NASA and the Private Sector - Page 132

Ladies and gentleman, meet the SpaceX spacesuit. Elon Musk just came through with the first pic of the astronaut gear via his Instagram. And, even though it's not a full look at the suit, it offers plenty to pick apart. Like, why is the American flag on the arm the wrong way round? (Although, that could be due to the image being flipped.) Speculation aside, let's start with what we know so far. Musk claims this is not a mockup, meaning it's a real-life, working spacesuit. That's cool, because (by the looks of things) it's all about mobility.

The SpaceX spacesuit's already been tested to double vacuum pressure, according to Musk. And, we're assuming it passed those trials, along with the ocean landing mobility and safety runs. By far its most striking feature is its slim, fitted design. Most contemporary, and even next-gen spacesuits, look bulky and utilitarian. The SpaceX spacesuit, on the other hand, looks a lot lighter. Which makes sense, seeing as it was crafted by a Hollywood costume designer, renowned for making Batman and Wolverine's figure-hugging outfits.

The helmet also seems to offer plenty of visibility, although less so than NASA's future Z-2 suit. Musk claims it was "hard to balance" aesthetic with functionality. For the most part, the design seems to keep things simple. There are minimal grey lines and patches that sit nicely alongside its traditional white coloring. Its closest comparisons in the world of cinema are probably the suits worn in Interstellar, and (appropriately) The Martian.

Musk is keen to milk this unveiling for all it's worth, so expect more shots over the coming days. The suit may eventually be worn by astronauts on NASA's commercial crew program.

On August 23 2017 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Yeah this isn't a spacewalk suit unless NASA and SpaceX reveal another suit or possibly one that can go over this current version.

edit: Come to think of it is that even possible from an Engineering standpoint to have one suit go over another?

NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) still has a number of concerns over crew safety numbers for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), notably the guideline Loss of Crew (LOC) metric, based on the threat of MicroMeteoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) damage and crew recovery from the ocean after an abort. The plan acknowledged both SpaceX and Boeing are actively working to improve their LOC ratings.

The latest meeting of the influential ASAP received “a very detailed and in-depth discussion with Ms. Kathy Lueders, the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) Manager,” who noted the considerable amount of the progress made over recent months with both of NASA’s Commercial Crew partners.

NASA is working with SpaceX and its Dragon 2 spacecraft along with Boeing and its Starliner (CST-100) vehicle to regain American independence for its crew launch capability.

The CCP is currently working on mission planning and preparation for eight crew missions, with SpaceX and Boeing each working on a demo flight to the ISS without a crew, a demo flight to the ISS with a crew and two post-certification missions.

With regard to the official schedule, SpaceX is planning its first demo mission without a crew in February 2018, and the demo mission with a crew in June 2018. Boeing’s uncrewed orbital flight test mission is scheduled for June 2018 and the first crewed test mission in August 2018.

As previously noted with the progress being made on both crew systems, the panel was told the CCP and its partners are now into the “home stretch”, although the panel recognized that these schedules may slip and many challenges remain.

The primary interest of the ASAP is crew safety. They are a traditionally conservative body and were initially cautious over the commercialization of human space flight.

However, traditional elements of NASA have also been a target for their cautious attitude, famously butting heads with the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) when actively protesting against any extension to the Shuttle’s lifetime to cover the growing gap with the then-failing Constellation Program (CxP). Notably, many of the SSP managers who complained about ASAP’s attitude towards their improved safety regime are now embedded as top managers at the commercial crew companies.

The ASAP was presented with the three main “programmatic and safety risks” currently challenging the CCP, noted as the “inability to meet Loss of Crew (LOC) metrics, DoD’s Search and Rescue posture and capability, and the possibility of aborts taking place in sea states that would be unsafe for rescue.”

Ranging back throughout NASA’s history, the dreaded parameter of “LOV and LOC – and the combination of LOV/C” were often cited as a way of portraying the risks involved with human space flight. While LOV (Loss Of Vehicle) relied on abort and crew escape options – something the Space Shuttle lacked in numerous LOV scenarios, LOC (Loss Of Crew) is the metric that sends a shiver down the spines of those tasked with building and launching crew-capable vehicles.

The ASAP was told NASA’s LOC threshold number is 1:150 and LOC requirement is 1:270. In other words, the Agency’s requirement is not to lose more than one crew in every 270 flights.

This is a guideline to work within, as opposed to an expectation they will actually lose one crew within 270 missions, although the LOV/C numbers have gained ridicule over recent years, not least when Ares I managers boldly claimed a 1:1000 LOC number for their system before refining it into the hundreds.

That was acknowledged by another ASAP panel member, who noted “One of the things the Panel has begun to observe and discuss is the considerable statistical distribution between the probabilities that are used in the model. As an example, one of the current calculations uses a value of 1:300 as a calculation for overall risk, but statistically, that number can vary between 1:140 and 1:1200.”

It was also stated at the meeting that “using it as an absolute number to judge system safety is probably a misuse of the LOC estimate.”

Per NASA’s requirement, the ASAP was told that both CCP providers are “showing numbers that are somewhat worse than those targets,” according to the minutes of the meeting. “However, those numbers are being worked, and the Program is identifying potential design changes or workarounds that would improve the situation.”

As expected, the major on orbit threat of MMOD dominates the LOC calculation, with the teams “looking at areas for improvement and are continuing to study operational mitigations that could improve the numbers they have today”, as noted to the ASAP.

MMOD was traditionally classed as the third biggest risk to losing a crew during the Shuttle era, behind launch and re-entry/landing.

The risks associated with launch have been mitigated via the commercial crew vehicle’s abort systems, elements the Shuttle did not include.

Notably, a launch abort for a commercial crew vehicle is a concern due to the environment they would be returning too – namely the ocean. A Shuttle’s primary launch abort site (RTLS – Return To Launch Site) was a runway, namely the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) – although hundreds of immediate return abort runways around the world were also available had they been required due to a major malfunction on orbit.

On August 24 2017 11:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Does anyone have any space novels they recommend? Either fiction/fantasy will suffice. This is a request on the news of the suits being released.

The Mass Effect books are really good.

After I go through my books, I'll update this.