Drowning in space

http://blogs.esa.int/luca-parmitano/

Parmitano's first hand account of the water in the suit incident.

Sounds pretty bad to me and a heck of a lot closer than I think anyone would
have liked to have seen.

In article om,
says...

On 13-08-22 17:42, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://blogs.esa.int/luca-parmitano/

Parmitano's first hand account of the water in the suit incident.

Sounds pretty bad to me and a heck of a lot closer than I think anyone would
have liked to have seen.


What is not clear in his blog is exactly how filled with water his
helmet was. Fishbowl full ? Or mostly filled with air, with individual
blobs of water on visor and other places ?

Not sure, but from what I've read so far, the most likely sources for
the water would have had it leaking straight into the O2 loop that's fed
into the helmet. A leak in the coolant loop would have posed less of a
threat because, as you say, incoming O2 into the helmet might have
helped keep water from pooling there. In other words, this leak was in
a *very* bad spot.

There may not have been enough water in his helmet to kill him, but
being near aspirating water into the lungs while confined in a spacesuit
would have put many people into a panicked state, IMHO. Since he was
able to get back into ISS without completely panicking, I'd say he's got
"the right stuff".

technical speculation snipped

Has NASA published a technical post mortem on what went wrong in
the suit ?

Not yet, as far as I know.

Jeff

--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

The trouble is that water kind of clumps in blobs in microgravity, so you
end up with more than one issue as you would if there was gravity. IE you
don't really know how much there is, as there is no actual level. I guess he
could have drunk it!

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
m...
http://blogs.esa.int/luca-parmitano/

Parmitano's first hand account of the water in the suit incident.

Sounds pretty bad to me and a heck of a lot closer than I think anyone
would have liked to have seen.

In article om,
says...

On 13-08-22 17:42, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://blogs.esa.int/luca-parmitano/

Parmitano's first hand account of the water in the suit incident.

Sounds pretty bad to me and a heck of a lot closer than I think anyone
would
have liked to have seen.


What is not clear in his blog is exactly how filled with water his
helmet was. Fishbowl full ? Or mostly filled with air, with individual
blobs of water on visor and other places ?

Not sure, but from what I've read so far, the most likely sources for
the water would have had it leaking straight into the O2 loop that's fed
into the helmet. A leak in the coolant loop would have posed less of a
threat because, as you say, incoming O2 into the helmet might have
helped keep water from pooling there. In other words, this leak was in
a *very* bad spot.

There may not have been enough water in his helmet to kill him, but
being near aspirating water into the lungs while confined in a spacesuit
would have put many people into a panicked state, IMHO. Since he was
able to get back into ISS without completely panicking, I'd say he's got
"the right stuff".

I also suspect the way water behaves here is vastly difference than our
normal experience.

I would expect that surface tension plays a larger role than we're
accustomed to here on Earth.

So I would think the helmet wouldn't "fill up" like a fishbowl might, but as
water enters, it's going to attach itself to surfaces, like his ear, cheek,
nose, etc.

So even just turning his head may not make any difference.

And even a little bit of aspiration can be deadly or at least be a severe
enough medical complication that I'll bet the medics were very nervous.

And yes, I have to agree, he's got the "Right Stuff".

(Now the question is, what if anything will NASA do for procedures for
checking out the suits or even what changes will they make.)


technical speculation snipped

Has NASA published a technical post mortem on what went wrong in
the suit ?

Fortunately, it's NOT a post-mortem in the true sense of the world.



Not yet, as far as I know.

Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...


I just realized I set tge original group wrong here, so I've changed the
follow-up.

The EVA incident should result in a ISS research project. While inside
the station, but wearing a suit, get some water injected into helmet in
various ways, and fully document how it behaves and test various
techniques for the astronaut to deal with that water.

(for instance, wouldn't rotating head as quickly as possible cause water
blobs to leave face and be thrown towards the helmet where surface
tension should keep it there ?)

Interesting question. Honestly, not sure. Not sure you could rotate your
head fast enough to overcome the surface tension (it's not much, but on the
other hand, if the layer of water's thin enough, you won't be able to spin
enough of it off.)


Repositioning the clean air pipe so that the air movement it creates
would cause water blobs to stay away from face.

etc etc.

This is something they can't really test on the ground since you need 0G
and the ISS is a perfect test facility for this.


Except... you might have trouble getting this past the human experimentation
boards. There's still a very high risk of aspirating water into the lungs,
something I'm sure they'd want to avoid.

That said, still not a terrible idea.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article om,
says...

The EVA incident should result in a ISS research project. While inside
the station, but wearing a suit, get some water injected into helmet in
various ways, and fully document how it behaves and test various
techniques for the astronaut to deal with that water.

(for instance, wouldn't rotating head as quickly as possible cause water
blobs to leave face and be thrown towards the helmet where surface
tension should keep it there ?)

Repositioning the clean air pipe so that the air movement it creates
would cause water blobs to stay away from face.

etc etc.

This is something they can't really test on the ground since you need 0G
and the ISS is a perfect test facility for this.

John Young said the following about "practicing RTLS" with the space
shuttle: "You don't practice bleeding".

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article m,
says...

On 13-08-26 08:40, Jeff Findley wrote:

John Young said the following about "practicing RTLS" with the space
shuttle: "You don't practice bleeding".

RTLS represents a high risk of destruction, but is a better bet than
assured destruction if you do nothing in a catastrophic accident. But
the risks are so high than it isn't somrthing you test.

However,

When one learns how to scuba dive, one of the prerequisite skills is to
know what it feels like to lose the mask, how to open eyes in seawater,
put mask back on and empty it, same with losing your mouthpiece. This
can be considered "traumatic" during a scuba dive and the point of the
exercise is to show you can recover and not to panic.

Similarly, doing research on water in helmet would allow training of
astronauts on how to react best to the water in helmet problem, how to
detect it, how to breathe once detected, and what if any, one can do to
try to keep water away from eyes, nose, mouth. (as well, how others
reach in loss of voice communications).

If the research is done inside the ISS with unlocked helmet, it can
quickly be removed if necessary, and more importantly, other crewmembers
can monitor water movement/behavious in the helmet and end the
experiment if they feel it is getting danmgerous.

Experimenting on a human subject like this isn't to be taken lightly.
I'm not sure ISS is the best place to do such tests, given how water
reacts in microgravity.

Maybe on the Vomit Comet... maybe. At least if these experiments are
done on the Vomit Comet, medical personnel, including a hospital, would
be faster and easier to reach.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article m,
says...

On 13-08-26 08:40, Jeff Findley wrote:

John Young said the following about "practicing RTLS" with the space
shuttle: "You don't practice bleeding".

RTLS represents a high risk of destruction, but is a better bet than
assured destruction if you do nothing in a catastrophic accident. But
the risks are so high than it isn't somrthing you test.

However,

When one learns how to scuba dive, one of the prerequisite skills is to
know what it feels like to lose the mask, how to open eyes in seawater,
put mask back on and empty it, same with losing your mouthpiece. This
can be considered "traumatic" during a scuba dive and the point of the
exercise is to show you can recover and not to panic.

Similarly, doing research on water in helmet would allow training of
astronauts on how to react best to the water in helmet problem, how to
detect it, how to breathe once detected, and what if any, one can do to
try to keep water away from eyes, nose, mouth. (as well, how others
reach in loss of voice communications).

If the research is done inside the ISS with unlocked helmet, it can
quickly be removed if necessary, and more importantly, other crewmembers
can monitor water movement/behavious in the helmet and end the
experiment if they feel it is getting danmgerous.

Experimenting on a human subject like this isn't to be taken lightly.
I'm not sure ISS is the best place to do such tests, given how water
reacts in microgravity.

Maybe on the Vomit Comet... maybe. At least if these experiments are
done on the Vomit Comet, medical personnel, including a hospital, would
be faster and easier to reach.

That's probably the way to go.

Aspiration isn't something to sneeze at. I'd hate to learn how poorly water
behaves in 0G AND how to handle a medical emergency all in one step.



Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

they ran the offending suit today on ISS without a person in it.

they were happy it reoccured which will make troubleshooting easier.

this problem must be resolved

In article ,
says...

they ran the offending suit today on ISS without a person in it.

they were happy it reoccured which will make troubleshooting easier.

this problem must be resolved

Of course the problem will be resolved. It's not like ILC and Hamilton
Standard are going to let an issue like this linger. Even without NASA
looking over their shoulder, astronaut safety isn't something they take
lightly.

In other words, thank you for the update Mr. Obvious.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer