Spacesuits are not merely uniforms

Boeing (left) and SpaceX flight suits - a question of compatability?

IN THE realm of space exploration, where innovation is often celebrated as much as discovery, one might expect that companies would prioritise the pursuit of standardisation, especially in safety-critical systems. 

Yet recent events have highlighted a glaring oversight: a lack of compatibility between spacesuits designed for different spacecraft.  

This summer, the issue came into focus when NASA encountered an unexpected challenge during the first crewed test flight of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft. 

Helium leaks and the failure of several thrusters during the docking phase marred the mission, which transported astronauts ‘Butch’ Wilmore and Suni Williams to the International Space Station (ISS). 

The resulting uncertainty surrounding Starliner’s ability to return safely raised a critical question: what if they had to return to Earth on a different spacecraft? Could the astronauts use their Boeing-designed spacesuits in a SpaceX Dragon capsule?

The answer, unfortunately, was no. SpaceX and Boeing, two of NASA’s primary commercial partners, developed spacesuits that are incompatible with each other’s spacecraft. 

This is not merely a matter of corporate identity or aesthetic preference; it represents a significant and potentially life-threatening oversight.

In a broader context, users in the consumer electronics industry have long been frustrated by a lack of standardisation. An ongoing debate over charging cables for smartphones is one example. 

Apple and Android devices operate on different systems, and while this is accepted as a technological difference, many people criticise the incompatibility of charging cables. 

The EU has even intervened to push for a standardised charging port, recognising that such differences create unnecessary waste too.

However, unlike the inconvenience of incompatible phone chargers, spacesuit incompatibility could have dire consequences. Astronauts depend on their equipment so the lack of a standardised spacesuit for use across different spacecraft complicates emergency procedures and increases error margins.

On this occasion time was on NASA’s side, but in an actual emergency astronauts finding themselves with the wrong suit for a spacecraft they need urgently to board could prove critical. 

NASA’s management of its commercial crew programme provided the perfect opportunity to enforce compatibility standards. 

The root of the problem lies in the space industry’s fragmented approach. Commercial entities often develop technologies and systems with little regard for interoperability, seemingly at odds with the spirit of international cooperation that the space industry often prides itself on.

Spacesuits are not merely uniforms; they are critical safety systems and an astronaut’s last line of defence, particularly during launch and re-entry when the risk of cabin depressurisation is highest. 

Is it not imperative, therefore, that the industry moves towards a standardised design that can be connected across different spacecraft?

Such arguments are not about stifling innovation or competition, they are about prioritising astronaut safety. 

By establishing common standards, similar to those developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in other industries, the space sector can ensure that astronauts, regardless of the spacecraft they board, have the best possible protection.

The Starliner mission has perhaps unwittingly exposed a critical gap in the industry’s approach. Non-standardised spacesuits are not just a logistical oversight; they are a risk that could jeopardise astronauts’ lives. 

As the space industry continues to develop, it is crucial that cooperation extends to the standardisation of safety systems. The small price of compatibility could very well be the difference between life and death in the unforgiving environment of space.

*          *          *

Editor's note: This commentary by Clive Simpson on spacesuit incompatbility was first published as the Editorial in ROOM Space Journal, issue #35, September 2024. It is republished here with permission.

NASA plays it cool over leaky spacecraft

 

NASA and Boeing managers have again extended the stay of Starliner at the International Space Station (ISS) this time into July, raising questions among more outspoken commentators as to whether its crew of two Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams will need to be offered an alternative means of returning to Earth.

It was revealed in a statement at the weekend that NASA wants more time for analysis to ensure helium leaks and faulty thruster are fully understood before risking the capsule’s first ever return flight with a crew.

The fact that the date has been pushed into July takes it closer to it’s 45-day on orbit limit following lift-off on 5 June. The return flight was originally scheduled for 14 June and then 26 June before the latest decision.

“Mission managers are evaluating future return opportunities which will follow the Space Station’s two planned spacewalks on June 24 and July 2,” said Steve Stich, NASA's commercial crew programme manager. “We are taking our time and following our standard mission management team process.”

The crewed test of the spacecraft, previously test-flown in space twice since 2019 without crew on board, has encountered five failures of its 28 manoeuvring thrusters, five leaks of helium gas meant to pressurize those thrusters, and a slow-moving propellant valve that signalled unfixed past issues.

The issues and the additional tests run by NASA and Boeing call into question when exactly Starliner's crew will be able to make the roughly six-hour return journey home, and in the process add to the programme's broader problems mand delays.

NASA wants Starliner to become a second US spacecraft capable of ferrying astronauts with the ISS and Boeing has already spent $1.5 billion in cost overruns beyond its $4.5-billion development contract.

Already running four years behind schedule, the Starliner crewed launch was a month later than planned due to minor problems with its Atlas 5 rocket, trouble with a countdown computer and because of an initial helium leak in the system used to pressurize the capsule’s thrusters.

NASA and Boeing managers decided the leak was too small to pose a safety threat and Starliner was cleared for launch but once in orbit further helium leaks developed and the Starliner’s flight computer took seven manoeuvring jets off-line when the telemetry did not match pre-launch expectations.

Starliner's undocking from the ISS and return to Earth is one of most complicated phases of its test mission. Most of the craft’s 28 thrusters are backups but at least 12 (six for control and six for backup) are required to meet flight safety rules.

NASA’s weekend update provided no further details but it is clear that managers were unhappy with all contingencies that Wilmore and Williams might encounter during a return flight to Earth, including safely undocking from the Space Station, manoeuvring away, performing a de-orbit burn, separating the crew capsule from the service module, and then flying through the atmosphere before landing under parachutes in a New Mexico desert.

It is not ideal that on such a high profile mission NASA is having to continue delaying the vehicle’s return. Officials have downplayed the overall seriousness of the situation saying Starliner is cleared to come home “in case of an emergency” though have not clarified why they are not ready to release Starliner to fly back to Earth with crew under "normal circumstances".

The situation has promoted many comments and much concern on social media, including some suggesting the Starliner crew is stranded in space. But this is far from true because in the event that NASA decided not to risk a crewed return flight they would have the option of commissioning a dedicated SpaceX Dragon mission to pick them up from the ISS.

Such a move would not look good from a PR perspective for either NASA or Boeing but it would be infinitely preferable to risking the lives of astronauts in a capsule returning to Earth with unresolved or uncertain technical issues. 

#          #

Editor's note: first published by ROOM Space Journal under heading 'NASA postpones Starliner's crew return amid thruster concerns' on Sunday, 23 June 2024.