A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Artemis 3 Mission in 2024



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 31st 19, 05:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Scott Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 9:33:41 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2019-07-30 19:47, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Yes, but again, the skills necessary to actually MAKE them may not be
available.


NASA has people who maintain the current suits, still train new
astraunauts in them etc. Surely they have some expereince in house?

Ig yuou know of the zipper flaws of the original Apollo suits, surely
NASA folks would also know of it?


The USAF Museum just put several Apollo suits on display, I saw them last
weekend when I visited.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...pace-suit1969/

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...lity-unit1971/

All suits onsite --

Mercury Space Suit—1963
Gemini G4C Space Suit—1966
Model A7L Space Suit—1969
Model A7LB Extravehicular Mobility Unit—1971
Space Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit
Space Shuttle Advanced Crew Escape Suit 1994-2011

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...Space-Gallery/
  #22  
Old July 31st 19, 12:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

On 2019-07-30 19:47, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Yes, but again, the skills necessary to actually MAKE them may not be
available.



NASA has people who maintain the current suits, still train new
astraunauts in them etc. Surely they have some expereince in house?


I do most of the maintenance on my vehicles. I didn't build my own gas
tank out of sheet metal for our '04 Pontiac Vibe. I ordered it from
RockAuto.

Ig yuou know of the zipper flaws of the original Apollo suits, surely
NASA folks would also know of it?


That's one reason why every astronaut back then had three suits made for
them. One for training, one for flight, and one as a backup.

And yes, of course any new designs will try to learn lessons from previous
designs.
Not sure why you're expecting otherwise.


because i've been told it isn't workable to use old designs.


Because an old design that's been out of production for more than 50
years would have to be recreated from scratch. A 20 year old assistant
helping work on them in 1965 would be 74 years old today. The experts,
who were likely older, are even older. Literally no one who worked on
those original suits would be working today.

Why are you rehashing the same stupid arguments for rebuilding a Saturn
V only with an Apollo spacesuit? The reasons we can't build a Saturn V
today are the same reasons we can't build an Apollo suit today.

Besides, we've made progress in lots of areas over 50+ years so a new
suit design would be better. Like, perhaps, this one:

THIS COMPANY SAYS IT HAS A LUNAR SPACE SUIT THAT WILL BE READY FOR
NASA?S 2024 MOON MISSION
Collins Aerospace has a space outfit you can use

By Loren Grush @lorengrush Jul 29, 2019, 3:29pm EDT
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/29/8...ace-suit-moon-
mission-collins-aerospace-ilc-dover-next-generation

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #23  
Old July 31st 19, 11:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

"JF Mezei" wrote in message ...

On 2019-07-30 19:47, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Yes, but again, the skills necessary to actually MAKE them may not be
available.



NASA has people who maintain the current suits, still train new
astraunauts in them etc. Surely they have some expereince in house?


Some.

Ig yuou know of the zipper flaws of the original Apollo suits, surely
NASA folks would also know of it?


Obviously. But that doesn't mean they know the best way to solve it. There's
multiple ways that might be attempted.



And yes, of course any new designs will try to learn lessons from
previous
designs.
Not sure why you're expecting otherwise.


because i've been told it isn't workable to use old designs.


Not using is not the same as not learning lessons from them.


Considering they were custom made for each astronaut, yes they were only
used once.
And since they were required for re-entry, they were returned.


I was under the impression the moon suits remained in the LEM and they
had other suits for the command module. Did they remove the backpack on
the moon suits so they could fit on the couches and plug themselves into
the cabin air flexible tubes?


Yes, the backpacks were left on the surface of the Moon, mostly to save
mass.
They also left their bags of crap on the Moon.
You'd be better off with less impressions and more facts.




What made the Shuttle EVA suits so much heavier than Apollo ones?


The hard torso.


Did the Apollo suits have equivalent systems ? (the water cooled/heated
undergarment for instance)? Or do the Shuttle era suits have more
elaborate systems ?


The Apollo suits did not have a hard torso. They were rubber with beta cloth
and other materials, but were flexible.



So they went with a hard torso (in I think 3 sizes, S, M, L) and then
soft
components for the arms and legs.


Why would this end up being heavier? is it just that they didn't work to
optimized the mass and used lead instead of titanium for the
structure/components?


The materials are completely different. And yes, there was less need to
optimize for mass and more need to optimize for re-usability.


Do the Shuttle EVA suits provide greater autonomy in hours than the
Apollo era suits?


I think they were about the same. But I think they had better environmental
controls given they spent a good part of the time in the darkness while all
efforts on the Moon were effectively in bright sunlight.



So, new suits will need to be created, regardless.


The question is how much of both Apollo and Shuttle suits can be re-used
in building those new suits.

The other question is whether the lunar suits will be single purpose
(with ACES type suits for in flight protection) or whether an all
purpose suit will be used. This matters when designing the couches for
Orion. Have the couches for Orion been finalized? That might prevent use
of Lunar suits inside Orion.


I honestly, don't know if NASA has thought that far ahead. My guess, given
they're going with Lunar Gateway, is they'd leave some lunar suits there and
have separate pressure suits for the Orion portion of the flight. But I
don't know.


Ideally (but unlikely) higher operating pressure.


Wouldn't that require an Atmospheric diving suit ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diving_suit

Is Orion currently designed for 14.7psi flight? I take it it wouldn't be
hard to make it 5psi pure O2 like Apollo ? Or is that a big change?


It's probably not hard to do (I believe a requirement, like Apollo, is to be
able to operate in a vacuum) but we know from experience, that we'd prefer
to keep astronauts at normal (or close to it) pressures.

I can't find anything right now that says what the atmosphere would be.
My guess is for Gateway wither 14.7psi like ISS, or perhaps something lower
like 10psi. But even if Gateway is at 14.7psi, my guess is any lander will
be able to operate at the same pressure as Gateway and then slowly lower to
something like 8-10psi with a mixture of O2 and N2. This will give some of
the benefits of a higher pressure atmosphere while reducing times to prep
for EVA.
But I can't say for sure.

But also, as mentioned, if possible, NASA would love to have a space suit
that can operate at a much higher pressure (like 8psi). It would reduce a
host of issues. But right now, that appears to be unlikely.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #24  
Old August 1st 19, 11:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

On 2019-07-31 07:17, Jeff Findley wrote:

Besides, we've made progress in lots of areas over 50+ years so a new
suit design would be better. Like, perhaps, this one:


I started my line of questions with whether technology had advanced a
lot since then or if the tech in shuttle suits was still considered
state of the art. Only now is this brought up.


Obviously materials have advanced over 50+ years. That should be
obvious.

And yes, NASA has been toying, at a low level, for decades looking at
new suit prototypes. A bit of Google turns up a lot of suits.

From their current (shuttle EMU) suit supplier:

Z1 - 2012
https://www.nasa.gov/content/the-z-1/

Z2 (advanced prototype) - 2015
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/the-nex...t-technologies

List of 13 prototypes over the years (just scroll past the pre-shuttle
designs):
https://www.popularmechanics.com/spa...t-space-suits/

Note that the above includes lots of different types. The AX series
were "hard suits" as opposed to traditional "soft suits". The Z series,
again, was from ILC Dover and therefore more of an evolution of their
previous designs but incorporating a bit of what we learned from the
Russians (i.e. large rear opening for ease of access for donning,
doffing, and maintenance).

You do know that with a bit of Googling you could have found all of this
yourself, right? I'm just not that interested in the particulars of
suit design.

But, clearly NASA has been toying with the idea of new suits for
decades, but hasn't "pulled the trigger" on actually choosing a design
(or two) and finishing their development. One would assume that would
include actually flying the darned things to ISS and testing them on,
you know, actual EVAs.


THIS COMPANY SAYS IT HAS A LUNAR SPACE SUIT THAT WILL BE READY FOR
NASA?S 2024 MOON MISSION
Collins Aerospace has a space outfit you can use



Suspect this is just a prototype used for lobbying Washington to get the
money to actually develop it.


I believe NASA has funding studies over the years, which includes giving
money to contractors for prototypes. But yes, money has not been
appropriated by Congress to actually turn a prototype into a "real"
spacesuit. This is a problem endemic with traditional aerospace
suppliers. They'll simply sit on their hands unless they get an actual
government contract.

But it does appear this company still has the experience and expertise
to make such suits, not the lost art that some here claim because
everyone is too old.


That's not what any of us said. You kept asking how hard it would be to
recreate the Apollo suits. That would be *harder* than turning a modern
prototype into reality. Don't blame us because you didn't spend 10
seconds doing this:

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=NASA+prototype+spacesuit

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #25  
Old August 1st 19, 11:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

On 2019-08-01 06:34, Jeff Findley wrote:

Obviously materials have advanced over 50+ years. That should be
obvious.


But is that relevant for a suit? Yes, you can built a metal joint with
carbon fibre today, but that still doesn't change the overall design.
It saves on mass. Have the materials for the actual "fabric" of the
suit evolved to a point where you can support increased pressure while
keeping same flexibility?


Yes, high tech fabrics have advanced in the last 50+ years. Also
flexible materials have advanced. The Apollo EVA suits used rubber, I
believe, to keep the air in and provide some flexibility to areas like
the torso. So, there are likely far better materials to use today which
would outgas less and be more durable than old school rubber.

If they have certified a type of rubber/fabric for the ISS gloves, would
they want to re-use same material for new suits or spend the time/money
to develop new material that might have the same functionality without
any improvements?


Depends. As I said, spacesuits don't interest me much. They're
necessary, but I don't "get into" how they're designed, built, and
maintained. So ask an expert.

And yes, NASA has been toying, at a low level, for decades looking

at
new suit prototypes. A bit of Google turns up a lot of suits.


Yet, have been told here that NASA had lost the expertise to build suits
with the people dead/retired. So it would seem to me that the
activities have been on-going and there should be experience with suits
and whatever materials are available today.


This was in the context of your question about just building more Apollo
EVA suits. Those suit designs are just as "dead" as the Saturn V
designs.

You do know that with a bit of Googling you could have found all of this


I was told that NASA would have to start from scratch, didn't have
expertise anymore, so that points to NASA not having done any work, and
hence, why should I google for work on suits done by NASA when I am told
this hasn't happened?


I don't remember saying they'd have to start from scratch. I remember
saying that they'd be better off with a newer design with newer
materials. I never said that prototypes of newer suits didn't exist.
NASA prototypes lots of things for crewed spaceflight that never make it
off the ground.

That's not what any of us said. You kept asking how hard it would be to
recreate the Apollo suits.


I asked if tech had evolved and if not, whether they coudln't just
recreate them, in a context where NASA is expected to go there by 2024.


It would be stupid to recreate the Apollo era suits. Better to use a
newer design and newer, better, materials since you'll have to re-
certify every aspect of the thing *anyway*.

This was in a context where I was told NASA hadn't worked on new suits
since the 1970s Shuttle ones and would be starting from scratch.


No, you were told that NASA is still using shuttle era EMUs for EVAs on
ISS and that those are *not* appropriate for long EVAs on the moon's
surface. They need a different design for surface work. No new designs
have been fully developed, tested, and certified for operational use on
the moon's surface. All NASA has is a series of prototypes over the
last several decades.

An operational suit, like the EMUs on ISS, are not the same as a
prototype. Those prototypes are about as close to "production" as most
concept cars at auto shows are to production cars.

If they have been doing work, and paying 3rd parties to look at new
concepts/designs, then NASA is not starting from scratch. Had I been
told that right from the start, my line of questioning would not have
including re-use of Apollo era designs.


I never said they'd have to start from scratch. I said recreating the
Apollo era design would be ill advised because you'd have to re-certify
everything anyway.

But that questioning did reveal the differences in design (mostly for
flexibility) between Apollo and Shuttle, hard torso, custom size vs
starndardized sizes etc.


Things that are different, just aren't the same. Different requirements
lead to different designs. A microgravity EVA suit (like the space
shuttle EMU) is different than a lunar surface EVA suit is different
than a Mars surface EVA suit.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #26  
Old August 2nd 19, 04:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Scott Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

If Moon manned landing missions were resumed, what would be a
realistic schedule?

Apollo flew about 3 times per year, and had massive amounts of funding.

Given future funding, maybe one per year going forward? One every
two years? That would be a lot slower than Apollo, but still having
five missions per decade will do a lot of science over time, that
would be 10 missions over the next 20 years.

Plus doing things not done by Apollo, such as the mission the south
polar area, missions to the far side of the Moon, missions to
mountainous areas, etc.
  #27  
Old August 2nd 19, 05:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

"Scott Kozel" wrote in message
...

If Moon manned landing missions were resumed, what would be a
realistic schedule?

Apollo flew about 3 times per year, and had massive amounts of funding.

Given future funding, maybe one per year going forward? One every
two years? That would be a lot slower than Apollo, but still having
five missions per decade will do a lot of science over time, that
would be 10 missions over the next 20 years.

Plus doing things not done by Apollo, such as the mission the south
polar area, missions to the far side of the Moon, missions to
mountainous areas, etc.


That's the 2 billion dollar question.
Given current (and expected) funding levels and costs, I'd be surprised if
they could sustain 1 flight a year.
And honestly, if you're building Lunar Boondoggle and all, you really want
to fly more than that I'd think.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #28  
Old August 3rd 19, 05:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Scott Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2019-08-02 12:54, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

That's the 2 billion dollar question.
Given current (and expected) funding levels and costs, I'd be surprised if
they could sustain 1 flight a year.
And honestly, if you're building Lunar Boondoggle and all, you really want
to fly more than that I'd think.


At a recent event at 1600 Pennsylvania studios, the actor playing the
role of president asked about mission to Mars, and while Bidenstine
stated Gateway/Moon was needed, astronauts who were present disagreed
and told him that bypassing moon was preferable.

SLS/Orion will have its flight around the moon and back. Not sure they
will even land. Funding will shift to Mars, at which point the whole
Gateway/Moon thing will go on backburner and funding redirected to
hardware that can go to Mars.


Have they figured any realistic way to return astronauts from the surface
of Mars back to Earth?
  #29  
Old August 3rd 19, 05:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

"Scott Kozel" wrote in message
...

On Friday, August 2, 2019 at 4:52:06 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2019-08-02 12:54, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

That's the 2 billion dollar question.
Given current (and expected) funding levels and costs, I'd be surprised
if
they could sustain 1 flight a year.
And honestly, if you're building Lunar Boondoggle and all, you really
want
to fly more than that I'd think.


At a recent event at 1600 Pennsylvania studios, the actor playing the
role of president asked about mission to Mars, and while Bidenstine
stated Gateway/Moon was needed, astronauts who were present disagreed
and told him that bypassing moon was preferable.

SLS/Orion will have its flight around the moon and back. Not sure they
will even land. Funding will shift to Mars, at which point the whole
Gateway/Moon thing will go on backburner and funding redirected to
hardware that can go to Mars.


Have they figured any realistic way to return astronauts from the surface
of Mars back to Earth?


Hitch a ride from SpaceX.
s

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #30  
Old August 3rd 19, 05:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Artemis 3 Mission in 2024

In article ,
says...

If Moon manned landing missions were resumed, what would be a
realistic schedule?

Apollo flew about 3 times per year, and had massive amounts of funding.

Given future funding, maybe one per year going forward? One every
two years? That would be a lot slower than Apollo, but still having
five missions per decade will do a lot of science over time, that
would be 10 missions over the next 20 years.

Plus doing things not done by Apollo, such as the mission the south
polar area, missions to the far side of the Moon, missions to
mountainous areas, etc.


If Congress continues to fund SLS/Orion ($2+ billion a year just for
SLS), then the flight rate will be at most twice per year. At first, it
will be only once a year, once crew is flying, IMHO.

Boeing is having a hard time building the SLS core stage. And while
they claim they've discovered ways to make that go faster, I'll take
that claim with a grain of salt until they prove they can ramp up the
flight rate to something "reasonable", which is 2x a year for SLS.

In reality, 2x a year is a pathetic flight rate and worse than Apollo
did 50+ years ago.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024 Rocket Man[_2_] Policy 18 April 23rd 19 09:54 PM
ISS mission extended to 2024 Greg \(Strider\) Moore Space Station 7 January 13th 14 01:27 PM
ASTRO: NGC 2024, the Flame Nebula in Orion George Normandin[_1_] Astro Pictures 6 April 14th 08 04:56 PM
Bush administration to adopt Artemis Society plan for moon mission... Dholmes Policy 1 January 13th 04 03:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.