Vote on NASA's Newest Spacesuit!

[hobbsyoyo]

And in case anyone missed it in the walls of text I've been posting:

Here is the link to the official NASA poll. Don't forget to vote!

___________________________________________


I have something else for you all to decide as well -

NASA is currently sponsoring a competition that will see universities and companies compete to have large CubeSats placed on the 2nd stage of the first SLS launch around the moon as piggy-backers. After the 2nd stage puts the Orion capsule on a course around the moon, they will jettison the CubeSats, which then have to complete one of two tasks:
*A CubeSat will have to place itself into orbit around the moon using on-board propulsion (the trajectory they are dumped into will not achieve lunar orbit without additional propulsion)

or

*A CubeSat will have to transmit data packets all the way back to Earth as it sails past the moon.

The CubeSats that orbit the longest or transmit data packets furthest away from the Earth will win.



NASA is asking for help naming these competitions. Any thoughts?

 

[Antilogic]

Sorry, I must have worded it badly but the Buzz Lightyear suite is an option in the poll for this thread, just not for the official NASA poll.

No, your wording was fine, I was a bit unclear. I voted for Apollo in your poll, but would have voted for either Buzz Lightyear or Apollo in the NASA poll had they given us those options.

I hate the look of the new suits but I really like the Techno paint job. That said, the Apollo paint scheme would be pretty awesome.

The other reason why these suits look so goofy is that it looks like they are using a hardshell/softshell hybrid, which offers a ton of advantages for dexterity. The suits they currently use (made by Dover LLC, which spun off of Playtex in the 70's to focus on the suits) balloon outward under their internal pressure and are consequently extremely difficult to use. A hardshell doesn't have that issue and with good joints, it is actually much more flexible than a softshell, but of course it has to not explode in vacuum like their early models did. Due to advances in materials sciences, I'm sure that's much less of a problem now.

I'd imagine they are doing some kind of multilayered fabric, probably has at least one kevlar or equivalent layer to prevent puncturing.

The original Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines in the first stage. The earliest Apollo launches had early versions of the F-1 that were capable of roughly 1.5 million pounds of thrust. Each. Later flights (Apollo 14-17) had 'mature' engines that were capable of a bit more than that, around 1.6 million pounds of thrust each. However, this number varied from flight to flight so there is no real 'go to' number that can be used other than to say they were rated for 1.5 million pounds of thrust.

It gets even trickier on the payload side because again, later missions used more (and definitely heavier) hardware. The go-to number for payload of the Saturn V was 118,000 kg (118 metric tons). Additionally, if the program had not been cancelled, some minor changes to the rocket (they would have dropped the fins on the first stage and probably gone with F-1A engines which were capable of 1.8 million pounds of thrust) they could have probably pushed that payload to ~130,000 kg.

The SLS is different in that there are distinct versions with major differences in capability, called 'blocks'*. Block I is the one they will fly first and it has a payload of 70 metric tons by using 4 of the space shuttle main engines and 2 'stretched' solid rocket boosters, also from the space shuttle. (for reference, 70 metric tons is still about 2-3x more payload than the best current rockets can deliver)

Block II is an upgraded version that will be capable of delivering at least 130 metric tons of payload to low earth orbit. Currently, the plan is that the Block II will use a bigger second stage and totally redesigned 'advanced' solid rocket boosters. However, there is currently a competition going on between ATK (which makes the solid rocket boosters) and Aerojet-Rocketdyne/Dynetics over the design of the boosters. ATK is trying to develop a new type of solid booster, while Rocketdyne/Dynetics is developing a booster that uses liquid fueled engines by re-working the F-1.

Essentially, the F-1B will borrow a lot of the design philosophy of the original F-1/F-1A's, but it will have no common parts with them. Due to advances in materials science and fabrication, they can reduce components that had literally thousands of pieces in the original F-1 down to a single casting or 3D printed part. Dynetics claims that if they win the competition that an SLS Block II could deliver up to 160 metric tons to LEO, which is 42 tons more than the Saturn V, a 35% increase. This puts missions to Mars well within practical reach, which is the ultimate goal of the SLS program.

To put this in perspective, the Saturn V had 5 F-1 engines in the first stage. SLS Block II will have 4 or 5 Space Shuttle Main Engines (which are themselves powerful engines) in addition to 4 F-1B's in the boosters (2 per booster). Talk about power!


*There is a ton of confusion in the literature over what constitutes Blocks 0, I, and II so you'll see different labels based on the source. It's looking like they are planning on testing a Block 0 with no 2nd stage, flying a Block I with a second stage on a lunar flyby mission (that I'm working with my satellite team on getting a secondary piggyback payload on) and later Block II's with advanced boosters and stretched stages to an asteroid and to Mars.

Here is a really great podcast about the F-1 engine and the SLS.

Definitely a long response, but interesting to read.

What I was most concerned with was whether or not the payload matched or exceeded what we had during the Apollo program, because that gives you an idea of what NASA thinks will be feasible in the next 20 or so years. If they were focusing on smaller payload rockets, then it's a good bet we won't be doing anything big in the coming few years. With a 35% increase over the Saturn V, as you say, they have the capability to put together long-range long-term missions.

Full disclosure: I am trying to get a jerb a Dynetics currently. Should hear back any day now.

Good luck!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, NASA is trying to think big-picture/long term, but they aren't being given the funding to really carry it out. Currently, they only have funding for one SLS launch like every 3 or 4 years or something ridiculous. Also, they weren't given enough money to finish the design of the J-2X, which is an update of the Apollo era J-2 engine that has been in the process of 'updating' for 40 years due to limited funds. They were going to fly it on the SLS 2nd stage but it looks like that won't happen.

Congress did recently pass a law that prohibits any president or NASA director from cancelling the SLS program without Congressional approval, which is overall a good thing. It does tie NASA's hands a bit and given the piss-poor funding they get, it could potentially cause problems. OTOH, the SLS program badly needs some stability as it was already cancelled once by Obama and only brought back because Congressmen kicked and screamed about the loss of good-paying aerospace jerbs in their districts.

Argh I'm rambling...if you'd like me to elaborate on the political games surrounding the SLS program let me know. It's interesting stuff.

Good luck!

Thanks. The waiting game is getting really frustrating.

 

[peter grimes]

I went with Biomimicry, but Technology is also swell.

I'd imagine that you'd want the light to be able to serve several functions:
-convey phisiological status of the wearer
-convey orientation information
-not be blinding to the wearer
-serve as backup illumination in an emergency

Either of those two designs seem up the the tasks (which may not be at all relevant )