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.

Traffic lights in the night sky

Starlink satellites leave diagonal lines as they pass through a telescope’s field of view.

UNITL relatively recently in human history the night sky remained one of the last unspoilt vestiges of our natural world. From the time of Galileo to the present day, astronomical observations from Earth’s surface have led to exceptional progress in the scientific understanding of the world around us.

Now, just as we enter the third decade of the 21st Century and a dynamic new phase in space exploration and exploitation begins, some of the current capability of astronomical instrumentation from the ground is potentially being endangered by the rapid development of micro-satellite fleets in low Earth orbits (LEO).

In the interests of preserving the ability to make meaningful visual and radio ground-based observations, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is sounding a clarion call for greater protection and international safeguards.

The IAU claims that if the deployment of mega constellations remains unchecked the view of the night sky will be increasingly impeded by artificial satellites, not only visible to the naked eye but also crossing and scarring professional and amateur time-lapse observations alike with parallel streaks at all latitudes.

SpaceX has already embarked on its ambitious Starlink project to populate the sky with some 42,000 satellites which, together with planned constellations such as those from OneWeb, Amazon and others, means there could one day be more than 50,000 small satellites encircling the Earth at different low altitudes.

These small, mass-produced satellites orbit very close to Earth with the intent to provide speedy internet connections via low-latency signals. But that proximity also makes them more visible and brighter in the night sky. Astronomers argue that such constellations will severely diminish our view of the universe, create more space debris and deprive humanity of an unblemished view of the night sky. If these networks come to fruition, they suggest that every square degree of the sky will eventually have a satellite crawling across it throughout the whole observing night.

As space becomes ever more commercialised the speed of such development is quickly overtaking the existing, globally agreed rules governing space activities. Mega constellations are just one area where new rules of governance are urgently needed. Others include the exploitation of resources on the Moon and elsewhere, preserving peace and resolving disputes, and rules for everyday living in space.

Recognising the urgent need for coordinated action, next year the space nation Asgardia is organising a second congress in its ‘Paving the Road to Living in Space’ series. It will focus on discussing key aspects of space law needed to ensure the success of future space exploits.

Of course, ROOM fully supports the growth and advancement of space technologies and the ensuing benefits they bring to everyday life, business and commerce across the globe.

But it would be ironic indeed if, by exploiting LEO without due responsibility, we neglect to consider the resultant damage to scientific research and a previously unblemished part of our natural environment that deployment of such new technologies could unwittingly deliver.

The urgent question is, do we continue to rush headlong into deploying massive new orbital networks without checks and balances, and with scant regard for the heavens above - or can the global space community approach this kind of thing in a more mature and responsible manner that is fair to everyone?

Editorial (originally published under the title 'Mega-constellations raise awkward questions for space community') 
by Clive Simpson in the Spring 2020 edition of ROOM Space Journal