JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-04-30 21:43, Jeff Findley wrote:

ACES is only a launch/entry suit. The problem is lack of EVA suits.
And there are precious few functioning shuttle EMUs.


In the case of the weekend road trip around the moon without any camping
there, are EVA suits necessary? I know it would be politically
incorrect to send them up without any suits, but what are the odds of
them seening an EVA suit?

Even Apollo 13 didn't get to use EVA suits.


EVA suits are not the only problem. There are the "keep your ass
alive if something goes wrong" suits, which we also don't have.
Remember, THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE. The 'wear in the capsule'
suits are scheduled for delivery in 2021 or so. You can't just ****
some magic dust and have them significantly sooner.



The problem is for the money spent, they don't have actual suits. They
have some technology demonstrators, not actual EVA suits.


Parson my stupitdy here,


No, I won't. You are persistently stupid and you need to stop doing
it.


but can't they just order some Shutte/ISS suits
to get started and finish work on the "new and improved" suits at their
own leasure? Those suits can then go to ISS once the "new and improved"
ones are ready.


So much ignorance. So little interest in correcting it. However,
I'll drop a few facts on you.

1) We probably don't have enough ISS suits to support ISS through the
rest of its life. Again, there are 11 of these suits with working
life support left in inventory.

2) These suits have an endurance of 8 hours, not the 8 days
potentially needed for EM-2.

3) These are rigid suits, totally incompatible with the whole idea of
sitting in a capsule.

4) The existing suits are already past their 15 year lifespans.

5) You can't just 'order more', any more than you can call up Ford and
order a 1958 Edsel. By the time you let a contract and reconstituted
the capability to build them, you'd have the new Orion suit scheduled
for delivery around 2022.

6) What kind of 'Exploration Suit' you need rather depends on what
you're going to be doing in it. Are you just going to be doing short
duration maintenance type things in orbit somewhere? That's one suit.
Do you plan on landing on something? That's a different suit.
Constant mission change is part of why NASA doesn't have a decent path
to this kind of suit.


Or did NASA design the Orion hatch to specifically prevent use of the
ISS suits? (square ped in round hatch?)


Did Mother Nature design your brain so that it wouldn't fit in your
skull, so it was just left on a shelf somewhere?



show for it (little flying anyway). Pad 39-B isn't ready for manned
SLS/Orion flights, end of story.


Why is that? Is it q question of the specs for SLS/Orion not having
been finalized until recently so they coudln't design the pad structures
, not knowing at what height the hatch for Orion would be, where
connection for O2, H2 etc ewould be made ?


Because you SCHEDULE that **** to happen when it needs to happen, not
years before you need it. Without the luxury of unlimited money, you
buy **** as you need it. Why don't you have 30 years of food in the
pantry?


After all these years, it seems to me that at the very least, they could
have converted the pad to match the specs of that Orion/SLS thing.


At what cost? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money as the
need gets closer and spend that past money on, oh, I don't know,
actually developing that SLS/Orion thingy?


Its like NASA has known this was a rocket to nowhere and was hoping it
would get cancelled before they have to permanently tear down structures
that could help a return of the shuttle.


It's like you don't understand scheduling anything more complicated
than your morning ****.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson