Talk:Manned Maneuvering Unit

Previous discussions without headers

That gives me an idea: How fast could you get spinning in circles with constant thrust in space? You wouldn't have any resistance to slow down. :D

Your rotation would be limited by your body's ability to hold itself together - enough centripetal force and it will fly apart. I supposed that if you were in a superstrong suit that could withstand any force you would then be limited by general relativity. :P Thomasdelbert 16:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question because that's an obvious failure mode: stuck thruster causes uncontrolled spinning. A similar problem actually happened on Gemini 8, which nearly killed Neil Armstrong. In that case the Gemini vehicle reached about one revolution per second, which caused so much G force that the astronauts nearly blacked out before regaining control. This possibility was discussed extensively for the MMU and NASA added sufficient safeguards to prevent or limit the problem.

To attempt answering the specific question, the MMU had about 80 ft/second of delta-v capability. If completely expended solely in pitch, yaw or roll, the astronaut would rotate about his center of mass very rapidly.

From a translational (straight line) standpoint, the total kinetic energy available is given by:

KE = 1/2*m*v^2, where:

KE = kinetic energy (joules)

m = mass (kg), assume about 276 kg (MMU+suit+PLSS+astronaut)

v = velocity (m/s), 24.38 m/s (80 ft/sec)

KE = 82,025 joules

So the question is if 82,025 joules were expended rotationally, how fast would he spin. Unfortunately this depends on some unknowns, including how far from the center of mass are the thrusters. Maybe someone more familiar with physics could do the calculation. However he'd likely be rotating so fast he'd "red out" from centrifugal force pushing blood to his head. Then he'd just keep spinning forever, even after thruster propellent was exhausted. Joema 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not used any more?

Decent article, but missing one major explanation: why hasnt the MMU been used since 1984? I'm assuming its nasas paranoia about safety, and they no longer like astronauts not being tethered to the shuttle, but does anyone know this for sure / any details? Modest Genius 02:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the biggest question I have after reading the article is also why has it not been used since 1984. Good article otherwise. Canderra 04:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It -is- used. EVAs are the only way that new components of the International Space Station can be assembled, for example. Pictures of NASA astronauts sporting MMU packs are available online dating from 2001 to 2004 proving this. The article is false in stating that the MMU hasn't been used since Challenger. Needs fixing.

The article is absolutely correct. The MMU has not been used since 1984. There are no pictures showing an astronaut wearing an MMU in space since 1984. Look all you want, you'll never find an image of an MMU-suited astronaut working on the International Space Station (ISS). You may be thinking about the much smaller SAFER unit, which is totally different from the MMU. ISS assembly is by the SRMS (Space Station Manipulator System), or by tethered astronauts, or by astronauts riding the SRMS. It is not by free flying astronauts using either MMU or SAFER. Joema 21:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

From a 1991 report [1]:

Yet the MMU has not been used since 1984. There are several reasons for this. First, most extravehicular activities were effective without use of the MMU. Tethers, safety grips, hand bars, and other restraints allowed astronauts to work in the open cargo bay. Furthermore, the maneuverability of the Space Shuttle itself and the utility of the shuttle's robotic manipulator arm had proved capable of rescuing satellites-the primary function for which the MMU had been designed. The orbiter could be piloted with such accuracy that on mission 41-B, for example, commander Vance D. Brand piloted the Challenger into position so that McCandless on the manipulator arm could grab a foot restraint that had broken loose and floated away from the orbiter. On flight 41-C, the MMU failed to achieve mechanical mating to the Solar Max satellite, but the orbiter and manipulator arm recovered the satellite. On the Discovery mission, 51-A, commander Henry W. Hartsfield operated the remote manipulator arm to knock ice off a waste-water port, the ice being a reentry hazard. This sort of contingency was a potential MMU activity, but the manipulator arm solved the problem.

Another reason for lack of use of the MMU was the Challenger accident. In January 1986 the Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch. The crew of seven, the spacecraft, and the payload were lost. That accident initially prompted a suspension of space flights that lasted into September 1988. The accident and resulting investigations also prompted new safety rules that would require expensive changes to the existing MMU, changes pending both a customer and a mission for the MMU. Still another reason for not using the MMU has been the lack of a new user with adequate funding and appropriate mission. Finally, since the Space Station is still under discussion, the Space Shuttle remains the main space human flight program of the United States. The MMU is not necessary to its operations.

I hope this more fully answers the question. (Actually, I think the original inquirer accessed the article moments before I added the brief explanation.) Today's astronaut rules do not permit a US astronaut to operate without two tether devices, so that one may be attached at all times. The "arm" and future "hand" on the space station are intended to replace the need for many EVA tasks. There simply isn't a need for an MMU at present, and it's difficult to justify using today's failsafe rules. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So yeah, its a safety thing. Thanks for the clarification and edit Modest Genius 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the MMU used during the opening ceremonies of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, or was that another jetpack contraption? -- Jalabi99 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently that was a jet pack from Bell Aircraft. ^hello,gadren 15:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Strela crane

The Russian SPK section references a Strela crane, but the article linked to Strela does not make sense as it links to an armnament similar to a bazooka, not a tool used for space walks. Is there another use of the term "strela"? Can somebody please verify this, and either correct it, strike it out, or link to an article that describes a strela crane that would make sense to use for a spacewalk? ==Thomasdelbert 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you sit on it?

Is it like a chair, do you sit in it? All the pics of it look like some ugly space chair.

The EMU's legs don't bend so it can't be a chair. --Craigboy (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Zip gun gas?

The article claims oxygen. However, I seem to recall Michael Collins saying he plugged the gas supply into a nitrogen connector outside the spacecraft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.175.225.22 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Metric vs Imperial

I amended this article so that the primary measurements offered where metric. This was later reverted and I was asked to discuss it here. My reasoning has three levels.

Firstly the article was offering primary measurements in metric with imperial in brackets, then later reversing this and using imperial as primary and metric in brackets. This makes no sense, it is much easier to read a document if it is consistent in stricture.

My second argument concerns space itself. Space exploration is, as a science, near entirely done in metric. Being that this article is about space it should be metric first with imperial supplementary, if at all.

Thirdly, if Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral I feel that they should have a clear policy on this, given that 94% of the worlds population use Metric as a primary measurement system (in most cases, the only measurement system) it is my view that all articles should use metric measurements first except in the case where it is historically relevent to use imperial.

Regardless of your views on my later comments I hope we would all agree that a consistent structure is better than flip flopping, and since this is a scientific subject matter in this case the article should indeed treat metric as the primary measurement system. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the current state of the article, which flip-flops between metric (with imperial translations) and imperial (with metric translations), you lost. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Distance

The article doesn't state how far the astronauts were expected to travel from the shuttle with the MMU. I ask this because the famous photographs of McCandless make it look as if he is miles away, which surely can't be the case. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Manned Maneuvering Unit Locations

Found some images on Flickr that might give away their locations.

Space Center Houston (Texas)

US Space & Rocket Center (Alabama)

Wings Over The Rockies Air & Space Museum (Colorado)

--Craigboy (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

STS-41B/STS-41C at KSC.--Craigboy (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Military use

"the military discontinued the use of the Shuttle"

Maybe this is just unclear wording, but the military continued to use the shuttle until 1992, six years after Challenger.108.28.23.254 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manned Maneuvering Unit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504004428/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/shulemmu.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/shulemmu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)