|
Author
|
Topic: [Discuss] Boeing CST-100 Starliner Spacesuit
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 48424
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2017 01:31 PM
   
Please use this topic to discuss Boeing's CST-100 Starliner Spacesuit, the new "Boeing Blue" spacesuits designed to provide crew members with functionality, comfort and protection. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1080
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 01-25-2017 01:33 PM
In white would be super cool! |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1329
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 01-25-2017 04:40 PM
Shades of the blue MOL suit! Bob Crippen and the other surviving astronauts must be having a sense of deja vu. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1326
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 01-25-2017 04:59 PM
Nice. Not too dorky. Reminds me of the inner PGA part of an A7L (sans outer white ITMG). |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 1195
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 01-25-2017 06:31 PM
I wonder how warm it would keep you in a capsule (e.g. in the shade) in a vacuum. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1354
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-25-2017 06:44 PM
Cool looking suit. I'm surprised they are going with the blue color. Didn't NASA go through this post-Challenger? The original crew escape suits were blue - virtually the same as these. Then somebody realized that in a contingency, crewmembers would be in the ocean... and a blue suit would be tough for rescue forces to spot. Granted Starliner crews won't be bailing out in an emergency, but there's always the chance they have to get out of the spacecraft quickly after splashdown in an abort scenario. |
SpaceAngel
Member Posts: 389
From: Maryland
Registered: May 2010
|
posted 01-26-2017 05:30 AM
I'm guessing this spacesuit is inspired by the past and present suits; is the correct? |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 01-26-2017 06:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
Granted Starliner crews won't be bailing out in an emergency...
That is the difference. They aren't bailing out over water like the shuttle and be separated from each other. If they have to get out of the capsule after splashdown, they will still be together. Shuttle experience is not applicable here; See Apollo. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2017 06:45 AM
They may not be bailing out but challenges faced during an unanticipated water recovery would not be different then other maritime operations. Coast Guard prescribes visibility standards for a reason; blue does nothing to enhance surviability in that environment. Victims get separated in rough seas or as a result of incapacitation/injury. |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1080
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 01-26-2017 06:48 AM
Well, there are dyes to color the sea and lifebelts in bright colors (see Apollo). |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2017 09:16 AM
Water dyes are impermanent. Certainly life preservers are nessessary (absent supplemental buoyancy the suits are potential death traps as soon as they take on water) however the larger/brighter/more contrasty the victim the better - under even the best of scenario's its tough to visually spot someone at sea. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 01-26-2017 09:46 AM
Still, it is much to do about nothing. The CST-100 primary landing site is EAFB and not the ocean. The Coast Guard does not require all passengers of trans oceanic airliners to wear high visibility garments. The flotation devices will be sufficient area for high visibility colors. The Sokol suit has been white for decades. Survival suits are packed separately onboard the Soyuz. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2017 11:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
The CST-100 primary landing site is EAFB and not the ocean.
During an abort to orbit?
|
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 01-26-2017 02:56 PM
Navy planes primary landing sites are either runways or carriers. Their equivalent to an abort to orbit is a cold cat launch. So, what color are naval aviator flight suits?This is not the shuttle. Conop for CST-100 is the crew stays in the capsule for ocean landings. For shuttle, the crew leaves the vehicle in all ditching cases. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2017 03:48 PM
History will judge if a prudent decision then, CONOPS like most plans generally don't survive first contact. As a SAR TRT member that regularly trains for and participates in rescue/recovery missions to include air based water extrication, anything that helps tip the balance in favor of the victim can make the difference between a rescue or a body recovery. quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
So, what color are naval aviator flight suits?
Combat pilots flight suit color takes into primary consideration ejection over hostile terrain and SERE. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 01-26-2017 04:37 PM
The shuttle suit was designed around a cabin air leak and bailing out and being on a ocean because that was the only abort mode available. CST-100 also has other considerations. All primary modes have the crew staying in the vehicle. Hence the primary consideration is air leak. There is no scenario where the crew bails out and would be individually separated from each other and the capsule. Just as the military choose the colors for non water related considerations, so has Boeing. Again, the airliner analogy is applicable. And there is more chances that an airliner will go into the water than CST-100. Believe it or not, launch is not where most spaceflight related issues happen. When it comes to applying resources on safety, it is better spent on other phases than launch. Also, it is silly trying to make spaceflight safer than other modes of transportation or other risky endeavors. What the governments decrees for its employees, doesn't have to be applicable to John Q. Public, commercial astronaut. This is a commercial endeavor and money does have a consideration. Unlike the government, who can spend large amounts of money for marginal gains in safety, commercial entities do a risk reward trade. And for marketability, blue may be cooler looking than orange and since a crew member in the water is way down the list of likely outcomes, it is a trade they are willing to make. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2017 06:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
There is no scenario where the crew bails out and would be individually separated from each other and the capsule.
In flight bailout was not where I was going; there are a number of scenarios associated with an off nominal landing that might compel the crew to evacuate the capsule during the (potentially lengthy) intervening period between splashdown and recovery (loss of structural/watertight integrity, flooding through a valve, fire/smoke, sea state). |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1080
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 01-26-2017 07:17 PM
"Blue is the new orange." |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 01-27-2017 06:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
...there are a number of scenarios associated with an off nominal landing that might compel the crew to evacuate the capsule
The probability of those scenarios is way down the list since land recovery is the primary mode and launch aborts are rare. In the case of a launch aborts, adding secondary and tertiary failures, makes the likelihood even less. And again, the conop is for the crew to stay near the capsule if they have to exit it. |
kyra
Member Posts: 588
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-30-2017 03:00 PM
The design heritage seems heavily based on the G5C more than anything. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3457
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 01-30-2017 10:14 PM
Is the American flag patch on the left shoulder the same size as the white-bordered US flag worn by the shuttle astronauts on their jackets? |
David C
Member Posts: 1338
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 01-31-2017 10:36 AM
Looks pretty good to me apart from all the logos it's covered in. Reminds of a Sokol suit more than anything else.I really hope those touchscreen gloves work out for them. The limited touchscreens we have in the 787 are nothing but a pain. Give me keys and switches any day. So far as suit color is concerned, speaking as a former over ocean search and rescue pilot, orange is old school thinking (but may give the wearer a warm feeling of misplaced confidence). To be found you need your nearby wreck, beacons, radios, helmet strobe, flares, smoke, dye, lasers, heliographs etc. A little spot of orange in a big rough ocean is basically useless unless you're right on top of it - and remember, most of a swimmer is under water. I'll say one other thing about suit color. There's more to it than just emergencies. One I can think of is window reflections. I'm pretty sure that this blue suit will enhance crew view in adverse lighting conditions compared to orange, and will certainly be much better than white. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-31-2017 07:21 PM
Coast Guard doctrine (as current as its recently revised/updated 2015 Rescue and Survival and Systems Manual) retains International Orange as the prescribed standard for SAR exposure clothing and PPE equipment. Clearly it is more beneficial than not to have high visibility cues to aid in the recovery. And while I agree that a typical victim might have his/her head exposed above the waterline, individuals in a drysuit/spacesuit tend to be positively buoyant and will float near horizontally unless counterweighted. With respect to light reflection, my guess is the suits are intended for critical mission phases where decompression is a risk; otherwise they will be stowed in favor of more comfortable/utilitarian in flight garments. |
David C
Member Posts: 1338
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 02-01-2017 12:30 AM
Well, at the end of the day it doesn't seem that Coast Guard doctrine was top of their list of priorities. |
David C
Member Posts: 1338
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 02-01-2017 06:20 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Again, the airliner analogy is applicable. And there is more chances that an airliner will go into the water than CST-100.
Wow Jim that seems like a sweeping statement and just a tiny bit reminiscent of 1970s shuttle thinking.
|
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-01-2017 11:27 AM
Not even remotely reminiscent. I got facts my side. How many airliners/planes go into the water on a yearly basis? I didn't say a specific flight, I just said airliner. The point is that airline passengers don't wear orange suits. They carry high visibility life vests, which the CST-100 will have. There were no capabilities for GT-3, 5, 6 and 7, Apollo 7 and 8 and ASTP doing EVAs, yet even with ocean landing, they wore white suits. Shuttle was a different conop. The crew was to eject or bailout and be separated from the orbiter and each other. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 48424
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2017 11:43 AM
Next time I have the chance I'll ask them the question "for the record," but I have to imagine that between Chris Ferguson's own spaceflight experience, the input of his Boeing team members and the suit's designers at David Clark, the question of color and contingencies was thoroughly considered. |
David C
Member Posts: 1338
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 02-01-2017 04:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
The point is that airline passengers don't wear orange suits.
I'm not in favor of orange, but your case seems muddled.Projections and assumptions about CST-100 reliability aren't safety record facts, it hasn't even flown yet. Airplanes are not equipped on the basis of total world wide expected losses, but on their individual (type and mission) probabilities of failure - very low for an airliner. |
p51
Member Posts: 1743
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 02-01-2017 04:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
...blue does nothing to enhance surviability in that environment.
No different than US Navy personnel wearing camo uniforms that would ensure they'll never be spotted if they went overboard. For the most part, if you're talking about an aerial search for a capsule down, it's the capsule the crews will be looking for and likely the only thing they'll see at long range.Die packs and large objects are all you'll see at long range when doing a search from the air. It's been long documented that day-glow orange flight suits in the 60s weren't much better for visibility in the water than the tan ones they replaced. Besides, I'd assume that a suit these days could easily come with GPS in any survival equipment, so what difference would the color make? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-01-2017 08:31 PM
Localization of the subject. PLBs get you to within tens of yards. You still need to see the victim.Where are these studies — and why hasn't the USCG and the bulk of many domestic/international organizations, companies and governments who have equities in maritime SAR adopted standards other than bright/International Orange? |
carmelo
Member Posts: 1080
From: Messina, Sicilia, Italia
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-02-2017 08:47 AM
I don't think that the guys at Boeing are stupid. If orange is scrapped means that orange is not more necessary. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 48424
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-02-2017 08:47 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Next time I have the chance I'll ask them the question...
I asked Boeing's commercial crew spokesperson; here is her reply: The CST-100 Starliner crew module would provide the first line of defense for astronauts in the unlikely event of an abort or landing scenario in the water. The crew module has a lighted beacon, all the necessary survival radios and a bright orange life raft that will be equipped with high-visibility dye to attract the attention of rescue forces. Additionally, each crew member will have their own Life Preserver Unit (LPU). |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-02-2017 09:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
...who have equities in maritime SAR adopted standards other than bright/International Orange?
That is where the issue is. Maritime SAR is not the primary concern. It is the primary end of mission site is land, unlike Apollo and Gemini. For launch aborts and off course landings, the crew stays in the capsule. This is totally opposite of the shuttle. It had Maritime SAR as the primary concern. The only reason for the crew to leave the orbiter in flight was for a bailout over water because the orbiter would not survive ditching. In any other case, the crew would stay with the orbiter. That is the only reason for the orange color. It is apples and grapefruits. quote:
Originally posted by David C
Projections and assumptions about CST-100 reliability aren't safety record facts
Yes, it is. Launch reliability is based on existing Atlas V. That is the primary probability that CST-100 would go into the ocean. The only other is reason is an off target end of mission landing. And projections and assumptions for that, even grossly off, are going to be extremely low.And, they are not ignoring water landing (see life "preservers," raft, dye, radio, etc.), it is just not the primary concern (unlike the shuttle). |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-02-2017 09:50 AM
Maritime SAR is (or should be) a concern during abort to orbit, or off-nominal deorbit burn scenarios to a planet 71 percent covered by water. Since CST-100 primary recovery location is not at sea, becomes even more important to provision crew safety measures that enhance survival probability given what will likely be extended delay between splashdown and arrival of recovery assets. Does appear Boeing is placing commercial interests (i.e electing to go with blue to enhance corporate messaging) in front of survivability. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-02-2017 10:40 AM
So how is having a beacon, sea dye, radios, life rafts, PPE, etc. not showing a concern? How much is changing the suits color to orange going to really increase the chances of survival? It isn't just the probability of an abort to orbit, it also includes the probability of needing to leave the capsule and then also being separated from the raft.Off course end of mission, the probability of occurrence is extremely low. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-02-2017 10:49 AM
I was responding to your statement that Maritime SAR is not primary concern to CST-100.Having a raft can work if the sea state and weather cooperate, if it remains undamaged and can be deployed successfully, and if survivors are not incapacitated so they can climb into and stay onboard. The environment however gets a vote.
|
David C
Member Posts: 1338
From: Lausanne
Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 02-02-2017 11:04 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
Launch reliability is based on existing Atlas V.
That's assuming a man-rated Atlas V is completely unmodified (is it?), and that the CST-100 spacecraft is 100% reliable during ascent (hopeful name?). Anyhow, 68.5/69, whilst promising is a tiny sample and hardly a firm basis for comparison with any aspect of airline operations. quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Does appear Boeing is placing commercial interests (i.e electing to go with blue to enhance corporate messaging) in front of survivability.
That's an emotive statement verging on disinformation. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1716
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-02-2017 05:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by David C:
...that the CST-100 spacecraft is 100% reliable during ascent.
That doesn't come into play during ascent. quote:
...comparison with any aspect of airline operations.
Wasn't comparing it to airline operations. Just that airliners do go into water and there is no consideration for color and reflective properties of passenger apparel. |
oly
Member Posts: 1381
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Apr 2015
|
posted 02-03-2017 02:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
...electing to go with blue to enhance corporate messaging
I am not sure why you think this; the crew can be photographed pre-mission wearing whatever Boeing believe makes good PR without wearing space suits. The space suits primary use is crew survivability. They may not be seen wearing them ever by the public while the crew are secured within the spacecraft from launch through to recovery. It would be more cost effective to provide the crew with a corporate hat and flight jacket to cover corporate image requirements. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5076
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-03-2017 06:32 AM
Yep your right... no possibility of inflight/on-board cameras (never been done before) and it's purely coincidental that Boeing went with its official brand color for the suits. |
advertisement