Where Hard Science Meets Science Fiction: The EVA Suit vs The EVA work Pod With current EVA technology a minimum of 20 hours of slow decompression and prebreathing pure oxygen is required before anyone goes out into space. Dealing with emergency situations, such as the ammonia leak encountered recently on the International Space Station, becomes problematic – to the credit of the ISS crew they managed to EVA with a grueling 22 hours of intensive preparation. The preparation is required because the cabin environment of the Space Station is oxygen/nitrogen at sea level pressure, while the suits operate with pure oxygen at 5 p.s.i. – they must because, with present EVA suits, the arms and legs become impossible to bend if the pressure is any greater. In my future history much of the action is at locations far removed from the relatively friendly environment of LEO. Radiation and micrometeorite shielding, especially in the environments I propose in my future history, would present significant design and engineering challenges. One answer which addresses operator protection in these environments is to make the suit a hardshell, or "constant volume." The extension of this idea becomes the “work pod” when outfitted with mechanical waldo’s and a low thrust engine. When you get to a point where long duration EVA’s are the norm and both “heavy”and “fine” work are required I think a multi-layered solution will evolve, hard-shell suits with a flexible under suit for some applications and the Space Pod option an operator can climb into for longer durations or heavy construction work. In my design the transition to miniature space craft is complete: I’ve added a Service Module & Orbital Maneuvering Stage to get the work pod to the EVA location – a necessity considering the scale of the habitats and the surrounding industrial in-space infrastructure at Saturn and Jupiter I envision. My design is inspired variously: Von Braun was thinking along these lines with his Bottle Suit. Larry Niven's asteroid miner “Single-Ships” from his “Known Space” novels are another influence. In “Islands in the Sky” Sir Arthur C. Clarke wrote about legless cylindrical work suits for zero-gee. 2001's "EVA Pod’s" also fit in this category. For a list of the parameters for a NASA spec space suit, go here.MAN-SYSTEMS INTEGRATION STANDARDS, Section 14 EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA). For the Atomic Rockets page and description of numerous design approaches and a design history, go here:Space Suits.

Great design and image! I especially like the gold nozzled thruster pods on those ships.

wow nice piece of work

amazing work

Fantastic image...the terrain material is very convincing,and your models are great as always...I especially like the use of the image of Saturn and moonsin the background!

Excellent scene!

I agree, that's amazing level of detail and realism, your models always amaze and inspire me, but this definitely raises the bar!

Fantastic image and lighting. Great modeling! Corrie

Agreed nice design and practical.

Fantastic idea and render... well done!!!!

fantastic bryce work:)

another winner, bud; great details and science!

WOW! Thats amazing Work This has to be one of my favourites it is the one of the most Amazing Space Scenes I have ever seen. Well Done Karl

Wonderfully done

Amazing!

Your artwork is very lookable at. However, I have to take you task, sir. Many or your previous images have stated the craft would be travelling at near LS. Therefore, given the density of interstellar molecules the ships would have be torn to shreds before approaching that speed. You cannot have sticky out bits on near LS space craft, they must be streamlined. Your comment would be appreciated

luckybears, None of the spacecraft depicted in [any of] my posted artwork travel near light speed. No text, or image, I have posted indicate that these vehicles attain near light speed velocity. All images posted describe interplanetary, not interstellar vehicles. All locations described are clearly within the confines of the solar system. I’ve not posted a single image on the topic of interstellar spaceflight. Perhaps the rather extensive and detailed text, and links, escaped your attention. Your Straw Man is now set aside, and in factual manner. I am under no obligation to address your secondary statement (that interstellar (near light speed [as opposed to] “near LS [sic]”) spacecraft need be streamlined due to density of the interstellar medium) because there is no relevance to my work at this juncture – however, your pretense to scientific evaluation begs for attention, and you did ask for my comment, and I shall endeavor to grant it full due with its own dedicated response, as this seems your desire. I intend to deliver in full. First I shall take you to task, in a manner objectively more genuine than yours. I describe my manner as objective, meaning that it is grounded in what is actually physically present and included in both art and text, the substance of which is immediately apparent by virtue of being visible right before the eyes of any who view my work – as opposed to your comment, which is a contrivance composed around a topic not relevant to the subject of my work, and in fact, not present in the material you have chosen to comment on. Every single image I have posted is accompanied by extensive text – clear and descriptive of vehicle type, the parameters of its designed operation, and the place, the function and role, the vehicle plays in the context of my future history. I point out the obvious in regards to this image: the location is Saturn, the sixth major planet from our sun. Point of fact – it certainly is not a requirement for a vehicle to approach light speed in order to traverse the distance between Mars and Saturn, regardless of the orbital position of either planet. Note: Mars being the center of the interplanetary capable civilization in my future history. In order to highlight the [complete] absurdity of your comment I point out that the image (and text) you have chosen to comment on depicts an intraorbital vehicle. Certainly there is not a single planet within the confines of the solar system where orbital velocity approaches light speed, and no orbit around Saturn requires such velocity. Your choice to critique an element entirely absent from the content of my work, namely relativistic velocity spaceflight, made explicitly on an image which depicts an intraorbital service vehicle, and not [even] an interplanetary vehicle – when the accompanying text expressly describes this fact – suggests that your argument is disingenuous at best, a Straw Man in fact. That conclusion is inescapable. My text is quite clear. If you are going to “take someone to task” might I suggest that, in the future, you make an effort to read the extensive and detailed text provided so your comments are at least informed. Of course you are free to make yourself the fool with continued silly statements; I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next man.

Science is a matter of precise observation, measurement, and valid mathematics. Just as in logic, there is no room for the arbitrary, the imprecise, the irrational, or the absurd. Science is not a matter of your “feelings” or your casual opinion. If you dare to venture into the arena of science and offer as valid your critical assessment – you had best be sure of your facts. Because it is a mere matter of reference to validated observation and knowledge to reveal if your pretense to knowledge is fraudulent or invalid. As an artist/author producing Hard SF, the science is of paramount consideration in my work. This is my response to luckybears statement: “near LS [sic] (LS presumably meaning “light-speed”) spacecraft must be streamlined due to “molecular” density of the interstellar medium.” Under normal conditions the irrational and absurd (which is the category luckybears statement falls into) require no response – it is inappropriate for luckybears to introduce the topic, since it has no bearing on my work at this juncture – however, in this case I’ve decided to grant it special treatment – because I intend to show that luckybears pretense of scientific critique is a sham, that there is no understanding of any science at all contained in this man’s words, that his pretense to knowledge is a fraud … and, after all, luckybears did ask for my comment. I intend to deliver in full measure. luckybears, Nothing in any of my research shows your statement to be true, or in any way valid. Our Sun is located near the center of a huge region about 330 to 490 light-years in diameter called "The Local Bubble.” The interstellar medium within the Local Bubble has a density of about 0.07 atoms/cm³, which is about ten times lower than in the rest of the galaxy. – “The Guide To The Galaxy,” Henbest & Couper, (Cambridge 1994) In support of this assessment on the nature of the interstellar medium I offer the following: Citations: A. Tielens, “The Physics & Chemistry of the Interstellar Medium,”(Cambridge, 2005) L. Spitzer, Jr., “Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium,”(Wiley, 1978) D. E. Osterbrock & G. Ferland, "Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei,”3rd Edition (University Science 2005) F. H. Shu, “The Physics of Astrophysics,” Volumes 1 & 2, (University Science Books, 1991,1992) G. B. Rybicki & A. P. Lightman, "Radiative Processes in Astrophysics," (Wiley, 1979) L. H. Aller: “Physics of Thermal Gaseous Nebulae,” (Reidel, 1984) J. E. Dyson, D. A. Williams: “The Physics of the Interstellar Medium,” (IoP, 1997) J. Binney & M. Merrifield, "Galactic Astronomy," (Princeton University Press, 1998) M. A. Dopita & R. S. Sutherland, “Astrophysics of the Diffuse Universe,” (Springer, 2003) In regards to relativistic velocity spaceflight, I cite the following: Kinetic energy resulting from particle collisions (dust grains) at 92%c should range from the equivalent of rifle shots to (rarely) small bombs. Almost all of the interstellar particles likely to be encountered are fewer than 20 microns across (10,000 microns = 1 centimeter), for a vehicle traveling at 92%c this works out to no more than one impact per day per square meter of the flight path profile. –“Flying To Valhalla” Dr. Charles Pellegrino and physicist Jim Powell (Brookhaven, 1993) In a letter to Adam Crowl, Charles Pellegrino (in reference to the Valkyrie proposal) stated the vehicle could effectively manage particle collisions at velocities up to 95%c – the Valkyrie spacecraft is fitted with a mechanism devised by Pellegrino and Powell known as a “droplet-shield” which provides protection from particle bombardment at relativistic velocities. Pellegrino and Powell propose dumping the engine heat from Valkyrie into a fluid (chiefly organic material with metallic inclusions) and have built a torus or ring of sprayers into the design to eject a constant spray (forming a stretched-hemispherical shroud ahead and around the ship) The droplets radiate their heat load into space before the ship accelerates into and recaptures them in magnetic funnels for eventual reuse. These same heat-shedding droplets can ionize most of the atoms they encounter by stripping off their electrons. The rocket itself then shunts the resulting shower of charged particles - protons and electrons - off to either side of its magnetic field, much the same as when a boat's prow pushes aside water. If a dust grain passes into the shield it is intercepted and exploded. One of the great advantages of a droplet shield is that it is constantly renewing itself. Put a dent in it, and the cavity is immediately filled by outrushing spray. –“Flying To Valhalla” Dr. Charles Pellegrino and physicist Jim Powell (Brookhaven, 1993) From which we can conclude that using nothing more sophisticated than Powell and Pellegrino’s “droplet-shield” (which is straight foreword engineering using off-the-shelf technology) a relativistic velocity vehicle could effectively manage particle collisions at velocities up to 95%c. [With the obvious caveat that crossing the 92%c threshold results in, as direct consequence, extreme (deal-killing really, by any rational measure) mass-energy expenditure.] Pellegrino’s and Powell’s design is rational, functional: intercept and explode potiential impactors. Contrast this with luckybears absurd (and scientifically illiterate) assertion – it should be obvious that mere “streamlining” would provide zero protection from impacts – where, clearly, a mechanism which intercepts such impactors before they can strike would provide effective protection. Observe: luckybears statements are not only absurd – they are lacking in physical fact of any evidence at all. Based on reasoned consideration of the evidence, I conclude it is false to suggest that a spacecraft should “be torn to shreds,”and that only a fool would imagine that “streamlining” could provide protection from relativistic particle bombardment. It is no surprise at all that not one single serious design or proposal follows what luckybears claims (falsely) as a “principle” of design. In argument I cite the following serious design proposals: “Valkyrie,” (C. Pellegrino and J. Powell, Brookhaven, 1993) "Bussard Interstellar Ramjet," (Robert W. Bussard, Princeton, 1960) “Daedalus,” Project Daedalus Study Group, A. Bond et al. (Project Daedalus – The Final Report on the BIS Starship Study, JBIS Interstellar Studies, Supplement 1978) “Ram-Augmented Interstellar Rocket (RAIR)” (Alan Bond, 1974) I could continue ad infinitum naming design proposals (there are literally thousands to choose from) and citing the work of famed engineer scientists from Robert Goddard to Robert Zubrin – but I trust I make my point. No spacecraft, designed to operate purely in the vacuum of space, regardless of operational peak ΔV, need be streamlined. The only exception being the category of vehicles designed to enter (or launch through) planetary atmospheres. luckybears, Your assertion is patently absurd.