Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Extravehicular Activity (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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

Human Landing System (HLS) Program Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Compatibility Interface Requirements Document (IRD)

The purpose of this document is to establish a set of EVA compatibility design requirements for the HLS Program. This document contains the fundamental information required for building hardware compatible with suited EVA flight crewmembers to perform EVAs. Compatibility requirements are located in section 3.0 with a gravity field applicability table provided in APPENDIX G, Human Landing System Program Applicability Matrix. Each HLS Provider will use the EHP-provided matrix in Appendix G to assess applicability to the awarded mission provider on a per-mission basis. Providers will negotiate applicability with EHP, and this will be documented in the appropriate Annex (reference section 2.2)

Christine N Kovich↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Roadmaps Pressure Garment System (PGS)

As NASA focuses on the Moon to Mars (M2M) efforts, an environment-tolerable spacesuit design will be needed. NASA has traditionally used Roadmaps to strategize technology development and lay the foundation for the Exploration EMU (xEMU) spacesuit prototype. The Roadmaps visualize an actionable plan to realize EVA capabilities needed for Mars exploration.

Cinda Chullen↗
NASA NTRS1985

Astronaut hazard during free-flight polar EVA

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) during Shuttle flights planned for the late 1980's includes several factors which together may constitute an astronaut hazard. Free-flight EVA is planned whereas prior United States Earth orbit EVA has used umbilical tethers carrying communications, coolant, and oxygen. EVA associated with missions like LANDSAT Retrieval will be in orbits through the auroral oval where charging of spacecraft may occur. The astronaut performing free flight EVA constitutes an independent spacecraft. The astronaut and the Shuttle make up a system of electrically isolated spacecraft with a wide disparity in size. Unique situations, such as the astronaut being in the wake of the Shuttle while traversing an auroral disturbance, could result in significant astronaut and Shuttle charging. Charging and subsequent arc discharge are important because they have been associated with operating upsets and even satellite failure at geosynchronous orbit. Spacecraft charging theory and experiments are examined to evaluate charging for Shuttle size spacecraft in the polar ionosphere.

Hall, W. N.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Establishing Recommendations for the Development of Space Suit Integrated Food Systems and the Delivery of Nutrition Before, During, and After Lunar EVA

Extravehicular activity (EVA) operations are complex and challenging, and Artemis missions will include a higher tempo and frequency of EVAs than any previous space program. For this reason, surface EVAs greater than 4 h require additional nutrition support. The ability to provide this additional nutritional support is limited on Artemis missions given crew schedules and the current inability to provide nutrition to astronauts while suited. This project seeks to help define means for provision of nutritional support to Artemis astronauts during lunar EVAs.

E L Dillon↗
NASA NTRS2024

Ensuring Safe Decision-Making on the Moon and Mars: Cognitive Performance Assessment for Exploration Class Mission EVA

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is one of the most dangerous and cognitively demanding actions that astronauts can execute, and the cognitive demands associated with future partial gravity EVA on the Moon and Mars are expected to be higher compared to microgravity 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 data to characterize cognitive performance prior to, during, and following EVA. Furthermore, it is still 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 (CTA) of EVA to characterize the procedures, the cognitive demands required, and the critical safety decisions associated with decrements in cognitive performance. We used the applied cognitive task analysis method as outlined by Militello and Hutton (1998) and conducted interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) in EVA at NASA Johnson Space Center in summer 2024. Interviews focused on exploration EVA and elicited feedback from SMEs on the cognitive skills required for specific EVA tasks including cognitive strategies, critical cues, and decision-making strategies. A cognitive demands table was assembled to consolidate and synthesize the information from all interviews. The information from this cognitive task analysis will inform ongoing work to identify the key cognitive domains for safe decision-making during exploration mission class EVA on the Moon and Mars. This work will importantly provide a link between cognitive domains identified in the cognitive task analysis and operationally-relevant performance metrics collected during spaceflight and simulation EVA that can be tracked and assessed by NASA mission operations. Ultimately, this work will aid in the development and application of exploration class cognitive performance monitoring capabilities to improve safe decision-making and inform EVA planning on future spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars.

Steven R Anderson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Ensuring Safe Decision-Making on the Moon and Mars: Cognitive Performance Assessment for Exploration Class Mission EVA

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is one of the most dangerous and cognitively demanding actions that astronauts can execute, and the cognitive demands associated with future partial gravity EVAs on the Moon and Mars are expected to be higher compared to microgravity EVAs currently conducted from the International Space Station. Decrements in cognitive performance present an important risk to crew safety during exploration mission class EVA. Yet there is currently insufficient data to characterize cognitive performance prior to, during, and following EVA. Furthermore, it is still 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 (CTA) of EVA to characterize the procedures, the cognitive demands required, and the critical safety decisions associated with decrements in cognitive performance. We conducted a cognitive task analysis with 15 astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA operations and research. Interviews focused on surface exploration EVA and elicited feedback from experts on the cognitive skills required for specific EVA tasks, including cognitive strategies, critical cues, and decision-making strategies. A cognitive demands table was assembled to consolidate and synthesize the information from all interviews. The information from this cognitive task analysis informs ongoing exploration EVA for Moon to Mars. This work identifies the specific cognitive challenges that astronauts are likely to encounter during surface exploration EVA, and provides the foundation for: (1) prioritized and targeted cognitive performance measurement and functional performance tests, (2) EVA simulation design at varying levels of cognitive workload, and (3) the development of training and other technologies that can improve safe decision-making and inform EVA planning on future spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars.

Steven R Anderson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Testing, Ballistic Limit Definition and Risk Assessment of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU)

A well-known hazard associated with exposure to the space environment is the risk of failure due to an impact from a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particle. As NASA prepares to return astronauts to the moon with the Artemis program, the next generation of spacesuit is in development to support future extravehicular activities (EVAs.) An MMOD impact to the spacesuit is of great concern as a large leak could prevent an astronaut from safely reaching an airlock in time resulting in a loss of life. The exploration extravehicular mobility unit (xEMU) must meet MMOD requirements for multiple environments including those in low earth orbit (LEO) as well as the meteoroid and secondary lunar regolith ejecta environments found on the lunar surface. The subject of this paper is an internal xEMU configuration design developed by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) personnel. The xEMU shares similarities with the legacy Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit that is currently used for ISS EVAs, however differences in the layup (e.g., materials, thicknesses, and layers) of the fabric environmental protection garment (EPG), portable life support system (xPLSS) and helmet required an extensive test program to determine ballistic performance. Over 100 hypervelocity impact (HVI) tests were performed by the NASA/JSC HVIT and White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) teams on the xEMU EPG, xPLSS and helmet to generate ballistic limit equations (BLEs) for MMOD impacts. Additionally, over 50 low speed tests (< 1km/s) were performed by the NASA/JSC HVIT and Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) teams on the xEMU EPG, xPLSS and helmet to generate BLEs for lunar ejecta impacts. Post testing, ballistic limit equations (BLEs) used to define the performance of the various regions on the xEMU spacesuit were developed from a generic set of BLEs. The HVI and low speed testing was performed to establish a physical basis for the equations with the coefficients and exponents of the generic BLEs adjusted to fit the test data. The xEMU BLEs were added to the NASA/JSC software application used for spacecraft MMOD risk assessments (BUMPER-3). A finite element model (FEM) of the xEMU spacesuit, which defines the size and shape of the spacesuit as well as the locations of the various shielding configurations, was created based on a solid model provided by the xEMU program office. Using the FEM file and added xEMU BLEs, BUMPER-3 assessments of the xEMU spacesuit for probability of no penetration (PNP) were performed. For the LEO assessment of a typical ISS EVA, the orbital debris and meteoroids environments were defined using the latest engineering models, ORDEM 3.2 and MEM-3 respectively. The lunar surface assessment again used the MEM-3 engineering model to define the meteoroid environment along with the current released lunar surface ejecta model, NASA SP-8013 (developed during the Apollo Program). The Space Team in the Natural Environments Branch at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) will soon release the new Lunar Meteoroid Ejecta Engineering Model (LMEEM), at which time the xEMU lunar surface EVA will be reassessed. Assessment of the MMOD risk for an 8-hour, 2-person EVA in both LEO and on the lunar surface showed that the xEMU spacesuit meets the program technical requirement of 1 in 2500 failure odds. Similar to the legacy EMU spacesuit, the majority of the MMOD risk (96% of the LEO EVA risk and 99% of the lunar surface EVA risk) is concentrated in regions of xEMU that are comprised primarily of softgoods (arms, legs, and gloves) rather than the hardgoods (xPLSS, hard upper torso and helmet).

Micrometeoroid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Testing, Ballistic Limit Equation Definition and Risk Assessment of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU)

A well-known hazard associated with exposure to the space environment is the risk of failure due to an impact from a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particle. As NASA prepares to return astronauts to the moon with the Artemis program, the next generation of spacesuit is in development to support future extravehicular activities (EVAs.) An MMOD impact to the spacesuit is of great concern as a large leak could prevent an astronaut from safely reaching an airlock in time resulting in a loss of life. The exploration extravehicular mobility unit (xEMU) must meet MMOD requirements for multiple environments including those in low earth orbit (LEO) as well as the meteoroid and secondary lunar regolith ejecta environments found on the lunar surface. The subject of this paper is an internal xEMU configuration design developed by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) personnel. This paper will expand on the hypervelocity impact (HVI) testing and ballistic limit equation (BLE) definition work that was partially presented at the 2nd International Orbital De-bris (IOC-II) Conference held in Sugar Land, TX in December 2023. The xEMU shares similarities with the legacy Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit that is currently used for ISS EVAs, however differences in the layup (e.g., materials, thicknesses, and layers) of the fabric environmental protection garment (EPG), portable life support system (xPLSS) and helmet required an extensive test program to determine ballistic performance. Over 100 hypervelocity impact (HVI) tests were performed by the NASA/JSC HVIT and White Sands Test Facility (WSTF) teams on the xEMU EPG, xPLSS and helmet to generate ballistic limit equations (BLEs) for MMOD impacts. Additionally, over 50 low speed tests (< 1km/s) were performed by the NASA/JSC HVIT and Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) teams on the xEMU EPG, xPLSS and helmet to generate BLEs for lunar ejecta impacts. Post testing, ballistic limit equations used to define the performance of the various regions on the xEMU spacesuit were developed from a generic set of BLEs. The HVI and low speed testing was performed to establish a physical basis for the equations with the co-efficients and exponents of the generic BLEs adjusted to fit the test data. The xEMU BLEs were added to the NASA/JSC software application used for space-craft MMOD risk assessments (BUMPER-3). A finite element model (FEM) of the xEMU spacesuit, which defines the size and shape of the spacesuit as well as the locations of the various shielding configurations, was created based on a solid model provided by the xEMU program office. Using the FEM file and added xEMU BLEs, BUMPER-3 assessments of the xEMU spacesuit for probability of no penetration (PNP) were performed. For the LEO assessment of a typical ISS EVA, the orbital debris and meteoroids environments were defined using the latest engineering models, ORDEM 3.2 and MEM-3 respectively. The lunar sur-face assessment again used the MEM-3 engineering model to define the meteoroid environ-ment along with the current released lunar surface ejecta model, NASA SP-8013 (developed during the Apollo Program). The Space Team in the Natural Environments Branch at Mar-shall Space Flight Center (MSFC) will soon release the new Lunar Meteoroid Ejecta Engineering Model (LMEEM), at which time the xEMU lunar surface EVA will be reassessed. Assessment of the MMOD risk for an 8-hour, 2-person EVA in both LEO and on the lunar surface showed that the xEMU spacesuit meets the program technical requirement of 1 in 2500 failure odds. Similar to the legacy EMU spacesuit, the majority of the MMOD risk (96% of the LEO EVA risk and 99% of the lunar surface EVA risk) is concentrated in regions of xEMU that are comprised primarily of softgoods (arms, legs, and gloves) rather than the hardgoods (xPLSS, hard upper torso and helmet).

Micrometeoroid↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) Testing, Ballistic Limit Equation Definition and Risk Assessment of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (XEMU)

A well-known hazard associated with exposure to the space environment is the risk of failure due to an impact from a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particle. As NASA prepares to return astronauts to the moon with the Artemis program, the next generation of spacesuit is in development to support future extravehicular activities (EVAs). An MMOD impact to the spacesuit is of great concern as a large leak could prevent an astronaut from safely reaching an airlock in time resulting in a loss of life. The exploration extravehicular mobility unit (xEMU) must meet MMOD requirements for multiple environments including those in low earth orbit (LEO) as well as the meteoroid and secondary lunar regolith ejecta environments found on the lunar surface. The subject of this paper is an MMOD risk assessment of the internal xEMU configuration design developed by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) personnel. Assessment of the MMOD risk for an 8-hour, 2-person EVA in both LEO and on the lunar surface showed that the xEMU spacesuit meets the program technical requirement of 1 in 2500 failure odds.

Micrometeoroid↗
NASA NTRS2021

IROSA 2B/4B EVA Robotics

The MAGIK Robotic analysis team provides kinematic feasibility assessments and robotic visualizations for the ISS. This animation was created with configurations provided by the CX Team and showcases the robotics for the IROSA install 2B and 4B EVAs. The ExtraVehicular Activities (EVAs) shown include the extraction of the two ISS Roll-Out Solar Arrays (IROSAs) from the ISS Power Augmentation (IPA) carrier by an astronaut on the end of the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) and subsequent handoff to a second astronaut on the ISS port side truss. Extravehicular activities not shown will complete the install of the IROSAs.

Alexander Radford Fryer↗
NASA NTRS2011

Development of the ISS EMU SPEEDR

The Self Powered EVA EMU Data Recorder (SPEEDR) is an FPGA (Field-programmable gate array) based device designed to collect high-rate EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) PLSS (Primary Life Support Subsystem) data for download at a later time. The existing EMU PLSS data down-link capability during EVA is one data packet every 2 minutes and is subject to bad packets or loss of signal. High-rate PLSS data is generated by the ECWS (Enhanced Caution and Warning System) but is not normally captured or distributed. Access to high-rate data will increase the capability of EMU anomaly resolution team to pinpoint issues remotely, saving crew time by reducing required call-down Q&A and on-orbit diagnostic activities. With no Shuttle flights post FY11, and potentially limited down-mass capability, the ISS crew and ground support personnel will have to be capable of on-orbit operations to maintain, diagnose, repair, and return to service EMU hardware, possibly through 2028. Collecting high-rate EMU PLSS data during both IVA (Intravehicular Activity) and EVA (Extravehicular Activity) operations will provide trending analysis for life extension and/or predictive performance. The SPEEDR concept has generated interest as a tool/technology that could be used for other ISS subsystems or future exploration-class space suits where hardware reliability/availability is critical and low/variable bandwidth may require "store then forward" methodology. Preliminary work in FY11 produced a functional prototype consisting of an FPGA evaluation board, custom memory/interface circuit board, and custom software. The SPEEDR concept includes a stand-alone battery that is recharged by a computer USB (Universal Serial Bus) port while data is being downloaded.

Bernard. Craig↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-111 Post Flight Presentation

The crews of STS-111 (Endeavour's crew: Ken Cockrell, Commander; Paul Lockhart, Pilot; Franklin Chang-Diaz, Mission Specialist (MS); Philippe Perrin, MS; International Space Station's (ISS) Expedition 4 crew: Yury Onufrienko, Commander; Daniel Bursch, Flight Engineer; Carl Walz, Flight Engineer; ISS Expedition 5 crew: Valery Korzun, Commander; Peggy Whitson, Flight Engineer; Sergei Treschev, Flight Engineer) narrate this video of highlights from the mission. It includes footage from each major portion of the mission: launch preparation, launch, entering orbit, opening payload bay doors, rendezvous of Endeavour with ISS, docking of the crafts and the meeting between Endeavour and Expedition 5 crews and the Expedition 4 crew, which Expedition 5 relieved. Docked operations include: crew transfer procedures, transfer of goods, EVA (extravehicular activity) prep, EVA performed by Chang-Diaz and Perrin which included installing a grapple fixture, mounting the Mobile Base System (MBS) to the Mobile Transporter (MT), and changing a joint on the station's Canadarm 2 robotic arm. The video ends with re-entry and landing of the shuttle.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2004

International Space Station (ISS) Airlock Crewlock Depressurization Methods

The International Space Station (ISS) Airlock Crewlock can be depressurized via various methods. The ISS Airlock is divided into two major sections, the Equipment Lock and Crewlock. The Equipment Lock, as the name indicates, contains the equipment to support EVA activities including Extravehicular Maneuvering/Mobility Unit (EMU) maintenance and refurbishment. The Equipment Lock also contains basic life support equipment in order to support denitrogenzation protocols while the Airlock is isolated from the rest of the ISS. The Crewlock is the section of the Airlock that is depressurized to allow for Extravehicular Activity (EVA) crewmembers to exit the ISS for performance of EVAs. As opposed to the Equipment Lock, the Crewlock is quite simple and basically just contains lights and an assembly to provide services, oxygen, coolant, etc, to the EMUs. For operational flexibility, various methods were derived for Crewlock depressurization. Herein these various different methods of ISS Airlock Crewlock depressurization will be described including their performance, impacts, and risks associated with each method. Each of the different methods will be discussed with flight data, if it exists. Models will be applied to flight cases and to other methods that have not been used on-orbit at this time.

Williams, David E.↗
NASA NTRS2023

Technology Infusion in U.S. Spacesuits - A Comparative System Analysis

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has evolved multiple spacesuit systems for performing extravehicular activity (EVA) or space walks. These spacesuit systems include the Apollo Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) EMU, and Exploration EMU (xEMU). Each spacesuit system is like the other for functionality. However, each spacesuit system is different in configuration based on the technology infused into the system associated with the purpose of the mission. Each spacesuit system is made up of many components and the integrate environment targeted for operations leads to an integrated system that is complex. Since Apollo, NASA has invested in multiple technologies that make up these spacesuit systems in different iterations. The Apollo EMU was designed in the 1960’s with a focus to facilitate the first human to walk on the moon. The Space Shuttle EMU was designed in the 1970’s for reusable microgravity operations that began in the early 1980’s. The Space Shuttle EMU was enhanced to facilitate extended operation on the ISS. Over the last 15 years, NASA has been designing, developing, and testing a new spacesuit system, the xEMU which is considered a design, verification, and test unit. NASA is planning to land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. NASA recently engaged industry through a new contractual arrangement to provide EVA services needed to return to the Moon and to continue operations on the ISS. Spacesuit systems are complex. Understanding the requirements, operational environment, the necessary technologies, and the integrated spacesuit system are paramount. In addition, understanding the technology infusion process to meet the mission objectives is critical. This paper will review the spacesuit systems for EVA and several component functions within the spacesuits, along with a system comparison of those technologies from Apollo to xEMU.

Extravehicular Activity (EVA)↗
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 NTRS2017

Tracking Historical NASA EVA Training: Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) Development of the EVA Suit Exposure Tracker (EVA SET)

During a spacewalk, designated as extravehicular activity (EVA), an astronaut ventures from the protective environment of the spacecraft into the vacuum of space. EVAs are among the most challenging tasks during a mission, as they are complex and place the astronaut in a highly stressful environment dependent on the spacesuit for survival. Due to the complexity of EVA, NASA has conducted various training programs on Earth to mimic the environment of space and to practice maneuvers in a more controlled and forgiving environment. However, rewards offset the risks of EVA, as some of the greatest accomplishments in the space program were accomplished during EVA, such as the Apollo moonwalks and the Hubble Space Telescope repair missions. Water has become the environment of choice for EVA training on Earth, using neutral buoyancy as a substitute for microgravity. During EVA training, an astronaut wears a modified version of the spacesuit adapted for working in water. This high fidelity suit allows the astronaut to move in the water while performing tasks on full-sized mockups of space vehicles, telescopes, and satellites. During the early Gemini missions, several EVA objectives were much more difficult than planned and required additional time. Later missions demonstrated that "complex (EVA) tasks were feasible when restraints maintained body position and underwater simulation training ensured a high success probability".1,2 EVA training has evolved from controlling body positioning to perform basic tasks to complex maintenance of the Hubble Space Telescope and construction of the International Space Station (ISS). Today, preparation is centered at special facilities built specifically for EVA training, such as the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) at NASA's Johnson Space Center ([JSC], Houston) and the Hydrolab at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre ([GCTC], Star City, outside Moscow). Underwater training for an EVA is also considered hazardous duty for NASA astronauts. This activity places astronauts at risk for decompression sickness and barotrauma as well as various musculoskeletal disorders from working in the spacesuit. The medical, operational and research communities over the years have requested access to EVA training data to better understand the risks. As a result of these requests, epidemiologists within the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health (LSAH) team have compiled records from numerous EVA training venues to quantify the exposure to EVA training. The EVA Suit Exposure Tracker (EVA SET) dataset is a compilation of ground-based training activities using the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) in neutrally buoyant pools to enhance EVA performance on orbit. These data can be used by the current ISS program and future exploration missions by informing physicians, researchers, and operational personnel on the risks of EVA training in order that future suit and mission designs incorporate greater safety. The purpose of this technical report is to document briefly the various facilities where NASA astronauts have performed EVA training while describing in detail the EVA training records used to generate the EVA SET dataset.

Laughlin, Mitzi S.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Optical Breath Gas Extravehicular Activity Sensor for the Advanced Portable Life Support System

The infrared gas transducer used during extravehicular activity (EVA) in the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) measures and reports the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ventilation loop. It is nearing its end of life and there are a limited number remaining. Meanwhile, the next generation advanced portable life support system (PLSS) now being developed requires CO2 sensing technology with performance beyond that presently in use. A laser diode (LD) spectrometer based on wavelength modulation spectroscopy (WMS) is being developed to address both applications by Vista Photonics, Inc. Accommodation within space suits demands that optical sensors meet stringent size, weight, and power requirements. Version 1.0 devices were delivered to NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) in 2011. The sensors incorporate a laser diode based CO2 channel that also includes an incidental water vapor (humidity) measurement. The prototypes are controlled digitally with a field-programmable gate array (FPGA)/microcontroller architecture. Version 2.0 devices with improved electronics and significantly reduced wetted volumes were delivered to JSC in 2012. A version 2.5 upgrade recently implemented wavelength stabilized operation, better humidity measurement, and much faster data analysis/reporting. A wholly reconfigured version 3.0 will maintain the demonstrated performance of earlier versions while being backwards compatible with the EMU and offering a radiation tolerant architecture.

Wood, William R.↗