Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “EVA”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2000

Efficacy of Wrist/Palm Warming as an EVA Countermeasure to Maintain Finger Comfort in Cold Conditions During EVA

This study explored the effectiveness of local wrist/palm warming as a potential countermeasure for providing finger comfort during extended duration EVA. Methods: Six subjects (5 males and 1 female) were evaluated in a sagitally divided liquid cooling/warming garment (LCWG) with modified liquid cooling/warming (LCW) gloves in three different experimental conditions. Condition 1: Stage 1- no LCWG; chamber adaptation with LCW glove inlet water temperature 33 C; Stage 2-LCW glove inlet water temperature cooled to 8 C; Stage 3-LCW glove inlet water temperature warmed to 45 C; Condition 2: Stage1-LCWG and LCW glove inlet water temperature 33 C; Stage 2-LCWG inlet temperature cooled to 31 C, LCW gloves, 8 C; Stage 3-LCWG inlet water temperature remains at 31 C, LCW glove inlet water temperature warmed to 45 C; Condition 3: Stage l -LCWG and LCW gloves 33 C; Stage 2-LCWG inlet water temperature cooled to 28 C, LCW gloves, 8 C; Stage 3-LCWG remains at 28 C, LCW glove water temperature warmed to 45 C. Results: Wrist/palm area warming significantly increased finger temperature (Tfing) and blood perfusion in Stage 3 compared to Stage 2. The LCW gloves were most effective in increasing Stage 3 Tfing in Condition 1; and in increasing blood perfusion in Conditions 1 and 2 compared to Condition 3. Ratings of subjective perception of heat in the hand and overall body heat were higher at Stage 3 than Stage 2, with no significant differences across Conditions. Conclusions: Local wrist/palm warming was effective in increasing blood circulation to the distal extremities, suggesting the potential usefulness of this technique for increasing astronaut thermal comfort during EVA while decreasing power requirements. The LCW gloves were effective in heating the highly cooled fingers when the overall body was in a mild heat deficit.

Koscheyev, Victor S.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) & Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) Joint EVA & HSM Test Team (JETT) Field Test 3 (JETT3) Report

The purpose of this field test and corresponding report is to evolve the lunar surface EVA concept of operations and hardware via developmental testing. This report compiles and summarizes the goals, infrastructure, test configuration, conclusions, and recommendations from the JETT3 field test. These insights are intended to inform future integrated testing efforts and broader Artemis campaign development activities.

NASA↗
NASA NTRS1973

Application of EVA guidelines and design criteria. Volume 1: EVA selection/systems design considerations

Parameters that require consideration by the planners and designers when planning for man to perform functions outside the vehicle are presented in terms of the impact the extravehicular crewmen and major EV equipment items have on the mission, vehicle, and payload. Summary data on man's performance capabilities in the weightless space environment are also provided. The performance data are based on orbital and transearth EVA from previous space flight programs and earthbound simulations, such as water immersion and zero-g aircraft.

Brown, N. E.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Application of EVA guidelines and design criteria. Volume 2: EVA workstation conceptual designs

Several EV workstation concepts were developed and are documented. The workstation concepts were developed following a comprehensive analysis of potential EV missions, functions, and tasks as interpreted from NASA and contractor space shuttle and space station studies, mission models, and related reports. The design of a versatile, portable EVA workstation is aimed at reducing the design and development costs for each mission and aiding in the development of on-orbit serviceable payloads.

Brown, N. E.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Conversion of IVA Human Computer Model to EVA Use and Evaluation and Comparison of the Result to Existing EVA Models

This paper describes the methods, rationale, and comparative results of the conversion of an intravehicular (IVA) 3D human computer model (HCM) to extravehicular (EVA) use and compares the converted model to an existing model on another computer platform. The task of accurately modeling a spacesuited human figure in software is daunting: the suit restricts the human's joint range of motion (ROM) and does not have joints collocated with human joints. The modeling of the variety of materials needed to construct a space suit (e. g. metal bearings, rigid fiberglass torso, flexible cloth limbs and rubber coated gloves) attached to a human figure is currently out of reach of desktop computer hardware and software. Therefore a simplified approach was taken. The HCM's body parts were enlarged and the joint ROM was restricted to match the existing spacesuit model. This basic approach could be used to model other restrictive environments in industry such as chemical or fire protective clothing. In summary, the approach provides a moderate fidelity, usable tool which will run on current notebook computers.

Hamilton, George S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure

Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.

Lauren Cox↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Shoulder Postures in EVA Training in Reduced Gravity Analogues

Shoulder Postures in EVA Training in Reduced Gravity Analogues K. Guhl1, L. Vu2, H. Kim3, S. Rajulu4 1KBR Inc., Houston, TX, 2Aegis Aerospace Inc., Houston, TX, 3Leidos Innovations, Houston, TX, 4NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. During extravehicular activities (EVAs) and EVA training in both the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and at the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS), crewmembers perform a variety of hand-intensive tasks with frequent arm/shoulder repositioning while wearing a pressurized spacesuit. As a result, crewmembers may experience ergonomic stressors such as awkward shoulder postures. The ergonomic shoulder risk is also compounded by limited or restricted shoulder mobility of the spacesuit, extreme work positions such as overhead tasks, and tasks with heavy tools and repetitive motions. Prolonged or frequent shoulder elevation and overhead work, in particular, can lead to excessive stresses and musculoskeletal injuries of the shoulder joints. Future EVA missions, specifically lunar surface EVAs, will also be longer in duration and thus increase the exposure to awkward shoulder postures. In this study, we aimed to assess the ergonomic risk of awkward shoulder postures in simulated lunar surface EVAs by quantifying when and how long the arms are raised above the chest level. We assessed video recordings of pilot lunar EVA simulations (3 lunar trials each in the NBL and at ARGOS and 2 microgravity EVA trials in the NBL). These runs consisted of both training and engineering test objectives. Actual demands for shoulder use varied for different EVA types and analogues, but many EVA runs have common tasks and require similar motion components. A video observation and event logging software was used to document the duration and occurrence of the subject’s arms being raised throughout the video recordings of each EVA run. An arm raised instance was classified as the arm being at 90 degrees or above with relation to gravity for lunar EVA training events and with relation to the body for microgravity EVA training events. Such events included EVA hardware maintenance or heavy geology sampling tool operations. Events where the arm load was partially supported by external objects, like climbing a ladder or leaning against a surface were separately identified and excluded. Statistical analysis was performed to summarize the timing, frequency, and durations of the arm raise events and compared across the different EVA tasks and analogue types. Preliminary observations indicated that the total duration and number of arm raised instances were surprisingly smaller for lunar surface EVA training as compared to microgravity EVA training. The observed difference may be attributed to differing task demands and unique environmental characteristics found in lunar EVAs in comparison to microgravity EVAs. A detailed statistical analysis will be performed between lunar surface EVA training events and microgravity EVA training events in the final submission. Overall, this analysis is expected to provide insight into how ergonomic recommendations can be refined for lunar EVA training with pressurized suits. It may also inform task design and influence suit padding design to better protect crewmembers during future lunar training.

Kaitlyn Lea Guhl↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Swab Kit: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Aseptic Samples from Crewed Space Missions

Introduction: When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed spacecraft meet planetary protection requirements—and to protect our science from human contamination—we'll need to assess and verify whether micro-organisms may be leaking/venting from our spacesuits. This requires collecting samples under Extravehicular Activity (EVA) conditions. Detailed, systematic research on forward contamination from robotic spacecraft has been steadily progressing since the Viking missions, but systematic studies of contamination from space suits has not been conducted in many years. The modern EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suit used by NASA is designed to leak at rates as high as 100 cc/min. Before humans land on Mars there is a critical need to understand the types and quantities of microbes that could be introduced via space suits. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype EVA swab tool [1,2,3,4] designed for use in space to sample cleaned and uncleaned space suits to determine the present day microbial load and eventually the rate of leakage. The ability to assess microbial leakage early in advanced space suit and life support system design cycles will help avoid costly hardware redesign later. Test Objectives: The primary objective of EMU testing was to characterize the type of micro-organisms typically found on or near selected suit pressure joints under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-borne microbes can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 µm gap. Knowing which joints are more likely to leak will inform hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of micro-organisms may leak from EVA suits provides a basis for subsequent studies to characterize the viability of those organisms under destination conditions, as well as how far they might spread through natural or human-influenced processes. That data, in turn, will inform exploration mission operations and hardware design. The secondary objective of testing was to evaluate the interface between a fully suited test subject and the EVA swab tool at vacuum. Bulky EVA suits can restrict movement and limit visibility through the helmet visor. Fully suited testing is important for identifying tool design issues prior to flight. At exploration destinations, such as Mars, suited crew may be required to periodically sample their suits as part of an environmental monitoring protocol. Suit Microbial Sampling Results: This report details results of microbial swabs collected from current flight suit configurations worn by crew members assigned to upcoming ISS expedition missions as well as swabs collected from prototype suits intended for use on the Orion spacecraft. These tests were intended to characterize the types of contaminants found on flight suits under current, typical handling conditions. No attempt was made to change suit handling procedures, provide additional sterilization, or to limit typical potential contaminant sources. Using culture based techniques, we cultivated 235 CFU (colony forming units) comprised of 26 bacterial species and one fungal species on the outside of the suits. The fungal species and 14 of the bacterial species were unique to the suit surfaces and were not detected in any of the background samples collected within the chambers. We sequenced 755,434 ribosomal fragments on all of the suit surfaces from swab samples. 557,016 of these sequences represent DNA that survived at least 4 hours at vacuum. These sequences formed 2,464 OTU's (Operational Taxonomic Units, 97% similarity) showing low diversity in the samples. The most abundant sequences that survived vacuum belong to the genera Staphyloccocus, Ralstona, Bacillus and Rhodobacter all of which are common to the human microbiome. [5] See Danko et al., (2021) for more complete details of these first analyses. Further analysis of EVA suit materials with respect to the efficacy of various cleaning protocols and engineered containment solutions is planned to inform suit design for NASA’s Artemis Moon to Mars program crew testing. Swab Tool Function Results: The kit was demonstrated for fit and function in suited subject vacuum tests to determine how well the tool worked as an aseptic microbial sampling device as well as to identify any design elements that could be upgraded for EVA task specific improvement. It was found that sample acquisition efficacy could be enhanced by redesign of the sample canister to end-effector interface. Several modifications of the sample caddy assemblies to optimize EVA safety and functionality were also identified. Consequently, fabrication of the redesigned sample canister to end-effector assembly interfaces and and the sample caddy assemblies are required. Fabrication of sixteen flight sample canister assemblies (8 per each of two EVA Swab Kits) and two sample caddy assemblies are in process to be followed by hardware testing and certification to produce two flight-certified EVA Swab Kits for transport to ISS no earlier than summer of 2022. Sampling Strategy: The International Space Station is an ideal testbed for systematic studies of contamination from crewed vehicles since it has been continuously occupied for 20 years and exposed to non-terrestrial conditions. We will sample the exterior of the ISS during EVA using a purpose-built swab tool capable of maintaining sterility while undergoing temperature changes from -151 to +121°C under hard vacuum. Prior to each EVA, the project team will work with ISS mission managers to identify precise sampling locations, which will vary by EVA based on the translation paths and worksites scheduled for that particular EVA. Ideally, translation path handrails and areas near ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) external vent openings on a spacecraft would be assessed. There are currently more than a dozen ECLSS external vents on the ISS. Some are connected to systems that vent waste products, while others are intended to equalize cabin pressure. As EVA opportunity allows, microbial samples from any of these external vents would provide a valuable data point, though some will be more useful than others. Four criteria have been identified to help prioritize sampling sites near vents: • EVA Accessibility: To minimize cost, it is desired to piggy-back onto a planned EVA. Therefore, the sampling location must be readily accessible by an EVA crew • Type of Vented Products: Vent products that have been in direct contact with crew, such as cabin air, are more likely to contain microorganisms than vent products associated with isolated systems, such as experiment module combustion products. • Mass of Vented Products: Higher-flow vents are more likely to contain detectible levels of microbial contaminants than lower-flow vents. • Local Environment: Sample locations with relatively benign local conditions, such as warm surfaces shielded from direct ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, may be more likely to support microbial growth than locations with harsher local environmental conditions. Because EVA accessibility is the most important criteria, the proposal team worked with an astronaut and flight controllers using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) tool. The DOUG virtual environment allows an operator to “fly” around the current ISS vehicle configuration to assess EVA translation paths, attach points, and keep-out zones. While analysis on station or rapid return to Earth would be preferable, samples collected from the exterior of the ISS have already been exposed to temperature variations between -157 and +121 °C as well as hard vacuum. Therefore, they should be fairly stable and robust. We hypothesize that samples collected from the ISS exterior could be stored for up to 6 months at -80°C without degradation. Sample canisters will be returned to Earth while frozen at -80°C for analysis, and sterilized canisters can be re-flown back to ISS to support additional sampling opportunities Relevance to NASA Exploration Objectives: These data will allow us to identify new or improved methods, technologies, and procedures for spacecraft sterilization and leakage mitigation to minimize the amount of contamination introduced to the environment by human explorers. This work is funded by NASA research grant: NNH18ZDA001N-PPR References: [1] Bell, M.S. et al. (2015) LPS XLVI, Abst. #1832 [2] Rucker et al. (2018) 42nd COSPAR (PPP.3) [3] Bell, M.S. et al. (2019) Mars Extant Life Conference, Abst. #5096.[4] Bell, M.S. et al., (2020) 43rd COSPAR (BO.2).[5] Danko D, et.al.,(2021)Front.Microbiol.12:608478.

Mary Suzanne Bell↗
NASA NTRS2022

Evidence Report: Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations

During future missions to the Moon and Mars, each crewmember will most likely perform up to 24 hours a week of extravehicular activity (EVA) in support of exploration, science, construction, and maintenance tasks. Achieving mission objectives will require EVA systems and operations concepts that maximize human performance and efficiency while minimizing health and safety risks for crewmembers. Currently, over 450 EVAs have been performed in microgravity using the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The EMU space suit has enabled the successful assembly and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) for over 20 years, as well as deployment of payload experiments, solar arrays, satellite launches and repairs. This EVA work was accomplished at a slower cadence than is expected for Moon and Mars, with ISS crewmembers performing no more than 7 EVAs during a single mission and without any back-to-back EVAs. Despite their success, ISS EVAs have resulted in more injury to EVA crewmembers than may be acceptable for long-duration exploration missions. The Apollo astronauts completed EVA tasks in suits that were designed for their short-duration lunar missions, although suit mobility problems were evident. The more frequent EVAs and more varied EVA tasks that are anticipated during the future longer-duration exploration missions will require EVA suits and systems that are better oriented to human health and performance than those used during the Apollo Program. Many of the problems that were encountered with the Apollo EVA suits (e.g., limited mobility and dexterity, high and aft center of gravity, and other features requiring significant crew compensation) will need to be corrected or mitigated to optimize EVA objectives of exploration missions. It is critical that we understand how EVA system design variables such as suit pressure, weight/mass, center-of-gravity location, joint ranges of motion, and biomedical monitoring, affects the ability of astronauts to perform safe, efficient, and effective EVAs. To achieve this understanding, EVA researchers will need to develop and execute an integrated human testing program across multiple environments. The research will provide objective data that will enable informed design decisions and crewmember standards, thereby ensuring EVA systems that optimize crewmember health, safety, efficiency, and performance. This report describes the risks to crew health, safety, performance, and efficiency caused by EVA operations, and it provides the evidence base to substantiate the importance of the risk.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS2010

Post-Shuttle EVA Operations on ISS

The expected retirement of the NASA Space Transportation System (also known as the Space Shuttle ) by 2011 will pose a significant challenge to Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA) on-board the International Space Station (ISS). The EVA hardware currently used to assemble and maintain the ISS was designed assuming that it would be returned to Earth on the Space Shuttle for refurbishment, or if necessary for failure investigation. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle, a new concept of operations was developed to enable EVA hardware (Extra-vehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), Airlock Systems, EVA tools, and associated support hardware and consumables) to perform ISS EVAs until 2015, and possibly beyond to 2020. Shortly after the decision to retire the Space Shuttle was announced, the EVA 2010 Project was jointly initiated by NASA and the One EVA contractor team. The challenges addressed were to extend the operating life and certification of EVA hardware, to secure the capability to launch EVA hardware safely on alternate launch vehicles, to protect for EMU hardware operability on-orbit, and to determine the source of high water purity to support recharge of PLSSs (no longer available via Shuttle). EVA 2010 Project includes the following tasks: the development of a launch fixture that would allow the EMU Portable Life Support System (PLSS) to be launched on-board alternate vehicles; extension of the EMU hardware maintenance interval from 3 years (current certification) to a minimum of 6 years (to extend to 2015); testing of recycled ISS Water Processor Assembly (WPA) water for use in the EMU cooling system in lieu of water resupplied by International Partner (IP) vehicles; development of techniques to remove & replace critical components in the PLSS on-orbit (not routine); extension of on-orbit certification of EVA tools; and development of an EVA hardware logistical plan to support the ISS without the Space Shuttle. Assumptions for the EVA 2010 Project included no more than 8 EVAs per year for ISS EVA operations in the Post-Shuttle environment and limited availability of cargo upmass on IP launch vehicles. From 2010 forward, EVA operations on-board the ISS without the Space Shuttle will be a paradigm shift in safely operating EVA hardware on orbit and the EVA 2010 effort was initiated to accommodate this significant change in EVA evolutionary history. 1

West, William↗
NASA NTRS1997

Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology

Spacewalkers enjoy a view of Earth once reserved for Apollo, Zeus, and other denizens of Mt. Olympus. During humanity's first extravehicular activity (EVA), Alexei Leonov floated above Gibraltar, the rock ancient seafarers saw as the gateway to the great unknown Atlantic. The symbolism was clear, Leonov stepped past a new Gibraltar when he stepped into space. More than 32 years and 154 EVAs later, Jerry Linenger conducted an EVA with Vladimir Tsibliyev as part of International Space Station Phase 1. They floated together above Gibraltar. Today the symbolism has new meaning: humanity is starting to think of stepping out of Earth orbit, space travel's new Gibraltar, and perhaps obtaining a new olympian view, a close-up look at Olympus Mons on Mars. Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology chronicles the 154 EVAs conducted from March 1965 to April 1997. It is intended to make clear the crucial role played by EVA in the history of spaceflight, as well as to chronicle the large body of EVA "lessons learned." Russia and the U.S. define EVA differently. Russian cosmonauts are said to perform EVA any time they are in vacuum in a space suit. A U.S. astronaut must have at least his head outside his spacecraft before he is said to perform an EVA. The difference is based in differing spacecraft design philoso- phies. Russian and Soviet spacecraft have always had a specialized airlock through which the EVA cosmonaut egressed, leaving the main habitable volume of the spacecraft pressurized. The U.S. Gemini and Apollo vehicles, on the other hand, depressurized their entire habitable volume for egress. In this document, we apply the Russian definition to Russian EVAS, and the U.S. definition to U.S. EVAS. Thus, for example, Gemini 4 Command Pilot James McDivitt does not share the honor of being first American spacewalker with Ed White, even though he was suited and in vacuum when White stepped out into space. Non-EVA spaceflights are listed in the chronology to provide context and to display the large num- ber of flights in which EVA played a role. This approach also makes apparent significant EVA gaps, for example, the U.S. gap between 1985 and 1991 following the Challenger accident. This NASA History Monograph is an edited extract from an extensive EVA Chronology and Reference Book being produced by the EVA Project Office, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. The larger work will be published as part of the NASA Formal Series in 1998. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance rendered by Max Ary, Ashot Bakunts, Gert-Jan Bartelds, Frank Cepollina, Andrew Chaikin, Phillip Clark, Richard Fullerton, Steven Glenn, Linda Godwin, Jennifer Green, Greg Harris, Clifford Hess, Jeffrey Hoffman, David Homan, Steven Hopkins, Nicholas Johnson, Eric Jones, Neville Kidger, Joseph Kosmo, Alexei Lebedev, Mark Lee, James LeBlanc, Dmitri Leshchenskii, Jerry Linenger, Igor Lissov, James McBarron, Clay McCullough, Joseph McMann, Story Musgrave, Dennis Newkirk, James Oberg, Joel Powell, Lee Saegesser, Andy Salmon, Glen Swanson, Joseph Tatarewicz, Kathy Thornton, Chris Vandenberg, Charles Vick, Bert Vis, David Woods, Mike Wright, John Young, and Keith Zimmerman. Special thanks to Laurie Buchanan, John Charles, Janet Kovacevich, Joseph Loftus, Sue McDonald, Martha Munies, Colleen Rapp, and Jerry Ross. Any errors remain the responsibility of the authors.

Portree, David S. F.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission Space Suit and EVA System Architecture Trade Study

The Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) requires a Launch/Entry/Abort (LEA) suit capability and short duration Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) capability for Orion. The EVAs will involve a two-person crew for approximately four hours. Currently, two EVAs are planned with one contingency EVA in reserve. Providing this EVA capability is very challenging due to system level constraints and a new and unknown environment. The goal of the EVA architecture for ARCM is one that builds upon previously developed technologies and lessons learned, and that accomplishes the ARCM mission while providing a stepping stone to future missions and destinations. The primary system level constraints are to 1) minimize system mass and volume and 2) minimize the interfacing impacts to the baseline Orion design. In order to minimize the interfacing impacts and to not perturb the baseline Orion schedule, the concept of adding "kits" to the baseline system is proposed. These kits consist of: an EVA kit (converts LEA suit to EVA suit), EVA Servicing and Recharge Kit (provides suit consumables), the EVA Tools, Translation Aids & Sample Container Kit (the tools and mobility aids to complete the tasks), the EVA Communications Kit (interface between the EVA radio and the MPCV), and the Cabin Repress Kit (represses the MPCV between EVAs). This paper will focus on the trade space, analysis, and testing regarding the space suit (pressure garment and life support system). Historical approaches and lessons learned from all past EVA operations were researched. Previous and current, successfully operated EVA hardware and high technology readiness level (TRL) hardware were evaluated, and a trade study was conducted for all possible pressure garment and life support options. Testing and analysis was conducted and a recommended EVA system architecture was proposed. Pressure garment options that were considered for this mission include the currently in-use ISS EVA Mobility Unit (EMU), all variations of the Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES), and the Exploration Z-suit. For this mission, the pressure garment that was selected is the Modified ACES (MACES) with EVA enhancements. Life support options that were considered included short closed-loop umbilicals, long open-loop umbilicals, the currently in-use ISS EMU Portable Life Support System (PLSS), and the currently in development Exploration PLSS. For this mission, the life support option that was selected is the Exploration PLSS. The greatest risk in the proposed architecture is viewed to be the comfort and mobility of the baseline MACES and the delicate balance between adding more mobility features while not compromising landing safety. Feasibility testing was accomplished in low fidelity analogs and in the JSC Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) to validate the concept before a final recommendation on the architecture was made. The proposed architecture was found to meet the mission constraints, but much more work is required to determine the details of the required suit upgrades, the integration with the PLSS, and the rest of the tools and equipment required to accomplish the mission. This work and further definition of the remaining kits will be conducted in government fiscal year 14.

Blanco, Raul A.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Identifying Cognitive Capabilities Required for Optimal Exploration EVA Performance: A Cognitive Task Analysis

BACKGROUND Extravehicular activity (EVA) is one of the most dangerous and cognitively demanding actions that astronauts can execute, and the cognitive demands associated with future exploration EVA on the Moon and Mars are expected to be higher compared to EVA currently conducted from the International Space Station (ISS). Decrements in cognitive performance present an important risk to crew safety during exploration mission class EVA. Yet there is currently insufficient characterization of the cognitive capabilities required prior to, during, and following EVA. Furthermore, it is unclear which cognitive domains are most important for conducting mission critical decisions with crew safety implications. To address this gap, we conducted a cognitive task analysis of exploration EVA to characterize the cognitive capabilities, critical safety decisions, and contributing factors (e.g., lunar communications delay) important to monitor for optimal performance in future exploration EVA. This cognitive task analysis was conducted through interviews with astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA research and operations. Interviews focused on exploration EVA and elicited feedback on the cognitive capabilities required for specific EVA tasks and subtasks. The information from this cognitive task analysis will help close the gap in our understanding of the key cognitive capabilities required for safe decision-making during exploration mission class EVA on the Moon and Mars. METHOD We used an applied cognitive task analysis method1 over the course of interviews with a total of 15 NASA astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA. Each interview was led by a scientist with expertise in cognitive neuroscience from the Behavioral Health & Performance (BHP) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center. Notes were taken by a research coordinator in the BHP Laboratory and interviews were recorded on Microsoft Teams to ensure the accuracy of notetaking. In the first interview protocol, participants were asked about the specific tasks and cognitive demands associated with EVA. This provided a high-level overview of the steps involved in the major tasks conducted during exploration EVA, as well as which of the steps require the most cognitive skill. Next, participants completed a knowledge audit, which employs a set of probes designed to describe types of domain knowledge of skill and elicit appropriate examples. In the second interview protocol, completed with a separate set of subject matter experts, interviewees were asked to complete a simulated incapacitated crew rescue (ICR) scenario2, which provided specific context that allowed probing around relevant issues such as situational awareness and potential errors. Experts were then asked to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) underlying each EVA task and to provide ratings on the importance and cognitive demand of each KSA. Finally, participants also described the most likely and consequential critical safety incidents related to decrements in cognitive performance during exploration EVA and assessed the impact of lunar communication delay on cognitive performance. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Interviews for this cognitive task analysis are nearly complete and results will be presented in full at IWS 2025. Results will include a summary of all expert ratings of EVA tasks and subtasks, qualitative summaries of content from each interview part, and a discussion of future directions for products addressing cognitive performance monitoring and cognitive domain mapping in exploration EVA.

S R Anderson↗
NASA NTRS1996

Evaluation of an Anthropometric Human Body Model for Simulated EVA Task Assessment

One of the more mission-critical tasks performed in space is extravehicular activity (EVA) which requires the astronaut to be external to the station or spacecraft, and subsequently at risk from the many threats posed by space. These threats include, but are not limited to: no significant atmosphere, harmful electromagnetic radiation, micrometeoroids, and space debris. To protect the astronaut from this environment, a special EVA suit is worn which is designed to maintain a sustainable atmosphere (at 1/3 atmosphere) and provide protection against the hazards of space. While the EVA suit serves these functions well, it does impose limitations on the astronaut as a consequence of the safety it provides. Since the astronaut is in a virtual vacuum, any atmospheric pressure inside the suit serves to pressurize the suit and restricts mobility of flexible joints (such as fabric). Although some of the EVA suit joints are fixed, rotary-style joints, most of the mobility is achieved by the simple flexibility of the fabric. There are multiple layers of fabric, each of which serves a special purpose in the safety of the astronaut. These multiple layers add to the restriction of motion the astronaut experiences in the space environment. Ground-based testing is implemented to evaluate the capability of EVA-suited astronauts to perform the various tasks in space. In addition to the restriction of motion imposed by the EVA suit, most EVA activity is performed in a micro-gravity (weight less) environment. To simulate weightlessness EVA-suited testing is performed in a neutral buoyancy simulator (NBS). The NBS is composed of a large container of water (pool) in which a weightless environment can be simulated. A subject is normally buoyant in the pressurized suit; however he/she can be made neutrally buoyant with the addition of weights. In addition, most objects the astronaut must interface with in the NBS sink in water and flotation must be added to render them "weightless". The implementation of NBS testing has proven to invaluable in the assessment of EVA activities performed with the Orbiter and is considered to be a key step in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). While the NBS testing is extremely valuable, it does require considerable overhead to maintain and operate. It has been estimated that the cost of utilizing the facility is approximately $10,000 per day. Therefore it is important to maximize the utility of NBS testing for optimal results. One important aspect to consider in any human/worksite interface is the considerable wealth of anthropometric and ergonomic data available. A subset of this information specific to EVA activity is available in NASA standard 3000. The difficulty in implementing this data is that most of the anthropometric information is represented in a two-dimensional format. This poses some limitations in complete evaluation of the astronaut's capabilities in a three-dimensional environment. Advances in computer hardware and software have provided for three-dimensional design and implementation of hardware with the advance of computer aided design (CAD) software. There are a number of CAD products available and most companies and agencies have adopted CAD as a fundamental aspect of the design process. Another factor which supports the use of CAD is the implementation of computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software and hardware which provides for rapid prototyping and decreases the time to product in the design process. It is probable that most hardware to be accessed by astronauts in EVA or IVA (intravehicular activity) has been designed by a CAD system, and is therefore represented in three-dimensional space for evaluation. Because of the implementation of CAD systems and the movement towards early prototyping, a need has arisen in industry and government for tools which facilitate the evaluation of ergonomic consideration in a three-dimensional environment where the hardware has been designed by the CAD tools. One such product is Jack which was developed by the University of Pennsylvania with funding from several government agencies, including NASA. While the primary purpose of Jack is to model human figures in a ground-based (gravity) environment, it can be utilized to evaluate EVA-suited activities as well. The effects of simulated gravity must be turned off by turning off "behaviors". Although Jack provides human figures for manipulation, the primary instrument to be evaluated for EVA mobility is the work envelope provided by the EVA suit. An EVA Jack suit model has been developed by NASA-JSC and was utilized in this study. This suit model provided a more restrictive motion environment as expected for an EVA suited subject. As part of this study, the anthropometric dimensions for a 50th percentile male were compared with basic anthropometric data and were found to be representative for the population group expected in the NASA flight program. The joints for the suit were created in a manner which provided consistent performance with EVA reach envelopes published in NASA standard #3000.

Etter, Brad↗
NASA NTRS2016

Compiling a Comprehensive EVA Training Dataset for NASA Astronauts

Training for a spacewalk or extravehicular activity (EVA) is considered a hazardous duty for NASA astronauts. This places astronauts at risk for decompression sickness as well as various musculoskeletal disorders from working in the spacesuit. As a result, the operational and research communities over the years have requested access to EVA training data to supplement their studies. The purpose of this paper is to document the comprehensive EVA training data set that was compiled from multiple sources by the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) epidemiologists to investigate musculoskeletal injuries. The EVA training dataset does not contain any medical data, rather it only documents when EVA training was performed, by whom and other details about the session. The first activities practicing EVA maneuvers in water were performed at the Neutral Buoyancy Simulator (NBS) at the Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. This facility opened in 1967 and was used for EVA training until the early Space Shuttle program days. Although several photographs show astronauts performing EVA training in the NBS, records detailing who performed the training and the frequency of training are unavailable. Paper training records were stored within the NBS after it was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1985 and closed in 1997, but significant resources would be needed to identify and secure these records, and at this time LSAH has not pursued acquisition of these early training records. Training in the NBS decreased when the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, opened the Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF) in 1980. Early training records from the WETF consist of 11 hand-written dive logbooks compiled by individual workers that were digitized at the request of LSAH. The WETF was integral in the training for Space Shuttle EVAs until its closure in 1998. The Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) at the Sonny Carter Training Facility near JSC opened in March 1997 and is the current site for US EVA training. Other space agencies also have used water to simulate weightlessness and train for EVAs. Russia has a training facility similar to the NBL named the Hydro Lab. The Hydro Lab began operations at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC) in 1980 and has been used extensively to the present. Although a majority of training in the Hydro Lab uses the Russian Orlan suit, a small number of sessions have been conducted using a NASA suit. The Japanese Weightlessness Environment Test System (WETS) went into service at the Tsukuba Space Center in 1997 but was closed in 2011 due to extensive earthquake damage. Several sessions were performed using a NASA suit, but these sessions were short and considered "development" runs. LSAH has assembled records from the WETF, NBL and Hydro Lab. Recording of the EVA training data has changed considerably from 1967 to present. The goal of early record keeping was to track use of hardware components, and the person involved was treated as a suited operator, not as a focus of interest. Records from the past two decades are fairly precise with the person, date, suit type and size noted. On occasion the length of the session was listed, but this data is not included on all records. Records were merged from data sources and extensive cleaning of the records was required since the multiple sources frequently overlapped and duplicated records. To date the LSAH EVA training dataset includes over 12,500 EVA training sessions performed by NASA astronauts since 1981. The following variables are included for most records: Name, Sex, Event date, Event name, HUT type, HUT size, Facility, and Estimated run time. For a smaller subset of records, the following variables are available: Actual run time, Time inverted, and the suit components Waist bearing type, Shoulder harness, Shoulder pads, and Teflon inserts. The LSAH dataset is currently the most complete resource for data regarding EVA training sessions performed by NASA astronauts. However, it is not 100 percent complete since the WETS (Japan) and NBS (Marshall) training facility data were not included. This dataset has been compiled by LSAH to study the relationship of EVA training to musculoskeletal injuries but has many other non-medical applications. This dataset can be provided to other groups in order to respond to program and research questions with appropriate board approvals.

Laughlin, M. S.↗