SpaceX Astronauts Begin Spacewalk, Putting New Spacesuits to Test

A lot of space technology is purely functional, but these clearly have poor design taste put into them. The old suits that the Apollo era used were probably almost only functional, yet even they look better.

rbanffy4• 2 years ago

It seems very rigid, but it's also much less bulky than the current ISS EVA suit batch. The requirements are very different though - ISS suits are modular and designed to stay in space for as long as possible before needing to get back down for a refurbish.

everfrustrated• 2 years ago

Rigid means higher air pressure which means less time in the airlock meaning longer missions.

JKCalhoun• 2 years ago

Robosapien vibes…

deskamess• 2 years ago

The first person (EV1) was awesome as the Earth was visible (day-side). And it slowly went night-side. I was surprised to not see any lights at that point and that was possibly because it was over the Pacific - or the actual vehicle was pointed away from Earth.

That image of a human profile with earth in the background was kinda nice. The 40-50s lead up to the profile image: https://youtu.be/ABQBEdOzrV0?t=6868 . And as others have pointed out, the suit looks rigid.

ceejayoz• 2 years ago

The lighted spacecraft in the foreground probably drowns out any lights on Earth.

Same reason you don't see stars in pictures on the Moon.

spuz2• 2 years ago

Does anyone know if the reason they performed the EVA during the night was to prevent overheating? The crew reported temperatures (presumably of the suit) of 33.8C during the EVAs.

pipe01• 2 years ago

They oriented the capsule so that the hatch would face away from the sun, so presumably they were already accounting for heating from the sun

dotnet004• 2 years ago

I think the main factor might've been crew wakefulness.

Since they launched around the same time, I think their body clocks would've been tuned to that time too. They'd want all crew to be at the peak of their alertness in case of any emergency (particularly if they ended up having to deorbit in a hurry), so it might've been a significant factor in the timing.

noneeeed• 2 years ago

The interesting thing for me is how this mission underscore the difference between SpaceX and other space companies. SpaceX have become an entire commercial space agency, able to supply everything from the rockets and capsules, to the ground operations and even the space suites and to do that in a complete package.

If you have enough money you can ring them up and say "I want to go into space" and they can make that happen. That is a pretty big deal.

paulryanrogers• 2 years ago

Except for the whole launch facilities thing they lease from the government.

jdross• 2 years ago

which they have also massively refurbished and could have handled themselves if not for regulations around creating a launch site.

there aren’t many technical issues to pouring concrete in a good lat-lon

rogerrogerr• 2 years ago

It’s clear they’d be fine without that; they could probably have Texas ready for manned launches fairly quick.

More likely they lease launch facilities from the government to minimize regulatory interference from… the government.

HideousKojima• 2 years ago

Soon to change with Starship launching from Boca Chica. And planned to be able to launch from essentially anywhere, eventually (in Musk Time so give it a decade).

panick21_7• 2 years ago

The government took all the good land for this in the 60s. So the government mostly just has the land in the right places, that's a really important part. Building most of the ground infrastructure, is still custom to every rocket company.

caconym_2• 2 years ago

Given the incredibly hostile regulatory environment they've faced in Texas trying to operate their own private launch site, I think there are very clear benefits in using an established public facility that isn't under threat by constant attempts (often in outright bad faith) to curtail its activity or even get it shut down. It's not a question of money or capability.

croes12• 2 years ago

So space will become more expensive.

teekert4• 2 years ago

Yeah, the way capitalism made goods more expensive. /s

api3• 2 years ago

It would be hard to make things worse than big classical aerospace.

brigadier1322• 2 years ago

Will become more expensive? Are you willfully ignoring the actual data?

panick21_7• 2 years ago

Yeah its gone be more expensive then literally not able to buy something. Practically infinity expensive.

Because this literally something you couldn't buy before. Maybe if you went to Russia and gave them a lot of money.

SpaceX has made everything cheaper in Space cheaper and many things possible that literally weren't a commercial thing before.

cwillu• 2 years ago

Go look up the cost of a soyuz launch, let alone a shuttle launch, and then tell us more about how this is making space more expensive.

chaostheory2• 2 years ago

Did you miss the fact that reusable rockets have made it cheaper? Have you kept up with the economics of space travel?

api3• 2 years ago

That's because SpaceX is run with the goal of building actual space transit capabilities, not milking the taxpayer and distributing pork to as many politically influential districts as possible.

Until SpaceX and post-Apollo most of the space program was really a pork distribution system and a way to keep certain high-skill labor areas 'hot' in case we need them again. It wasn't a serious effort to learn about the universe or build a real presence in space. Some of that did happen but it happened almost as a side effect.

Edit:

Honestly I think SpaceX is just a decent aerospace company. They've appeared superhuman by contrast with companies like Boeing that have done nothing to innovate in the sector since the 1970s. When the comparison is with people completely asleep at the wheel, mere competence looks striking.

xattt2• 2 years ago

I don’t see downsides of keeping skilled labour “hot”.

One indirect benefit of domestic manufacturing is that it gives blue collar workers a sense of productivity and involvement in society.

Idle hands are the Devil’s playthings, and a fairly compensated workforce is less likely to feel stagnant in their stage of life, and less likely to be radicalized.

Edit: it seems there is a distinction between how you keep the labour hot - meaningful long-term missions; or a half-assed approach.

thrance2• 2 years ago

NASA is a scientific institution, it will lose money. But in the end, it enables private companies like SpaceX to be successful.

More generally, no private company would be able to fund fundamental research and turn a profit. Apple used DARPA tech to make the iphone, Pfizer used decades of public research on mRNA to make the covid vaccine and SpaceX uses NASA's engineering expertise to get its rockets to orbit.

Also, SpaceX gets billions of dollars from the US government annually.

andsoitis2• 2 years ago

I think a large part of it is because of Elon Musk's obsession about controlling (if not owning) as much of stack as possible. That mentality goes into even the things you do not own, but lease.

In the Isaacson biography there's a theme across his ventures, sparked by early misfortune, about being in control of things end-to-end because then you have more flexibility to optimize, make more leaps that can come from orchestrating creative adn bespoke integration options.

HarHarVeryFunny• 2 years ago

It's really because SpaceX is Musk's hobby company with the singular goal of putting a colony on Mars. The commercial launches and Starlink are just a way to leverage all the infrastructure they've had to build to make it pay for itself.

afiodorov• 2 years ago

No, in this case it is much more pragmatic. Elon has commented on this aspect himself. When he started he thought of just buying rockets and related equipment from Russia on the cheap but quickly found the exuberant prices states want to charge. He then made a first order approximation of how much it’d cost to just manufacture things he needs and it was an order of magnitude lower - thus he bit the bullet and started doing just that. Had the states let him buy things at a fair price may be the controlling of the stack would not have happened.

treflop• 2 years ago

In my opinion, it's not that he wants to control so much as that his goal is going to Mars.

Someone that goes to work to do the tasks assigned to them (which applies to both managers and those on the line) vs. someone that goes to work because they want something (e.g. maybe a certain product made with certain features) thinks very differently. The latter has a whole plan and the plan has certain sub-requirements that all feed back into the greater goal.

As part of going to Mars, you will likely have to send many supporting missions, which drives the requirement to lower costs. When designing bespoke systems, contracting it out to third party vendors can be expensive. Usually you contract out to third party vendors because they can utilize economies of scale because they have many clients who are asking for the same thing, but there are no economies of scale here because no one has reusable rockets in their catalog.

stef25• 2 years ago

If you have enough money you can ring them up and say "I want to go into space" and they can make that happen.

To whoever wants to be the first one to drop acid in space, the doors are open

jMyles2• 2 years ago

the first one to drop acid in space

Seems unlikely we'll ever definitely now, but I suspect that whomever does it next won't be the first (or second, or third).

delichon• 2 years ago

When you throw open Huxley's doors of perception you get an extraordinary experience in the most quotidian of conditions. Like watching a river run by or just watching the washing machine run. Non psychonauts have to do extraordinary things, like become astronauts, to get to a similar level of awe-struck. A trip on a trip is a tragic waste of a trip.

aaronharnly• 2 years ago

One might suspect the CEO has dibs on this one.

forgot-im-old2• 2 years ago

They also tested SpaceX's laser links, which are critical for Star Wars / Brilliant Pebbles goals,

https://www.reddit.com/r/KamalaHarris/comments/1eunob4/elon_...

pmontra• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/HuW2P

uberman7• 2 years ago

The average US resident produces about 16 tons of greenhouse gasses a year. A Falcon launch (like this one) produces about 28,000 tons of greenhouse gas. This guy paid to take a ride to space producing 1,700 person-years worth of greenhouse gas emissions or alternatively 6,000 car-years.

I sure hope there was real science going on in the background as I'm kind of done with billionaire space tourism.

Note: Several people have correctly pointed out that my emissions number is wrong. The actual 28,000 figure is in CO2 equivalence not directly in gasses emitted. Clearly some emissions are much worse than CO2.

see: https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-rocket-launches-enviro...

"Starship launch produces 76,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (a measure combining different types of greenhouse gases in one unit). That's 2.72 times more emissions than those produced by a single SpaceX Falcon 9 launch"

78,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent / 2.72 is 27,941 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

While I recognize that some celebrities also produce a lot of pollution, I struggle to justify space tourism that produces in 3 days what Taylor Swift produces in 3 years.

olex• 2 years ago

Do you have a source for that number? The whole rocket weighs 550 metric tons fully fueled on the pad, I am having a hard time coming up with a way for that to create 50x as much greenhouse gas.

According to Everyday Astronaut's article (https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/), a Falcon 9 emits a total of about 600 tons of various gases during a launch. The difference vs the rocket's actual mass seems to be accounted for by water vapor, which comes from ground support equipment and not the rocket itself.

geertj3• 2 years ago

The whole rocket weighs 550 metric tons fully fueled on the pad, I am having a hard time coming up with a way for that to create 50x as much greenhouse gas.

It is in fact impossible. The rocket carries all of its fuel and oxidizer, so basic conservation of mass implies that the total amount of CO2 cannot exceed said 550 metric tons.

uberman7• 2 years ago

see:

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-rocket-launches-enviro...

Note, I did mis-quote when I said 28k tons of greenhouse gas, it is 28k tons of CO2 equivalent.

ec109685• 2 years ago

In other words, he increased the carbon output of the US by .0005%, a pretty small relative increase. I am sure scientific knowledge increased more than that.

forgot-im-old2• 2 years ago

That's a reasonable calculation I suppose. The 0.0005% increase is in carbon emissions per year by the U.S. -- that same 0.0005% increase in publications would be about 15.

bangaladore• 2 years ago

According to this source [1], you are off by two orders of magnitude. Starship also uses way less than you claimed.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/19/billionaires...

uberman7• 2 years ago

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-rocket-launches-enviro...

coldpie• 2 years ago

It's good to keep an eye on the carbon impacts of space tourism, but if you're genuinely concerned about climate change, your efforts would be far better spent on promoting the passenger vehicle EV conversion and nuclear/wind/solar buildouts to replace coal plants. I don't think space tourism will become a significant carbon emissions source for at least a few more decades.

indoordin0saur4• 2 years ago

Plus the Starship uses Methalox which is the most efficient carbon based fuel in terms of H2O to CO2 ratio. It puts out twice as much water vapor as it does CO2.

uberman7• 2 years ago

I happen to support electrification and renewables. It cost almost nothing (other than some negative rep) to raise a flag about the environmental costs of space tourism. I'm sure early coal fired plants said the same thing about their emissions as well. That surely one more plant or private jet could not hurt the environment. My view is if we normalize and celebrate space tourism now, then there will be no curtailing it in the future.

Culonavirus• 2 years ago

28,000 tons of greenhouse gas

I did the math and it's around 3 in Taylor Swift Year units. Outrageous!

EDIT: For the people who actually eat this BS (28000 tons of a thing from another thing that has a mass of just 500 tons should raise your eyebrows), the actual number is around 120 tons of CO2 for one launch of one F9 booster.

uberman7• 2 years ago

I did mis-speak there. it is 28k tons of CO2 equivalent, my bad.

see: https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-rocket-launches-enviro...

78,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent / 2.72 is 27,941 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

malfist• 2 years ago

I'm kind of done with billionaire space tourism.

Not to be rude, but you were never "doing" billionaire space tourism.

alecco• 2 years ago

Full stream recording https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1834154037606056327

Exiting hatch at 2:00:00

globalnode2• 2 years ago

im not sure i agree with this definition of spacewalk. is this like how the definition of space was changed too? overhype and marketing.

BeefySwain• 2 years ago

Please explain what you mean by this.

drooby• 2 years ago

I suspect OP wanted a human floating ("walking") in space.

It appears that Isaacman popped his head out of a hole while holding onto a ladder.

indoordin0saur4• 2 years ago

I personally think this mission is amazing for many reasons. But the astronauts aren't free floating in space, they're just poking their heads out the hatch.

patrick0d• 2 years ago

What's your definition?

globalnode2• 2 years ago

Outside the vehicle for a spacewalk, and above the Karman line for space.

Dig1t• 2 years ago

These space suits are very cool looking, I'm glad there was some consideration put towards aesthetics. The old marshmallow suits were iconic but definitely did not evoke thoughts of a cool sci-fi future like these ones do.

93po• 2 years ago

the traditional NASA suits are also absolutely massive and would make fitting people into the crew capsule very difficult

ryzvonusef2• 2 years ago

Also tested, Starlink Laser links!

Apparently the crew videochatted with their families, via Crew Dragon > Laser Link > Starlink > Earth.

I was surprised, i though laser link was a few years away!

ryzvonusef2• 2 years ago

Confirmation, indeed laser links!

https://x.com/PolarisProgram/status/1834286327891984474

robgibbons• 2 years ago

Obligatory 2001 reference: https://youtu.be/TDUxxuNQwEA

wonderwonder3• 2 years ago

SpaceX is going to be worth more than most countries. They are going to literally own a large portion of mars and other planetary bodies as well as the transportation lanes.

Just an incredibly exciting company that in time will become a true science fiction mega corp.

limit499karma• 2 years ago

They are going to literally own a large portion of mars and ... (sic)

https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/out...

Article II

Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

...

Article VI

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.

grecy• 2 years ago

If you are the only one that can get there and back, you effectively own a place

wonderwonder3• 2 years ago

if spacex goes and builds a base on mars, that area is theirs. If they build a very large base they own a very large area. If they then decide to move their headquarters to mars, what is anyone on earth going to do about it? This is truly a possession is 9/10 of the law scenario.

SpaceX Astronauts Begin Spacewalk, Putting New Spacesuits to Test

Related Stories