NASA NTRS1995
Simulations of astronaut motions during extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks were performed using computational multibody dynamics methods. The application of computational dynamic simulation to EVA was prompted by the realization that physical microgravity simulators have inherent limitations: viscosity in neutral buoyancy tanks; friction in air bearing floors; short duration for parabolic aircraft; and inertia and friction in suspension mechanisms. These limitations can mask critical dynamic effects that later cause problems during actual EVA's performed in space. Methods of formulating dynamic equations of motion for multibody systems are discussed with emphasis on Kane's method, which forms the basis of the simulations presented herein. Formulation of the equations of motion for a two degree of freedom arm is presented as an explicit example. The four basic steps in creating the computational simulations were: system description, in which the geometry, mass properties, and interconnection of system bodies are input to the computer; equation formulation based on the system description; inverse kinematics, in which the angles, velocities, and accelerations of joints are calculated for prescribed motion of the endpoint (hand) of the arm; and inverse dynamics, in which joint torques are calculated for a prescribed motion. A graphical animation and data plotting program, EVADS (EVA Dynamics Simulation), was developed and used to analyze the results of the simulations that were performed on a Silicon Graphics Indigo2 computer. EVA tasks involving manipulation of the Spartan 204 free flying astronomy payload, as performed during Space Shuttle mission STS-63 (February 1995), served as the subject for two dynamic simulations. An EVA crewmember was modeled as a seven segment system with an eighth segment representing the massive payload attached to the hand. For both simulations, the initial configuration of the lower body (trunk, upper leg, and lower leg) was a neutral microgravity posture. In the first simulation, the payload was manipulated around a circular trajectory of 0.15 m radius in 10 seconds. It was found that the wrist joint theoretically exceeded its ulnal deviation limit by as much as 49. 8 deg and was required to exert torques as high as 26 N-m to accomplish the task, well in excess of the wrist physiological limit of 12 N-m. The largest torque in the first simulation, 52 N-m, occurred in the ankle joint. To avoid these problems, the second simulation placed the arm in a more comfortable initial position and the radius and speed of the circular trajectory were reduced by half. As a result, the joint angles and torques were reduced to values well within their physiological limits. In particular, the maximum wrist torque for the second simulation was only 3 N-m and the maximum ankle torque was only 6 N-m.