Results for “relocation” — Page 15

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Aerobic Standards for Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, astronauts will need to be physically primed to successfully execute Extravehicular Activities (EVA) on the Lunar surface. Compared to past Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, intensity, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives. The physical demand associated with partial gravity (g) EVAs on the Moon is expected to be greater compared to microgravity EVAs based on initial workload estimation. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial g EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity data and require further research for establishing standards to protect crew health and performance during Lunar surface missions. Therefore, the aim of this investigation is to characterize metabolic data from Lunar analog simulations and in-flight crew population aerobic capacity data to validate the current NASA 3001 standard for celestial partial g aerobic fitness (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min). Methods: In order to evaluate aerobic fitness requirements for Lunar EVAs, the following were performed: 1) preliminary analysis of long-duration (6 hr) EVA analog simulations in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to evaluate expected metabolic rates for 1/6 g EVAs (NBL: n=1 female; ARGOS: n=1 male) and 2) assessment of the current NASA 3001 celestial surface EVA aerobic standard (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min) with data from an ISS astronaut population (n=30 male + 13 female) captured before and during space flight (flight day 15). Preliminary Results: Average fractional aerobic capacity during simulated EVAs were 33%±7% VO_2pk and 23.3±7% VO_2pk in the NBL and ARGOS, respectively. This was within a previously predicted 30–40% sustainable work rate. Average metabolic rates for some tasks performed in the NBL, such as traverse (40.4% VO_2pk) and ingress (47.1% VO_2pk) were higher than the predicted sustainable work range. In ARGOS, the tasks with the greatest metabolic rates were object relocation (34.2% VO_2pk) and incapacitated crew rescue (27.0% VO_2pk). Characterization of ISS crewmember aerobic capacity determined that the average preflight VO_2pk was 42.1±5.4 ml/kg/min for females and 37.5±5.4 ml/kg/min for males. At preflight, 21.5% of crewmembers were below the 36.5 ml/kg/min in-mission aerobic standard for celestial surface EVA as outlined in NASA-STD-3001. In-flight, both female and male crewmembers experienced reductions in VO_2pk (11.7% and 10.9%, respectively), such that, during the mission, 62% of crewmembers were below the standard aerobic capacity level for celestial surface EVAs. Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggest that while average metabolic rates for simulated Lunar EVA fall within the 30–40% sustainable work range, task specific metabolic rates exceed this range and may indicate that greater fitness is necessary for more strenuous tasks expected to be performed on the Lunar surface. Additionally, deconditioning due to space flight results in most crewmembers falling below the current celestial partial g EVA standard, which may increase risk to crew health and performance and completing mission objectives for surface missions. Further research is necessary in Artemis-specific analog environments to validate the current NASA-3001 aerobic standard for celestial EVAs. Additionally, work is ongoing to validate the current NASA-3001 strength standard for celestial EVAs.

N.C. Strock↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: Artemis astronauts will be required to complete more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedules than during ever before. While new spacesuits are designed to sustain high physical workloads during exploration EVAs (xEVA), crewmembers must also sustain cognitive performance throughout xEVA timelines. It is therefore necessary to characterize the effects of surface xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue. Methods: This study utilized NASA Johnson Space Center’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate lunar gravity and assess xEVA tasks and cognitive performance. Two subjects completed two ~5-hour EVAs in a pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverses. Subjects completed two cognitive assessments (Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)) before the first and after the second simulated EVA to assess effects of xEVA tasks on processing speed and vigilant attention. Additionally, sleep (e.g., quality, duration, and efficiency) was monitored (Oura Ring) for ≥7 days prior to the simulated EVAs, as well as between each EVA, to account for possible effects of sleep decrements on cognitive metrics. Results: Cognitive performance changed minimally from pre to post EVA for both DSST (response time (RT): S1 Δ129.1ms, S2 Δ40.7ms; Accuracy: S1 preEVA = 1.0, S1 postEVA = 0.98, S2 preEVA = 1.0, S2 postEVA = 1.0) and PVT (S1 PVT RT Δ17.7 ms, S2 PVT RT Δ-2.7 ms). Subjects’ sleep duration immediately prior to EVA showed minimal deviation from baseline (Δhrs; S1 preEVA1= + 0.67, S1 preEVA2 = -.03, S2 preEVA1 = - 1.1, S2 preEVA2 = -1.39) and efficiency (Δ%; S1 preEVA1 = 0.09, S1 preEVA2 = 9.54, S2 preEVA1 = 0, S2 preEVA2= 12). Notably, sleep waketime shifted earlier for one subject by ~1 hr which may have impacted performance. Conclusion: Understanding the impacts of xEVA workloads on cognitive performance will be instrumental to future exploration mission planning and success. Future work will expand the subject pool and test new spacesuit designs to better characterize cognitive performance and impacts of sleep during simulated xEVA and inform modeling and prediction capabilities for future Artemis xEVA planning.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS Lightning Imaging Sensor and STP-H8/ASAP Observations

What is ISS LIS? - ISS Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) is the flight spare for the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) LIS instrument - Modified to work on ISS and launched as part of STP-H5 in February 2017 - Detects lightning (via near-IR 777-nm channel) during both day and night, with storm-scale resolution and globally uniform detection efficiency - Relocated on ISS July 2022, expected to operate thru at least December 2023

Timothy Lang↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Implementation of Field-Oriented Control in Joint Actuator Electronics for Satellite-Servicing Robotics

NASA’s OSAM-1 (On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1) is a robotic spacecraft designed to extend the life of a satellite. Launching in 2026, the OSAM-1 servicer will use a robotic arm to grasp, refuel, and relocate Landsat 7. In order to accomplish the various servicing operations, including the critical auto-grapple capturing operation, the robot arm uses active compliance and visual servo control loops. These sophisticated control algorithms are enabled by the high performance Joint Control Boards (JCBs). At the core of the robot arm control architecture, the JCBs employ field-oriented control (FOC) to accurately commutate and efficiently control joint actuator torque. FOC offers numerous benefits over other current control methods, allowing the JCBs to achieve the high bandwidth and performance required by the outer control loops. As an added benefit, a torque feed-forward term allows the FOC loop to simulate microgravity actuator performance during ground testing. In this paper, a FOC implementation for space robotics applications and an end-to-end actuator calibration process are discussed.

Sam Zhao↗

NASA NTRS2022

Wave Setup at the Minamitorishima Tide Gauge

A tide gauge situated on the western shore of Minamitorishima, a small atoll in the western Pacific, has measured sea levels significantly impacted by wave setup. Evidence for this rests with (a) strong correlations between sea level anomalies and high swell and (b) sea-level differences with satellite altimetry that display near-linear dependence on offshore swell heights (regression coefficient 30 cm per meter of swell). Setup is primarily induced by swell from the northwest. We develop models of wave setup which lead to corrected sea levels better reflecting the surrounding ocean, and thus more readily useful to studies of regional sea level and practical applications such as altimetry calibration. The wave setup is also evidently affecting measurements of the tide, with suppressed tide amplitudes in winter when swell is generally largest. In February 2020 the tide gauge was relocated to the southern shore of the island, and the wave setup is now markedly reduced.

Wave setup↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Radiation and Nuclear Technology in Planetary Cave Environments

Many technological and environmental challenges must be resolved to enable successful lunar habitation and exploration, and to maximize scientific return. This presentation is intended as a preliminary discussion on three such areas of interest with the intent to identify likely areas of mutual benefit for collaboration and data sharing between the space nuclear and radiological disciplines with the planetary cave community. First is the previously identified and studied possible application of lunar lava tubes or pits to reduce the solar and cosmic radiation environment burden on crew health and hardware reliability. This is an area of continued interest, and should be kept in the forefront of discussion during the selection of sites for potential exploration or long-term habitation. In theory, the prospect of using existing morphology presents an enticing opportunity to reduce the requirements on landed mass or construction while also reducing dose or fluence of harmful natural radiation. However, such discussions should also include the practical implications of relocating habitation hardware and personnel from a landing site to a subsurface location. Inherent risks associated with landing in proximity to the relevant terrain must also be considered and weighed against those imposed by the natural radiation environment. Second is a discussion on the means by which a long-term habitation module or base of operations may be powered throughout the lunar day-night cycle. Fission surface power presents an opportunity to establish round-the-clock power in any lunar surface environment, including permanently shadowed regions where solar panels cannot operate, or in any other non-polar region where solar radiation is available for no more than two weeks per four-week cycle. Among the drawbacks of fission surface power is the need to either land and co-locate a heavy shield to minimize radiological consequences to personnel or equipment, land and operate construction equipment capable of restructuring the in-situ regolith to provide appropriate shielding, or to make use of existing topology features (e.g. craters or pits) to serve as pre-formed radiation barriers. A realistic assessment of the practicality of this third option should involve the selection of candidate features from existing surveys, and assess the effectiveness of the approach using modern radiation transport methodologies. Consideration must be made for the needs to reject waste heat in the thermal power conversion process, which typically requires the use of large area radiators. Energy must be exchanged from the reactor and power conversion system to such radiators, and the impacts on thermal efficiency and secondary scatter of nuclear radiation must be considered. Further consideration should be made for the implications of placement of a power source such that it does not sacrifice valuable scientific opportunity. Placement of a reactor is likely to thereafter prevent personnel access within that feature. Third is a discussion on the use of portable radioisotope power systems (RPS) within confined spaces, both with respect to the dose effects of emitted nuclear radiation and also performance associated with emitted thermal radiation. Radioisotope power systems provide a unique capability to power objects with no reliance upon solar radiance. However, their useable power production relies upon the flow of heat from ‘hot side’ (decaying radioisotope) to ‘cold side’ (radiators emitting heat to space). In the case of a confined volume in vacuum such as a lunar lava tube, that radiated energy will absorb into the wall, which is already above the ‘cold background’ temperature of dark space, and then gradually rises in temperature. That temperature rise, and its implications on availability of useable electrical power, will depend upon factors such as enclosure volume, thermal emissivity/absorptivity, and thermal conductivity through the depth of absorbing media. The advantages of nuclear technology may prove to enable unique scientific exploration opportunities, both above the lunar surface and below. In turn, the unique advantages of lunar lava tubes or pits may present unique opportunities to enhance the application of these technologies and to mitigate the effects of radiation from both natural and technological sources. A discussion on these pairings may prove to be valuable to all, in our endeavor to explore our neighboring worlds.

Radiation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Air Quality Monitor “Benzene” Anomaly: Ground Testing and On-going Effects

The International Space Station (ISS) Air Quality Monitors (AQMs) have provided targeted in-flight analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the ISS atmosphere since early 2013. During their initial half decade of use covering multiple sets of units, the AQMs performed well, meeting their validation criteria and showing excellent accuracy compared to archival samples. In addition to routine environmental monitoring, the AQMs have also been used during a number of contingency situations and investigations related to Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). These include a potential ammonia leak, increases in atmospheric ethanol, and efforts to locate potential sources of polydimethylsiloxanes that lead to the production of dimethylsilanediol (DMSD) in the US Water Processor Assembly (WPA). As the fleet of AQMs has aged, several issues have arisen. These have ranged from pervasive problems on electronics boards to loss of sensitivity due to operating in an elevated CO2 environment. The most notable issue encountered during on-orbit operations was incorrect identification of compounds. This initially occurred in mid-2020, when AQM1 reported the presence of benzene. While the AQM team questioned the validity of these results, the concentration of the “benzene” continued to increase and eventually exceeded the 30- and 180-day Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC). This led to wide-ranging efforts by a number of groups aimed at understanding the situation and identifying the source of the “benzene.” AQM1 failed after being relocated to the Russian Segment as part of the investigation, and the unit was returned for evaluation. When archive samples collected while the AQM was measuring elevated benzene showed no detectable benzene, the focus of the investigation shifted to determining the cause of the false positive readings. Here, we will discuss the results of this investigation by the AQM team, potential causes of the interference, and subsequent reporting of AQM1 results.

W T Wallace↗

NASA NTRS2024

Core Body Temperature Predictions Using Metabolic Energy Expenditure and Heart Rate During Simulated Extravehicular Activity

Long duration spaceflight missions will require crew to become more autonomous in conducting extravehicular activities (EVA) without direct communication with Mission Control for biomedical support. To enable such autonomy, we are developing a Crew State and Risk Model (CSRM) as a collection of key physiology domains that drive EVA crew capabilities and workloads. One model component of CSRM is human thermal regulation. In this paper, customized development of a baseline model to predict core body temperature is presented using physiology inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. The model development dataset included a baseline study where participants (n=6, equal male and female) performed a 5-hour EVA in a two-part session while wearing a hybrid space suit simulator (HS3). The first session included an end-to-end EVA traversing 1500 meters to a geology site and traversing back to a habitat conducting geology, payload relocation, and maintenance operations every 500 meters. The second session included standalone tasks of a 2000-meter traverse followed by geology tasks. Thermal measures of core body temperature, local skin temperature, liquid cooling garment temperature, heart rate, and metabolic rate were collected through the test duration. Multiple regression was used to build a linear equation to predict core body temperature from inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. Heat storage was calculated via predicted core body temperature plus LCG and skin temperatures. The model was tested against a dataset from a pressurized suited test (n=6, equal male and female) in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) conducting similar end-to-end EVA and standalone tasks. Predicted error of the model against the raw test cases was 0.2±0.15 °C. The baseline prediction of core body temperature using heart rates and metabolic rates allows for simple real-time tracking from data collected in-flight to monitor crew consumables and thermal flight limits during EVA.

Bradley Hoffmann↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Physical Workload Across Eva-Simulation Analog Environments: Hybrid Space Suit Simulator and Pressurized Suit Testing

NASA conducts research, testing, and training across a variety of analog environments to support characterization of human performance during Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). Time utilizing pressurized suits in an offloaded environment is both limited and expensive, making it challenging to carry out extensive research with these suits. The Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations (H-3PO) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center designed a Hybrid Space Suit Simulator (HS3) as a low-cost, workload approximator and easy access research tool to provide relevant physical and cognitive workloads during simulated EVAs. A pilot study was conducted in a 1g analog environment where six healthy subjects (3 male, 3 female) underwent simulated 5-hour EVAs in the HS3. This study used a COSMED K5 portable metabolic analyzer and a Polar H10 heart rate monitor to evaluate physical workload during the EVAs. For direct comparison, EVA tasks and timelines were modeled after a similar study conducted in pressurized suits (Mark-III spacesuit, n=3 male; small xPGS spacesuit, n=3 female) at NASA’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) offloaded to Lunar gravity (1/6 g). The 1g HS3 data demonstrated increased metabolic rate when compared to pressurized, Lunar-offloaded suited simulated EVAs for certain tasks including the kneeling scoop (HS3: 1194±199 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 860±170 BTU/hr, p < 0.05) and 20 lb object relocation (HS3: 1651±136 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1048±252.8 BTU/hr, p < 0.05), but it did not demonstrate any significant differences in heart rate (p > 0.05). Other simulated EVA tasks, such as a 500 m traverse (HS3: 1431±177 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1212±294 BTU/hr, p > 0.05), showed similar workload profiles with no significant workload differences between HS3 and ARGOS. The HS3 is a useful research tool for increasing workloads in EVA research without pressurized suits, though it may overestimate workload during certain EVA tasks when used in 1g environments.

Zachary Wusk↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact of Sleep Shifting Strategies on the International Space Station

Astronaut crews have historically averaged around six hours of sleep per night, especially during missions that required a high tempo work environment, confined spacecraft without crew quarters, and frequent sleep schedule changes. In recent years, crew aboard the ISS have had much more stable schedules, with a consistent bedtime at 2130 and wake time at 0600 Greenwich Mean Time. Despite these improvements to sleep conditions on the ISS, sleep schedules are disrupted by visiting vehicles that arrive or leave the ISS or when uncontrollable operational events require the crewmembers to shift their sleep. We characterized the approaches to sleep shifting, including shifting sleep earlier and later and split sleep to determine the impact on sleep duration and quality. METHODS Data were gathered though the Spaceflight Standard Measures protocol. These consisted of objective measures of sleep duration (calculated via a wrist-worn accelerometer) collected by 19 crewmembers (7 females; mean age 46 ± 7 years) throughout their tenure aboard the ISS. We first categorized episodes of “split sleep” whereby a person attempts sleep on two separate occasions in a 24-hour period that are similar in length. For example, they might have a 4-hour sleep opportunity followed by a night awake, followed by another 4-hour sleep opportunity the next morning. RESULTS Out of the 19 crewmembers, a total of 8 engaged in 11 episodes of split sleep while inflight. These periods all surrounded visiting vehicle events that interfered with their nominal sleep window, including docking, relocation, and undocking events. The first sleep opportunity typically took place during the afternoon before the disrupting event (all sleep periods were contained between 1151 and 2009), while the second episode took place the following morning (between 0343 and 1325) On average, the time in bed of the first sleep opportunity was shorter than the second (M1=2.89±0.82 vs. M2=4.30±1.41). DISCUSSION Next in our analysis, we will compare the crewmembers’ split sleep outcomes to those from other strategies (e.g., phase delays). We aim to determine which strategies yield the best sleep outcomes and to determine whether the sleep shifting strategy has consequences to subsequent sleep. Understanding these impacts will aid in decision making for future ISS operations and will also help us better understand the impacts of various strategies to adjust sleep and help guide scheduling in future missions where consistent schedules may not be possible.

sleep↗

NASA NTRS2024

The Air Quality Monitor “Benzene” Anomaly: Ground Testing and On-going Effects

The International Space Station (ISS) Air Quality Monitors (AQMs) have provided targeted in-flight analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the ISS atmosphere since early 2013. During their initial half decade of use covering multiple sets of units, the AQMs performed well, meeting their validation criteria and showing excellent accuracy compared to archival samples. In addition to routine environmental monitoring, the AQMs have also been used during a number of contingency situations and investigations related to Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). These include a potential ammonia leak, increases in atmospheric ethanol, and efforts to locate potential sources of polydimethylsiloxanes that lead to the production of dimethylsilanediol (DMSD) in the US Water Processor Assembly (WPA). As the fleet of AQMs has aged, several issues have arisen. These have ranged from pervasive problems on electronics boards to loss of sensitivity due to operating in an elevated CO2 environment. The most notable issue encountered during on-orbit operations was incorrect identification of compounds. This initially occurred in mid-2020, when AQM1 reported the presence of benzene. While the AQM team questioned the validity of these results, the concentration of the “benzene” continued to increase and eventually exceeded the 30- and 180-day Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC). This led to wide-ranging efforts by a number of groups aimed at understanding the situation and identifying the source of the “benzene.” AQM1 failed after being relocated to the Russian Segment as part of the investigation, and the unit was returned for evaluation. When archive samples collected while the AQM was measuring elevated benzene showed no detectable benzene, the focus of the investigation shifted to determining the cause of the false positive readings. Here, we will discuss the results of this investigation by the AQM team, potential causes of the interference, and subsequent reporting of AQM1 results.

W T Wallace↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Design and Applications of Tethered Spacecraft Simulators

Small, tethered spacecraft, or space tugs, are a promising space capability. They can be deployed on tethers and used for a wide variety of in-space activities; a large portion of which fall under in-space servicing, assembly, manufacturing (ISAM) functions. This includes functions such as structural mating and assembly, servicing, proximity operations, capture, docking, mating, and relocation. However, there is a great deal of work to be done to raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the capabilities needed to fully realize these capabilities. The Flat Floor Robotics Lab (FFRL) at NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center (MSFC) has been working on space tug development for several years. The eponymous floor is 44 by 86 feet, made from a self-leveling epoxy. This creates an extremely smooth surface that air bearings can float on with very little friction, creating a simulation of zero gravity in a two-dimensional plane. The lab has several platforms of various sizes that act as vehicle simulators for testing sensors, control algorithms, mechanisms, etc. One of these platforms is a small spacecraft simulator, which can be tethered to simulate a space tug. In the last several months, the FFRL team has been working with MSFC’s welding group to conduct a laser beam welding demonstration on air bearing platforms. This demo is utilizing a space tug simulator to fly up to a floating weld platform, where two parts are clamped together and laser welded. The space tug simulator has an air bearing to provide float, as well as several actuated air thrusters to provide propulsion and make the simulator maneuverable. Currently, flights of this simulator are completed by a human operator. An RF hand controller sends signals to both actuate and fire three sets of thrusters on the simulator. This makes any maneuvers of the space tug highly subject to human error, and operators must have dedicated practice time before being able to perform maneuvers with any sufficient reliability. For the current laser welding demonstration, human operated performance is sufficient, but future implementations of in-space welding and other ISAM efforts will require higher precision, reliability, and autonomy. MSFC has funded a project that will allow a small team in the FFRL to develop the next generation of space tug simulator, which will be automated. Closed loop control will allow a user to command a position, or set of positions, that the simulator will be able to “fly” to on its own. This Maneuverable Automated Tethered Spacecraft (MATS) simulator will have configurable design, to allow a variety of payloads and mission configurations to be demonstrated on the air bearing floor. This will be an invaluable test bed for low and mid TRL advancement for space tether mission subsystems, such as more advanced demonstrations of in-space welding. Once one MATSS is constructed and demonstrated effectively, several more can be built, enabling more advanced tether missions; Electric Sail test beds, sensor arrays, and other science-enabling missions. This paper will detail the design and test of the FFRL’s MATS simulator, including efforts to establish closed loop control and autonomous capabilities. It will also detail use cases for this technology, and how it will further develop both develop science and exploration missions.

Space Tethers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Air Quality Monitor “Benzene” Anomaly: Ground Testing and On-going Effects

The International Space Station (ISS) Air Quality Monitors (AQMs) have provided targeted in-flight analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the ISS atmosphere since early 2013. During their initial half decade of use covering multiple sets of units, the AQMs performed well, meeting their validation criteria and showing excellent accuracy compared to archival samples. In addition to routine environmental monitoring, the AQMs have also been used during a number of contingency situations and investigations related to Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS). These include a potential ammonia leak, increases in atmospheric ethanol, and efforts to locate potential sources of polydimethylsiloxanes that lead to the production of dimethylsilanediol (DMSD) in the US Water Processor Assembly (WPA). As the fleet of AQMs has aged, several issues have arisen. These have ranged from pervasive problems on electronics boards to loss of sensitivity due to operating in an elevated CO2 environment. The most notable issue encountered during on-orbit operations was incorrect identification of compounds. This initially occurred in mid-2020, when AQM1 reported the presence of benzene. While the AQM team questioned the validity of these results, the concentration of the “benzene” continued to increase and eventually exceeded the 30- and 180-day Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC). This led to wide-ranging efforts by a number of groups aimed at understanding the situation and identifying the source of the “benzene.” AQM1 failed after being relocated to the Russian Segment as part of the investigation, and the unit was returned for evaluation. When archive samples collected while the AQM was measuring elevated benzene showed no detectable benzene, the focus of the investigation shifted to determining the cause of the false positive readings. Here, we will discuss the results of this investigation by the AQM team, potential causes of the interference, and subsequent reporting of AQM1 results.

William T Wallace↗