Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday November 22, @10:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-drag dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

How do you rescue an injured crew member on the lunar surface? NASA is looking for ideas, and a share of a $45,000 prize pot is up for grabs.

The problem has vexed the US space agency for some time. Though Apollo featured the Buddy Secondary Life Support System (BSLSS) that allowed crew members to share cooling water in the event of a life support system failure while roaming the lunar surface, the problem for Artemis is more complicated. NASA wants a solution to allow the transport of a fully incapacitated crew member back to the lander from a distance of up to two kilometers.

The design must not make use of a lunar rover, must be low in mass (less than 23 kilograms), and must be of minimal volume since it is going to have to be transported by a crew member over the entire duration of extravehicular activity (EVA). It must also be able to deal with the extremes of temperature on the lunar surface and function in the presence of lunar dust.

The design must also be able to handle slopes of up to 20 degrees up or down, as well as the rocks and craters that pepper the lunar surface. On the plus side, it doesn't need to provide any medical attention or life support. It just needs to be something that can be quickly and easily deployed to transport the incapacitated astronaut back to the lander.

It's an interesting mental exercise. How would such a device work? There have been studies [PDF] on the subject, which came to the conclusion that a wheeled transport device "provides the highest risk reduction potential," although attaching something like that to an Artemis EVA suit will present a challenge. Other walking assistance options don't meet the "fully incapacitated" requirement.

The first crewed landing of the Artemis program is scheduled for not earlier than 2026, meaning that little time remains for a design to be implemented. NASA would like comprehensive technical design concepts, ideally with some preliminary CAD models, submitted by January 23, 2025, and will announce the winners on February 27.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Friday November 22, @11:10AM (12 children)

    by looorg (578) on Friday November 22, @11:10AM (#1382826)

    The design must also be able to handle slopes of up to 20 degrees up or down, as well as the rocks and craters that pepper the lunar surface. On the plus side, it doesn't need to provide any medical attention or life support. It just needs to be something that can be quickly and easily deployed to transport the incapacitated astronaut back to the lander.

    A collapsible sledge and a harness to pull it, and another harness to secure the incapacitated. No need to be fancy. No moving parts where the space dust can get in and clog things up. The second astronaut will be the power source, the puller, while the incapacitated one is on the sledge.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by driverless on Friday November 22, @11:41AM (5 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Friday November 22, @11:41AM (#1382828)

      There's a much easier way to deal with injured and even fully incapacitated moonwalkers. I can't reveal too much at the moment because I'm still in the process of submitting the details of Project Old Yeller to NASA.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Friday November 22, @12:10PM (1 child)

        by looorg (578) on Friday November 22, @12:10PM (#1382834)

        I think your project could be improved with Project Sharp-stick. It would be a lot less messy then Project Old Yeller and it would also turn the incapacitated moonwalker into a popsicle. For easy storage.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 22, @01:54PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday November 22, @01:54PM (#1382852) Journal

          I favor Project Wheelbarrow. Classic way to haul drunks home, needs just 1 wheel.

      • (Score: 2) by Username on Friday November 22, @06:19PM (2 children)

        by Username (4557) on Friday November 22, @06:19PM (#1382884)

        I can't really think of many ways an astronaut could be incapacitated without it being lethal in the time it takes to walk one mile to get them and a mile back.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Friday November 22, @06:45PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @06:45PM (#1382888)
          Broken bone.
          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday November 22, @11:45PM

          by mhajicek (51) on Friday November 22, @11:45PM (#1382919)

          There are many medical conditions which could cause incapacitation, while being treatable.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Friday November 22, @12:10PM (5 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Friday November 22, @12:10PM (#1382833)
      Exactly the same thought here, but more specifically a travois, possibly inverted so theres only a single point of contact with the surface to the astronaut doing the pulling can hold the poles as well as be strapped to it via a harness. That nly needs three poles for the A-frame, some material to go between the poles to support the incapacitated astronaut, plus the harness. Make the two longer poles telescopic for compactness and rapid assembly, and have the inner section hollow; one to store the cross bar and the other the harness, wrap the two poles in the material to create the "pack" and keep it all together and any dust etc. out until needed. You might also want a small ski (or two, depending on orientation) to go at the base to reduce the friction a bit and avoid it sinking into the lunar regolith, but that could also double as tray that the two poles sit in to keep everything in place when not in use. Most importantly, as you noted, it has zero moving parts to get gummed up with regolith while in use, unlike any wheeled device.

      Really, there are not that many solutions to this, and many of those have been proven over centuries or more - the only novel aspect here is the location it's going to be used in. Other than the environmental considerations, I'm pretty sure someone at NASA has thought of this, so either there's a big "gotcha" somewhere that's not obvious or they're overthinking this (which, given it's NASA, wouldn't surprise me in the slightest). You can steer it around the rocks as it's only got a single point of contact - if the "mule" can avoid the rocks, then so can the base of the travois. Everything else is just material science to cope with the environment and getting the components robust enough to cope with the physical stresses they'll face if used.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 2) by looorg on Friday November 22, @12:27PM (1 child)

        by looorg (578) on Friday November 22, @12:27PM (#1382838)

        In large it does sound a lot like a material science issue. As your device can't be heavier then 23 kilograms (~50 pounds) (so more or less the weight of a fancy mountainbike) and it has to transport and hold someone with a mass of 343 kg (~755lb). Without collapsing. Be reusable and all that. It has to be long enough to cover the incapacitated and not have their feet stick out and create more drag. So said Astronauts have to do a lot more cardio if they are to pull that one on their own and not be strapped in like a pack of sled dog, which would also be against the rules since they have to do it on their own and not part of a team (enable a single crewmember to transport an incapacitated crewmember).

        Still it does seem odd that they have not just come up with a sledge/travois solution on their own. But I can't really find any big gotcha in their requirements besides the weight issues and the lone crewmember issue. That isn't solved by engineering and materials.

        https://www.herox.com/NASASouthPoleSafety [herox.com]

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday November 22, @01:28PM

          by VLM (445) on Friday November 22, @01:28PM (#1382849)

          More like 125 pounds on the moon. Although if they fake the whole thing and record it on a soundstage in Hollywood (more likely a netflix original now a days) then they would need your 755 pound figure.

          Or you might be accounting for the obesity epidemic. The Apollo lunar suits were about 80 kilos but you know those Americans love HFCS and seed oils so I could see 343 kilos in 2026 sure.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Friday November 22, @01:34PM (2 children)

        by VLM (445) on Friday November 22, @01:34PM (#1382850)

        the only novel aspect here is the location it's going to be used in

        The novel aspect is that its single use.

        A "moon wheelbarrow" could be infinitely useful for all kinds of cool stuff including hauling an astronaut, HOWEVER being NASA they can't "think big" anymore so they can only think very small and work on an astronaut medical stretcher type thing. Why not haul all kinds of junk around in the wheelbarrow when not hauling astronauts in it? When you look at it like that, they only need 23 kilos to man-rate it and add carrying straps or otherwise minorly alter the "lunar wheelbarrow" to medical purposes.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @05:25PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 22, @05:25PM (#1382881)

          HOWEVER being NASA they can't "think big" anymore so they can only think very small and work on an astronaut medical stretcher type thing.

          or they know something you don't. like... it might not be super practical to build one within the mass limit that won't cook the poor soul laying on it.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday November 23, @03:56PM

            by VLM (445) on Saturday November 23, @03:56PM (#1383007)

            Or possibly if they're doing the whole thing on a soundstage in Hollywood being able to haul things long distances like some like of LotR movie would make for an expensive film.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday November 22, @12:03PM (8 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday November 22, @12:03PM (#1382831)

    We had lunar rovers back in Apollo 15-17, and they proved very useful. They're still there on the moon, too, so if Artemis happened to be nearby any of them when somebody got hurt they seem like the obvious choice.

    --
    "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Friday November 22, @12:16PM (7 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Friday November 22, @12:16PM (#1382835)
      Artemis is going to the Lunar South Pole. That's nowhere near any of the Apollo landing sites, and it has a much more uneven terrain than the "seas" selected for the Apollo landings, so a full-size rover may need to take a much more convoluted route between a potential accident site and the lander.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 22, @12:37PM (5 children)

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @12:37PM (#1382840) Journal

        They'll have gone rusty in the seawater anyway.

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 22, @03:30PM (4 children)

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @03:30PM (#1382872) Journal

          That's only because Apollo planners chose such wet places to land. Sea of Tranquility. Ocean of Storms.

          Nevermind that the Apollo rovers don't meet modern emissions standards or have a high enough MPG.

          --
          Satin worshipers are obsessed with high thread counts because they have so many daemons.
      • (Score: 2) by stormreaver on Friday November 22, @10:56PM

        by stormreaver (5101) on Friday November 22, @10:56PM (#1382916)

        Artemis is going to the Lunar South Pole.

        Wait...it's called Artemis? If the astronauts encounter "might pretty" scenery, I really hope they have something to handle the flying terrors that wreck landing modules.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by VLM on Friday November 22, @01:20PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) on Friday November 22, @01:20PM (#1382845)

    The first crewed landing of the Artemis program is scheduled for not earlier than 2026

    Traditionally they push it out a couple years every couple years. I don't think there's any realistic way for 2026 to happen.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 22, @03:32PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 22, @03:32PM (#1382873) Journal

      No way they are doing a crude landing in 2026.

      --
      Satin worshipers are obsessed with high thread counts because they have so many daemons.
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday November 22, @02:26PM (1 child)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday November 22, @02:26PM (#1382857)

    Just leave em there. There's more where that one came from.

    --
    Is anyone surprised ChatGPT got replaced by an A.I.?
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Barenflimski on Friday November 22, @03:39PM

    by Barenflimski (6836) on Friday November 22, @03:39PM (#1382874)

    I don't know much about moonwalkers, but I do know that you don't want to combine a whole lotta hair spray and some faulty lights.

  • (Score: -1) by creimer_is_a_virgin on Friday November 22, @03:56PM

    by creimer_is_a_virgin (13618) on Friday November 22, @03:56PM (#1382877) Journal

    You send robots and machines. Unless this particular space fantasy is about recreating the California Gold Rush, but IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE

    YOU TOO CAN BECOME A BILLIONAIRE.... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE

    Just more religious drivel from space atheists who worship a vacuum.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by One Time Use on Friday November 22, @10:54PM (1 child)

    by One Time Use (48465) on Friday November 22, @10:54PM (#1382915)

    Just strap about 40 F-class model rocket motors on them and launch them on a ballistic trajectory back to the ship. Much faster than walking.

    An Estes F-class motor has a max lift weight of just over 1 pound on earth. That's about 6 pounds on the moon. So, 40 should lift a 240 pound person (SpaceX knows how to light a bunch of rocket motors at the same time).

    The motors weight about 70g; 40 of them would be under 3 kg. And you could get them for about $12 each or all 40 for less than $500, including the igniters.
    Throw in another 40 to slow down for landing (SpaceX knows how to do that too). Use the USB PD port in the space suit for power. That's $1000 all in.

    You're asking yourself what if they don't weigh 240 pounds, or what if there's a mountain in the way, or what launch angle to use. By 2026, I'm sure Alexa/Siri/Google/ChatGPT/etc will be able to figure that out.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Saturday November 23, @04:00PM

      by VLM (445) on Saturday November 23, @04:00PM (#1383009)

      And you could get them for about $12 each

      Ooof I just checked Amazon and prices have gone up quite a bit. When I was a kid rocketry was a hobby kids could afford; not so much anymore.

      Much like ham radio, the hobby was pretty cheap but the cost is very high now for the acres of land required to participate.

  • (Score: 1) by Shipstone on Saturday November 23, @11:16AM

    by Shipstone (48738) on Saturday November 23, @11:16AM (#1382972)

    Tsunami survival pods already exist! Surprised that this wasn't their first choice: https://survival-capsule.com/ [survival-capsule.com]

    Lightweight, inexpensive and easy to move. Probably a bit disorienting for the patient, though.

  • (Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Saturday November 23, @02:32PM

    by DadaDoofy (23827) on Saturday November 23, @02:32PM (#1382988)

    Pick up the phone and call SpaceX.

  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, @01:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 25, @01:06AM (#1383220)
    From the annie-are-you-ok dept.
(1)