it.

Obviously raw figures such as were being bandied about mean little without some situational / distribution data to give them some perspective. It's just my natural response to iffy numbers, a bad habit from ye olde lab days. Believe me I've no intention of getting into a stats discussion

Personally for what NASA's achieved I've always thought their fatality count to be very low. They (and the other agencies) have some fantastic engineers working on some crazy stuff and they've achieved great things. Risk is part of going into space - anyone with the balls to strap themselves to the side of 1700 tonnes of rocket fuel is going to know and accept that. If they were to turn around tomorrow and say "We need a crew of 20 people, there's a 70% chance you'll be on Mars by christmas, a 30% chance you'll be atomised" they'd get their crew.

But nearly dying because no-one thought to actually check where a water leak was coming from before using the suit again? And having no plan for getting water out of the helmet if anything leaked? Everyone involved deserves a collective smack across the back of the head. Personally I'd have been on the radio screaming "Guys, there's water in the helmet, I'm coming back inside! What was that ground control? Well what're you going to do, ground me?" and probably spend the rest of my life having nightmares about having to choose between drowning in a spacesuit or opening the suit to space......

[Kryten]

If NASA have had 14 deaths from 277 crewmembers then that puts their mortality rate for the shuttle program alone at 5.05%.

A completely meaningless figure. Many of the people that flew on the shuttle were not NASA astronauts, and many of those that did flew more than once.

[Seret]

But nearly dying because no-one thought to actually check where a water leak was coming from before using the suit again? And having no plan for getting water out of the helmet if anything leaked? Everyone involved deserves a collective smack across the back of the head. Personally I'd have been on the radio screaming "Guys, there's water in the helmet, I'm coming back inside! What was that ground control? Well what're you going to do, ground me?" and probably spend the rest of my life having nightmares about having to choose between drowning in a spacesuit or opening the suit to space......

Have a read of the report. Apparently water in the helmet was considered reasonably routine. I imagine it's pretty easy to spill some when taking a drink. As for not having a plan, they had done some testing on water leaks, but their testing had lead them to believe that the water would be turned to mist by one of the fans. Therefore they did have a plan for a fogged up helmet. This is one of the main flaws identified by the report: there were some incorrect assumptions made which meant nobody expected the exact failure mode that occurred, so didn't react to it quickly enough.

Bottom line is: no NASA was not aware of a "drowning risk" with the suit, as the OP alleges. In fact the accident was caused by the fact that they didn't think there was any risk to the astronaut's life.

[MrZayas1]

Look bro, I know it is extremely bad attention for NASA to have accidents, but it happens. Every time you make new things it will go wrong one way or another. I'm sure that when they built the first nuclear reactor they had problems and had to shut it down and fix it, I'm sure that when they built the first blimps they had problems like the Hindenburg. So quit blaming NASA for accidents, it isn't there fault. The man made it out alive, and NASA corrected the space suits. Don't act like everything NASA does is on purpose to kill people. If anything if we didn't have a space program, then we would be behind technologically. Using your logic, the program would have been closed a long time ago. NASA's budget is already at it's lowest, and for that reason we have to skimp out on things.

So please use some logic next time you make a post on a Gaming Forums where they discuss this game called Kerbal Space Program, which is built off of the United states NASA program.

[drakesdoom]

Has anyone else read any Warhammer 40k? Because I have let me tell you they run their space ships like 18th century orphan child labor factories, and if that is what it would take to get mankind in space permanently I would be fine with that.

In comparison occasionally losing a few people because something broke or went wrong and no looked close enough to notice ahead of time is not that incompetent. The only move I think NASA has ever done that was incompetent was launching when the temperature was out of spec for the o-rings on the SRBs. That was knowingly reckless. This was unknowingly reckless. Just think of all the warning stickers you have seen in your life, every single one of those is there because somebody was permanently injured or died from doing that.

[Klingon Admiral]

Every time you make new things it will go wrong one way or another.

The suits are not new, they are 30 year old tech. The www and the email are younger.

when they built the first blimps they had problems like the Hindenburg.

Electric charging of the paint of the outer coating (which was, more or less, solid rocket fuel) of the zeppelins hull by a thunderstorm? Unlikely. The first airship accident was in 1902, where a airship exploded over Paris, killing it's two crewmembers. And by the time of the Hindenburg, zeppelins weren't new, they were established tech. No reliable tech, but tech. And the Hindenburg wasn't a blimp. And I could now go o about how the Hindenburg disaster was a result of the political situation of the time, but I will stop here.

The man made it out alive, and NASA corrected the space suits.

Nope, EVA acitivity on the ISS will be suspended until June, in the worst case into September.

If anything if we didn't have a space program, then we would be behind technologically.

Who are "we".

So please use some logic next time you make a post on a Gaming Forums where they discuss this game called Kerbal Space Program, which is built off of the United states NASA program.

Why is KSP modeled after NASA and not Roskosmos, ESA, JAXA or CNSA?

[Red Iron Crown]

Typical after-the-fact finger pointing. I don't understand the mentality that requires someone to be at fault for every bad thing that happens. It is possible for everyone to do their jobs correctly and well and still have things go sideways.

Any endeavor with the complexity and inherent danger of a space program is going to have to deal with "acceptable risk". Since risk cannot be fully mitigated given that resources and timelines are finite, eventually someone has to say "This level of risk is acceptable" or no missions would ever fly. Unfortunately, sometimes those acceptable risks bite you, and it then becomes easy for people to fingerpoint and say, with full benefit of hindsight, "That level of risk was obviously too high."

[rkman]

Has anyone else read any Warhammer 40k?

Let's not take cues about reality from fiction.

Because I have let me tell you they run their space ships like 18th century orphan child labor factories, and if that is what it would take to get mankind in space permanently I would be fine with that.

Just so long as it is not your child working in that factory. Oh, orphans only hm? I suppose that makes it ok...

This was unknowingly reckless.

They knew there were problems with the suits, just as they knew there were problems with the o-rings and problems with foam dropping.

"This level of risk is acceptable" or no missions would ever fly.

Known problems with the suits is not an acceptable level of risk, and ignoring those problems is not "doing their jobs correctly".

Edited February 28, 2014 by rkman

[Albert VDS]

@Red Iron Crown:Exactly, it's like saying that someone is to blame when a firefighter gets stuck in a burning building. It's not like they are taking a walk in the park.

[LordOfTheOrbits]

I think this is bad, not because they didn't fix this issue when they found out, but because they didn't say that there was this risk. It's one thing to send someone into space and tell him about any risks you know, but it's a totally different thing when you send someone into space and don't tell him a risk you know about.

[Space Viking]

@Red Iron Crown:Exactly, it's like saying that someone is to blame when a firefighter gets stuck in a burning building. It's not like they are taking a walk in the park.

In relevance to the topic, I think it's more like a firefighter suffocating to death during duty because of a known issue with the SCBA was being ignored and left in obscurity by the fire chief.

[Red Iron Crown]

Known problems with the suits is not an acceptable level of risk, and ignoring those problems is not "doing their jobs correctly".

Not so sure about that. The summary in the report describes the failure mode as "unseen previously and unpredicted" which led to issues with proper diagnosis of the problem. This isn't a clear case of knowingly ignoring potentially fatal problems, it's a failure to recognize that what seemed a minor glitch with the suits could actually develop into a more threatening condition.

Besides, no one died or was seriously injured, so it would seem that the precautions and procedures prevented any loss of life. It was a near miss, and NASA has done the right thing by investigating and finding ways to improve their procedures.

I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable about space programs in general, and I would have put the likelihood of "drowning" being the cause of death for an astronaut to be extremely low, especially since we don't do splashdowns anymore. Asphyxiation, carbon dioxide poisoning, exposure to vacuum, burnup on reentry or launch failure all seem to be far more likely scenarios.

[rkman]

It is hardly any less serious a problem because no one died.

"in his last minutes inside the spacesuit the water was covering his eyes, getting close to his nose and mouth, and affecting the communications equipment." http://www.universetoday.com/109763/spacesuit-leak-mishap-why-it-took-nasa-23-minutes-to-send-astronaut-to-safety/#ixzz2ue2TQI1N

You really don't want that on EVA.

This specific failure mode was new, not new was that there were problems with the system. They did not know those would not develop into a more serious problem, they assumed. It should have been investigated why the suits were not performing according to spec, they would have found the cause and could have fixed it before it developed into a more serious problem.

[Space Viking]

Not so sure about that. The summary in the report describes the failure mode as "unseen previously and unpredicted" which led to issues with proper diagnosis of the problem. This isn't a clear case of knowingly ignoring potentially fatal problems, it's a failure to recognize that what seemed a minor glitch with the suits could actually develop into a more threatening condition.

Although, the suit was a model which was designed for shorter durations in Space Shuttle missions and then brought right back for maintenance. In page 22 of the report it says "Continuous flight of the ISS requires spacesuits to be left on-board for longer periods of time than the suit’s original Shuttle certification allowed.". So by professional standards, isn't it a safety violation using those suits beyond their assigned specifications?

[Red Iron Crown]

It is hardly any less serious a problem because no one died.

"in his last minutes inside the spacesuit the water was covering his eyes, getting close to his nose and mouth, and affecting the communications equipment." http://www.universetoday.com/109763/spacesuit-leak-mishap-why-it-took-nasa-23-minutes-to-send-astronaut-to-safety/#ixzz2ue2TQI1N

You really don't want that on EVA.

It is very much a less serious problem if no one dies. An incident resulting in death is always more serious than one that doesn't.

Now, I'm not saying that it was pleasant for the astronaut or that the problem wasn't serious or life threatening, but it is less serious than if the astronaut had died.

This specific failure mode was new, not new was that there were problems with the system. They did not know those would not develop into a more serious problem, they assumed. It should have been investigated why the suits were not performing according to spec, they would have found the cause and could have fixed it before it developed into a more serious problem.

You cannot "know" that something won't develop into a more serious problem, that's trying to prove a negative. Honestly, this is the sort of 20-20 hindsight I was talking about.

[Seret]

isn't it a safety violation using those suits beyond their assigned specifications?

A risk assessment would have been done. It's not like they just threw some suits in the back of the space van as an afterthought. Manned spaceflight being the way it is, I suspect they went over everything with a fine tooth comb before they gave it the ok. At the very least they would have had to give some consideration to mitigating the effect of being unable to carry out their normal maintenance regime.

[drakesdoom]

So by professional standards, isn't it a safety violation using those suits beyond their assigned specifications?

Professional saftey standards are much different down here on earth where you can just go down to the store and get what is "proper" for the job, well in theory anyway. This is a case of we need space suits to keep the ISS up and the best we have are not really built for that mission.

Option 1: Use the suits outside recommended service schedule

Option 2: Abandon the ISS

[Horn Brain]

Hindsight. Everything could have been prevented if we had just known that it would happen as it did. We don't know what's going to happen. We are often surprised by things happening in ways that we never anticipated. We try to avoid these things where possible. We are not perfect.

All of the arguing in here is silly.

[rkman]

You cannot "know" that something won't develop into a more serious problem, that's trying to prove a negative.

Right, so they should not have assumed it would be ok if they do nothing about it.

All of the arguing in here is silly.

Except yours of course.

[Vanamonde]

Don't let the discussion get personal, guys.

[xcorps]

It is very much a less serious problem if no one dies. An incident resulting in death is always more serious than one that doesn't.

Only in a zero sum game. Workplace safety is not a zero sum game. An accident that could result in death should be approached in the same manner as one that did cause death. Just because there were no fatal consequences does not mitigate the responsibility of management to attend to the matter as seriously as if there were. Unless you are willing to contend that me shooting at you and missing allows me to shoot at you again because the first shot wasn't fatal.

Hindsight. Everything could have been prevented if we had just known that it would happen as it did. We don't know what's going to happen. We are often surprised by things happening in ways that we never anticipated. We try to avoid these things where possible. We are not perfect.

All of the arguing in here is silly.

Which is precisely why you conduct an investigation of a reported anomaly instead of checking a box on a form labeled "No big deal".

Manned spaceflight being the way it is, I suspect they went over everything with a fine tooth comb before they gave it the ok.

Except they didn't conduct an investigation of the reports of water entering the suits.

Typical after-the-fact finger pointing. I don't understand the mentality that requires someone to be at fault for every bad thing that happens.

Holding people responsible for their negligence is not the same thing as finger pointing. When someone has a potentially fatal incident, you want to know why so it isn't repeated. The report clearly states that there was an uninvestigated anomaly reported that led to this near miss. That's not finger pointing. That's root cause analysis.

I have to wonder if some of you "siding" with NASA on this would have the same reaction/attitude if an Exxon worker was locked into a confined space (but only nearly died) due to a faulty anti-locking mechanism that management was aware of. I'm thinking not.

[Seret]

The report clearly states that there was an uninvestigated anomaly reported that led to this near miss. That's not finger pointing. That's root cause analysis.

Indeed. The report isn't (as the OP seems to be suggesting) an expose of gross negligence at NASA, it's them looking at the causal factors of the accident, so they can close up any procedural holes and prevent similar things happening again.

I have to wonder if some of you "siding" with NASA on this would have the same reaction/attitude if an Exxon worker was locked into a confined space (but only nearly died) due to a faulty anti-locking mechanism that management was aware of. I'm thinking not.

Except that in this case it's clear they (wrongly) didn't think the suit was faulty. If they did, I think it's likely this accident wouldn't have happened. What people such as myself are arguing against are claims like those of the OP, who has posted up a report then made some inflammatory statements that aren't supported by the contents of that report.

[Albert VDS]

I've yet to see someone post a quote (with page number in the pdf) that says "Yes we know of it, but didn't do anything about it".

[Space Viking]

I've yet to see someone post a quote (with page number in the pdf) that says "Yes we know of it, but didn't do anything about it".

Admittedly, I did use an incorrect page reference in my previous post. Eitherway, it says in the initial page of root causes, pdf page 22, that they knew of the "drink bag anomaly" in EVA 22, but was practically left unchallenged in favor to the upcoming EVA 23.

The MIB could not identify a clear reason why the EVA community at large had the perception

that the EVA drink bags leaked. When presented with the suggestion that the crew member’s drink bag

leaked out the large amount of water that was found in EV2’s helmet after EVA 22, no one in the EVA

community (which includes team members from Operations, Engineering, Safety, and Crew) challenged

this determination and investigated further. Had that conclusion been challenged, the issue would likely

have been discovered prior to EVA 23 and the mishap would have been avoided.

They was perfectly aware of a potential problem of water build-up and its eye irritating effects due to an anti-fog agent. Yet, it was regarded as "fine" because they assumed the water would only accumulate on the visor based on tests performed in regular gravity.

The teams believed that if significant water entered the helmet through the vent loop that it would cling to the inner surface of the

helmet rather than cling to the crew member’s head. They also believed that if a significant amount of

water entered the vent loop, the Fan/Pump/Separator would likely stall, as it had in 1-G when significant

water entered the vent loop. Therefore, the significant hazard it presented was not anticipated.

Through interviews with ground personnel and review of data from previous EMU performance,

it was clear that some water entering the helmet was considered normal by the ground teams. Despite the

fact that water carryover into the helmet presented a known hazard of creating eye irritation due to its

interaction with anti-fog agents, and also presented a potential fogging hazard, the ground teams grew to accept this as normal EMU behavior.

And again based on corrected reference, it says in pdf page 31 the suit's certification had been exceeded.

So obviously, it's hardly a black on white matter to just simply assume the answer is quoted in the report as "who could have known?" or "we don't care".

[Albert VDS]

It read more like "It didn't look like a problem" than "We knew it was going to put someone in danger".