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 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Moon to Mars (M2M): Exploration Atmosphere

As humans leave the bounds of Earth to explore the lunar surface and beyond, crew will don extravehicular activity (EVA) suits to learn more about these extraterrestrial environments, establish sustained presence, and perform needed upgrades and maintenance to their space vehicle and habitation systems. Spacefaring vehicle and habitation design will need to support these EVA excursions while ensuring crew health and safety. A crucial technological design advancement towards this goal is the use of a lower pressure exploration atmosphere (EA) that enables high efficiency EVA, rather than the sea level atmosphere of 14.7 psia, 21% oxygen (O 2 ) found on the International Space Station, Shuttle, and most other Russian and Chinese space vehicles and stations. Early space vehicles (Mercury through Apollo Programs) used a 5 psia, 100% O 2 environment, which eliminated the need for pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols, simplified the life support system to a single gas, and saved structural mass. For longer duration missions (Skylab), a diluent gas was added, changing the atmosphere to 5 psia, 70-74% O 2 to prevent atelectasis while remaining normoxic. As in-flight science became a top priority, Shuttle and ISS atmospheres were chosen to operate at sea level allowing for simpler ground-based study control conditions. Consequently this led to long pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols involving up to 4 hours of O 2 prebreathe because the EVA suit still operated at a low pressure of 4.3 psid. To increase operational efficiency, the Shuttle was retroactively certified to operate using 10.2 psia, 26.5% O 2 , reducing O 2 prebreathe time to 40-75 min. Current plans for M2M habitats on the Lunar surface require EVA, thus EA recommendation became 8 psia and 32% O 2 but was revised to 8.2 psia and 34% O 2 to decrease hypoxia exposure. Unfortunately, the benefits of EA in support of safe and efficient EVAs comes with the challenge of fire management in a higher-than-normal O 2 % environment. Although known for decades, the recommended forward work to address fire management has only recently begun. Current flammability tests include examining material propagation and ignition sources as well as fire mitigation processes to better understand these properties for proposed new EA environments. Fire safety, DCS risk, and mission design all contribute to the multifaceted parameters of EA. Thus while it is clear that EA is required to achieve the goals of future exploratory space missions, final specifications are still being evaluated for optimizing crew health and safety.

space atmosphere↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Decision Support System for Extravehicular Operations Under Significant Communication Latency

Within the next few decades, humanity hopes to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the surface of Mars; however, several technical and operational challenges must first be overcome. Foremost among these challenges is managing a significant two-way communication latency between Earth and Mars. Current and historical paradigms of EVA operations have required near-real-time communication between the crewmember(s) performing an EVA and an Earth-based mission control. Next-generation operational paradigms for supporting deep space exploration will necessitate a distributed decision authority system, including delayed Earth-based mission control, the on-planet extravehicular crewmember(s), and intermediate mission support from intravehicular crewmember(s) within real-time communication range. This latter group is of particular interest: they must provide operations support without the plentiful resources available to mission control on Earth. For this purpose, NASA is developing the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support (PersEIDS) software platform. PersEIDS is designed to bolster operator situational awareness and offload operator workload by automating the tracking and projection of consumables usage over an EVA timeline, providing real-time probabilistic safety assessments of an EVA timeline given consumables constraints, and recommending alternative EVA timeline(s) when the active timeline is not expected to be completed under consumables limits. The PersEIDS concept of operations, use cases, and models will be presented. A limited version of PersEIDS was demonstrated during a three-day-long study where each day a roughly four-hour-long simulated Martian EVA was performed in virtual reality at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The first day was a control trial without PersEIDS support; the second and third days represented different levels of decision support provided by PersEIDS to the intravehicular crewmember acting as mission control. With PersEIDS support, the IV crewmember was able to manage the mission to completion faster and with more remaining consumables; however, additional testing is required to understand confounding factors, e.g. training bias.

Mars↗
DOE OSTI2024

Catalytic Deconstruction of Ethylene Vinyl Acetate Copolymer and Polyethylene Mixtures via Hydroconversion: Challenges and Solutions

We explore hydrogenolysis over ruthenium supported on zirconia (Ru/ZrO 2 ) and hydrocracking over platinum (Pt) supported on zeolites as an effective end-of-life strategy for ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA)–a widely used performance heat sealant in hard-to-recycle multilayer packaging. For Ru/ZrO 2 hydrogenolysis, EVA reacts slower than low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and the catalyst deactivates due to carbonaceous deposits originating from polyenes generated in situ during EVA thermal degradation. High H 2 pressures and temperatures can overcome catalyst deactivation; however, CH 4 yields are excessive due to cascade hydrogenolysis stemming from strong C=C/metal interactions. Polyene hydrogenation allows chains anchored by C=C to desorb from Ru, shifting product selectivity from CH 4 to higher-value liquids. Hydrogenolysis of mixed EVA and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), mirroring typical frozen food packaging formulations, results in comparable catalyst activity and CH 4 yield as the pure EVA resin. For Pt/zeolite hydrocracking, pure EVA and EVA:LLDPE mixtures are deconstructed to propane or light naphtha with minimal CH 4 production. Among catalysts tested, Pt/HY gives the highest liquid productivity (g C5+products /g cat ·h). Furthermore, these findings showcase the recalcitrant nature of EVA and its associated mixtures for Ru/ZrO 2 hydrogenolysis, highlighting that hydrocracking catalysts may be superior for complex packaging waste.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

A novel large-scale EV charging scheduling algorithm considering V2G and reactive power management based on ADMM

Electric vehicle aggregators (EVAs) that utilize vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies can function as both controllable loads and virtual power plants, providing key energy management services to the distribution system operator (DSO). EVAs can also balance the grid’s reactive power as a virtual static VAR compensator (SVC) and provide voltage stability by utilizing advanced electric vehicle (EV) chargers that are capable of four-quadrant operations to provide reactive power management. Finally, managed charging can benefit EVAs themselves by minimizing power factor penalties in their electricity bills. In this paper, we propose a novel EV charging scheduling algorithm based on a hierarchical distributed optimization framework that minimizes peak load and provides reactive power compensation for the DSO by collaboration with EVAs that manage both the active and the reactive charging and discharging power of participating EVs. Utilizing the alternative direction method of multipliers (ADMM), the proposed distributed optimization approach scales well with increased EV charging infrastructure by balancing active and reactive power while decreasing computational burden. In our proposed hierarchical approach, each EVA schedules the active and reactive EV charging and discharging power for 1) reactive power compensation in order to minimize power factor penalty and electricity cost accrued by the EVA, 2) satisfaction of each EV’s energy demand at minimal charging cost, and 3) peak shaving and load management for the DSO. When compared with an uncoordinated charging model, the efficacy of this proposed model is successfully demonstrated through a 300% decreased peak EV load for the DSO, 28% lower electricity costs for EV users, and 98.55% smaller power factor penalty, along with 17.58% lower overall electricity costs, for EVAs. The performance of our approach is validated in a case study with 50 EVs at multiple EVAs in an IEEE 13-bus test case and compared the results with uncoordinated EV charging.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1974

Skylab extravehicular activity

The use of extravehicular activity (EVA) techniques during Skylab for accomplishing major mission objectives and major and minor repair work outside the Skylab workshop is discussed. The basic feasibility of EVA was demonstrated during the Gemini Program. Extravehicular activity was again demonstrated on Apollo, and was used during the Apollo 15 to 17 missions to retrieve film from the cameras used to map the lunar surface. The techniques developed for these earlier extravehicular activities were used to the fullest possible extent during Skylab. Premission plans for Skylab EVA included six EVA periods for a total of 29 man-hours. The objective of the EVA was to retrieve the Apollo telescope mount film and several particle sample collectors. There were actually 10 EVA periods during Skylab that lasted 82.5 man-hours. Accomplishments included those planned before the mission; but, more important, the Skylab mission was saved by EVA. The life-saving solar wing was erected during Skylab 2, and the permanent solar shield was erected during Skylab 3. In addition, 18 extra mission objectives and 13 in-flight repair tasks were accomplished through EVA during the Skylab missions.

Schultz, D. C.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Review of extravehicular activity for Shuttle program

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is a baselined Shuttle Orbiter capability. It can provide cost-effective servicing operations for payloads, on-orbit repair, and techniques for meeting various on-orbit contingencies. The basic EVA system planned consists of Orbiter-integral provisions, carry-on life support provisions, and EVA support equipment provisions. The Orbiter-integral provisions include the internal airlock, the EVA Egress module, and the docking module, each of which provides an egress path. The carry-on life support provisions will be two Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMU), composed of an Astronaut Life Support Assembly (ALSA) and a Space Suit Assembly (SSA). The support equipment includes tethers, special tools, translation aids, and workstations. The Shuttle Orbiter EVA requirements and possible tasks, EVA crew rescue equipment and techniques, crew support, EVA training, and EVA timeline activities are described.

Covington, J. H.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Decision rules for spaceborne operations planning

Recent study of Space Station Freedom requirements for extravehicular activity (EVA) to perform external maintenance tasks emphasize an oversubscription of resources for performing on-orbit tasks. Extravehicular robotics (EVR) and cooperative EVA combined with EVR (using crew and robots synergistically to perform tasks) have been suggested as a part of the solution to reduce EVA. The question remains however, 'Under what conditions is it cost-effective to use the EVA and/or EVR resource.' The answer to such a question also has implications for the Space Station Freedom and its external maintenance as well as the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) where the issue of work-system allocation is magnified by the long distances and scope of EVA work. This paper describes a simple technique of interest to operational planners and robot technology planners for determining in an economic context whether to use EVA alone, EVR alone, or Cooperative EVA. It is also shown that given: (1) the task times for these alternatives; and (2) the marginal costs of EVA, EVR, and IVA, the appropriate work system for performing the task can be identified. The paper illustrates how the work system choice is based on the ratio of costs. An example using Space Station Freedom data is presented to illustrate the trade-offs among alternative work-systems.

Smith, Jeffrey H.↗
NASA NTRS2002

The exercise and environmental physiology of extravehicular activity

Extravehicular activity (EVA), i.e., exercise performed under unique environmental conditions, is indispensable for supporting daily living in weightlessness and for further space exploration. From 1965-1996 an average of 20 h x yr(-1) were spent performing EVA. International Space Station (ISS) assembly will require 135 h x yr(-1) of EVA, and 138 h x yr(-1) is planned for post-construction maintenance. The extravehicular mobility unit (EMU), used to protect astronauts during EVA, has a decreased pressure of 4.3 psi that could increase astronauts' risk of decompression sickness (DCS). Exercise in and repeated exposure to this hypobaria may increase the incidence of DCS, although weightlessness may attenuate this risk. Exercise thermoregulation within the EMU is poorly understood; the liquid cooling garment (LCG), worn next to the skin and designed to handle thermal stress, is manually controlled. Astronauts may become dehydrated (by up to 2.6% of body weight) during a 5-h EVA, further exacerbating the thermoregulatory challenge. The EVA is performed mainly with upper body muscles; but astronauts usually exercise at only 26-32% of their upper body maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max). For a given ground-based work task in air (as opposed to water), the submaximal VO2 is greater while VO2max and metabolic efficiency are lower during ground-based arm exercise as compared with leg exercise, and cardiovascular responses to exercise and training are also different for arms and legs. Preflight testing and training, whether conducted in air or water, must account for these differences if ground-based data are extrapolated for flight requirements. Astronauts experience deconditioning during microgravity resulting in a 10-20% loss in arm strength, a 20-30% loss in thigh strength, and decreased lower-body aerobic exercise capacity. Data from ground-based simulations of weightlessness such as bed rest induce a 6-8% decrease in upper-body strength, a 10-16% loss in thigh extensor strength, and a 15-20% decrease in lower-body aerobic exercise capacity. Changes in EVA support systems and training based on a greater understanding of the physiological aspects of exercise in the EVA environment will help to insure the health, safety, and efficiency of working astronauts.

Review↗
NASA NTRS2009

Use of Intermittent Recompression and Nitrox Breathing Mixtures during Lunar Extravehicular Activities

INTRODUCTION: NASA's plans for lunar surface exploration include pressurized suitport rovers that are quickly ingressed and egressed with minimal consumables losses. This capability enables crewmembers to perform multiple short extravehicular activities (EVAs) at different locations in a single day versus a single 8-hr EVA. Modeling work and empirical human and animal data indicate that intermittent recompressions between EVA suit pressure and cabin pressure reduce decompression stress. Savings in crew time and gas losses may also be achieved if the N2 purge is shortened to 2 minutes, achieving 80% O2 (vs. 8 minutes, 95% O2). METHODS: A validated Tissue Bubble Dynamics Model was used to predict decompression stress using 80% and 95% O2 breathing mixtures during 3 x 2-hr EVAs (4.3 PSIA) with 1hr recompressions back to 8.0 PSIA (32% O2) versus a single 8-hr EVA. 15 minutes was spent at 6.0 PSIA before depressurizations to 4.3 PSIA; initial EVA tasks could be performed during this time. Model validation was based on significant prediction (p<0.001) and goodness of fit with 84 cases of DCS in 668 altitude exposures (McFadden s rho-squared=0.214). RESULTS: A 2.2% predicted increase in DCS risk due to the shortened purge is more than compensated for by a predicted 2.5% reduction in DCS risk due to intermittent recompression. 15 minutes at 80% O2, 6.0 PSIA prior to a 4.3 PSIA EVA prevents supersaturation in the brain and spinal cord (5-10 minute half-time compartments) and reduces tissue tensions in 40 min compartments, where most of the body s inert gas is located, to approximately the same levels (4.39 vs 4.00 PSIA) as achieved during a 40 min 95% O2 prebreathe at 10.2 PSIA. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent recompressions between lunar EVAs may enable reductions in suit purge and prebreathe requirements, decompression stress, and/or suit operating pressures.

Gernhardt, M.L.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Lunar Surface Operations: Surface Duration - Part 2

The objectives of this slide presentation are to review the activities on the lunar surface during the stay. The objectives include (1) Summarize Lunar Module Basics emphasizing module layout and storage. (2) Identify the primary activities occurring during each of the lunar s urface timelines, (3) List the EVA Prep tasks, (4) Identify the EVA Objectives, (5) Identify the activities associated with Post EVA (6) Describe the lessons learned during both EVA and Non EVA activities. Included are overview drawings of the Lunar Roving Vehicle, pictures of the tools, and sample return containers. There are also time lines for the Apollo 11, and Apollo 12 through 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17. Diagrams of the EVA suits are shown, including the Liquid Cooling Garment, and the Pressure Garment Assembly. The activity prior to the EVA are reviewed. The science mission assignments of each mission are viewed. The activities after the EVA are reviewed

Interbartolo, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2013

Fifteen-minute Extravehicular Activity Prebreathe Protocol Using NASA's Exploration Atmosphere (8.2 psia/ 34% 02)

A TBDM DCS probability model based on an existing biophysical model of inert gas bubble growth provides significant prediction and goodness-of-fit with 84 cases of DCS in 668 human altitude exposures. 2. Model predictions suggest that 15-minute O2 prebreathe protocols used in conjunction with suit ports and an 8.2 psi, 34% O2, 66% N2 atmosphere may enable rapid EVA capability for future exploration missions with the risk of DCS ≤ 12%.  EVA could begin immediately at 6.0 psi, with crewmembers decreasing suit pressure to 4.3 psi after completing the 15-minute in-suit prebreathe. 3. Model predictions suggest that intermittent recompression during exploration EVA may reduce decompression stress by 1.8% to 2.3% for 6 hours of total EVA time. Savings in gas consumables and crew time may be accumulated by abbreviating the EVA suit N2 purge to 2 minutes (20% N2) compared with 8 minutes (5% N2) at the expense of an increase in estimated decompression risk of up to 2.4% for an 8-hour EVA.  Increased DCS risk could be offset by IR or by spending additional time at 6 psi at the beginning of the EVA.  Savings of 0.48 lb of gas and 6 minutes per person per EVA corresponds to more than 31 hours of crew time and 1800 lb of gas and tankage under the Constellation lunar architecture. 6. Further research is needed to characterize and optimize breathing mixtures and intermittent recompression across the range of environments and operational conditions in which astronauts will live and work during future exploration missions. 7. Development of exploration prebreathe protocols will begin with definition of acceptable risk, followed by development of protocols based on models such as ours, and, ultimately, validation of protocols through ground trials before operational implementation.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Near Real Time Tools for ISS Plasma Science and Engineering Applications

The International Space Station (ISS) program utilizes a plasma environment forecast for estimating electrical charging hazards for crews during extravehicular activity (EVA). The process uses ionospheric electron density and temperature measurements from the ISS Floating Potential Measurement Unit (FPMU) instrument suite with the assumption that the plasma conditions will remain constant for one to fourteen days with a low probability for a space weather event which would significantly change the environment before an EVA. FPMU data is typically not available during EVA's, therefore, the most recent FPMU data available for characterizing the state of the ionosphere during EVA is typically a day or two before the start of an EVA or after the EVA has been completed. In addition to EVA support, information on ionospheric plasma densities is often needed for support of ISS science payloads and anomaly investigations during periods when the FPMU is not operating. This presentation describes the application of space weather tools developed by MSFC using data from near real time satellite radio occultation and ground based ionosonde measurements of ionospheric electron density and a first principle ionosphere model providing electron density and temperature run in a real time mode by GSFC. These applications are used to characterize the space environment during EVA periods when FPMU data is not available, monitor for large charges in ionosphere density that could render the ionosphere forecast and plasma hazard assessment invalid, and validate the assumption of "persistence of conditions" used in deriving the hazard forecast. In addition, the tools are used to provide space environment input to science payloads on ISS and anomaly investigations during periods the FPMU is not operating.

Minow, Joseph I.↗
NASA NTRS2015

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated Evidence Reports for The Risk of Decompression Sickness (from here on referred to as the 2014 DCS Evidence Report) and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations (from here on referred to as the 2014 EVA Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plans for these Risks. The SRP appreciated the time and effort that the DCS and EVA disciplines put into their review documents and presentations. The SRP felt that the 2014 DCS Evidence Report and the 2014 EVA Evidence Reports were very thorough and addressed the majority of the known DCS and EVA issues. The researchers at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) have the knowledge base to deal with the DCS and EVA issues. Overall, the SRP thinks the DCS and EVA research teams have compiled excellent reports which address the majority of the literature and background information.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2018

Development of an Inflatable Airlock for a Deep Space Gateway

Inflatable structures technology utilizes high-strength fabric materials and internal pressure to create a stiffened pressure vessel that can replace traditional metallic primary structure in a habitable spacecraft. The flexibility of fabric structures allows them to be compactly stowed for launch and expanded in space, providing significant launch volume savings. The unique construction and design flexibility of these structures can be customized for a variety of uses in space including landing bags, decelerators, long duration in-space and planetary surface habitats, and even airlocks. An airlock is often a required component of a crewed spacecraft to allow for maintenance and human exploration outside of the vehicle. Airlock designs in use today rely on complex hatches and seals connected by metallic walls. Recent developments towards the design of an inflatable airlock structure show feasibility and a significant launch volume savings over a traditional metallic design. This paper will provide a high-level summary of these projects and the current state-of-the-art in inflatable airlock development with additional references and detail about previous and on-going research, providing guidance for the design of a softgoods airlock system. The use of inflatables in space has been in development since the 1960’s for both habitats and airlocks. The first ever EVA was conducted by the USSR in 1965 using an inflatable airlock known as the Volga. This airlock was attached to the Voskhod 2 spacecraft and turned the vehicle into a dual chamber airlock. The airlock was successfully deployed, used and jettisoned after Alexey Leonov’s historic spacewalk. Additional work on human-rated inflatable structures was not continued until the late 1990’s when NASA-JSC led an effort to demonstrate these structures as feasible long-term pressurized elements with the TransHab project. The technology developed and pioneered during this project led to multiple patents and proven feasibility that inflatables could be used for large habitable structures. Following TransHab, Bigelow Aerospace continued the development of inflatable structures with technical support from NASA. This partnership eventually led to the successful flight certification, launch, attachment and deployment of the Bigelow Expandable Activities Module (BEAM) on the ISS in 2016. Inflatable and expandable airlock structures have undergone various detailed feasibility studies and testing for over 15 years, most notably with the Advanced Inflatable Airlock (AIA), Dual-Chamber Hybrid Inflatable Suitlock (DCIS), Minimalistic Advanced Soft Hatch (MASH), and Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock (LEIA). During this time, full-scale articles have been built and pressure-tested, and mock-ups and demonstrators have been constructed and evaluated. During the 2001-2003 timeframe, the AIA concept was matured through requirements development, conceptual design, subscale and full-scale engineering breadboards subjecting various test articles to deployment and pressure testing up to four times operating pressure. These tests proved the feasibility of successful deployment and structural integrity of an inflatable crewlock. Additional testing was performed in the ensuing years, as funding permitted, to further refine additional structural and deployment concepts and to understand the EVA crewmember interfaces, hatches and EVA support equipment interfaces that would be required for a fully functioning airlock. This work resulted in a refinement of the structural requirements and an accounting of the systems needed in an inflatable airlock. In 2014, the MASH project developed an ultra-lightweight airlock concept with a fabric hatch that utilized a unique pressure vessel shape to minimize structural loads around a linear seal. The concept uses an automated zipper-like seal that allows for crew egress/ingress. Most of the development work on the project thus far has focused on the design, analysis and testing of the primary structure and the zipper-like seal system is in the preliminary stages of development with a successful proof-of-concept test. As part of the 2017 LEIA effort, studies were conducted on EVA crewmember interfaces on the inside of an inflatable airlock. These efforts included the design of an internal secondary structure and placement of handholds and foot restraints to enable hatch opening, closing and translation through the airlock. Structural design, analysis and testing was completed on several secondary structure candidates. Crew interface testing was also completed using an inflatable crewlock mockup and the JSC Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the movement of an EVA crewmember through an inflatable crewlock in microgravity. The results of these tests helped demonstrate the feasibility of utilizing an inflatable structure as an airlock and informed the required volume, hatch size, and configuration and location of translation aids for crewmembers in a microgravity crewlock. The ISS Quest airlock uses a dual-chamber design with isolated compartments known as the equipment-lock and the crewlock. The equipment-lock houses the Servicing, Performance and Checkout Equipment (SPCE) items (suit batteries, consumables, etc.) while the crewlock has limited internal hardware and is the nominally depressurized compartment during US EVAs. While inflatable dual chamber airlocks have been studied, the current state of the art emphasizes an inflatable crewlock-type structure attached to a rigid equipment-lock type or habitat structure. Since a large portion of the hardware in the equipment-lock are rigid components and connectors that are installed on the ground - and an inflatable structure does not achieve full structural capabilities until pressurized in space - a depressurized fabric structure cannot provide the capabilities of a full equipment-lock. The use of an inflatable as a crewlock, however, provides all the required capabilities for EVA operations in a small launch package that offers significant volume savings over a metallic crewlock. The functions of a traditional equipment lock, including the SPCE, could be provided by a spacecraft’s habitat module or node and not necessarily in a separate equipment lock. An inflatable crewlock would be attached to the vehicle and launched in a packed and compressed state, saving volume under the launch shroud and mass for the overall airlock element compared to a rigid crewlock. Work is currently underway to continue development of an inflatable airlock with a variety of focus areas including the consideration of crew-induced loads and interfaces, the design and development of an internal sub-structure to provide translation aids and restraints, the thermal considerations of a fabric shell depressurized during an EVA, the micrometeorite environment in deep space, and the packaging and deployment of an inflatable airlock.

Deep Space Exploration↗
NASA NTRS2019

Extravehicular Activity Framework for Exploration - 2019

The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Framework for Exploration describes NASA's EVASystem Goals in the broader context of ongoing human spaceflight efforts. The purpose of thisdocument is to drive integration, coordination and communication of the EVA community'sexploration development plans as crafted to meet long-term EVA needs. Inclusive in the EVAcommunity are NASA partners in academia and industry. The 2019 EVA Framework outlinesthe office's current method to answer the following questions: What product does NASA useto compare, contrast and integrate across the elements of the EVA community's perceivedgaps, risks, and unfunded work, particularly for future systems intended for use beyond LowEarth Orbit (LEO)? What product does NASA use to proactively coordinate support acrossthe EVA community's wide spectrum of exploration development work? Where can one go toobtain awareness of ongoing efforts, particularly during consideration of new-start activitiesand proposals? These questions lead to the need for a product that speaks to the distributednature of the EVA System across human spaceflight programs, concept studies and flightvehicle architectural elements. This framework can be used and evaluated by the EVAcommunity to assess the full spectrum of needs and answer the question of "what are wemissing" or "are we doing things that just do not make sense". In the end is the EVAcommunity effectively pursuing the future needs of EVA? If answers to those questions revealthe need for change or re-prioritization then actions can be taken through existing projectcontrol processes as well as revision to this document and supporting project plans.

Alpert, Brian K.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation Protocols for Planetary Spaceflight Missions

BACKGROUND: Apollo missions used a 100% O2 cabin atmosphere which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activity (EVA) on the moon. NASA’s future missions to the moon and Mars are expected to use nitrox gas mixtures of up to 34% O2, 66% N2, which will reduce flammability risk compared with Apollo, but will necessitate Oxygen prebreathe prior to EVA to reduce DCS risk to acceptable levels. Prebreathe protocols used on the space shuttle and International Space Station are validated for microgravity EVAs, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary EVA. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA as a compromise that balances prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. However, this atmosphere may not be used for vehicles that do not support frequent EVA, and with commercial providers and international providers expected to provide landers, pressurized rovers, habitats, and spacesuits, different combinations of vehicle and spacesuit atmospheres are possible and will each require validated prebreathe protocols. OVERVIEW: Key components of a multi-year strategic roadmap include: 1) Establish hypobaric chamber facility capable of supporting 8-person EVA prebreathe validation tests at saturation atmospheres up to 36% O2; 2) validate an EVA physical workload simulation for use during prebreathe validation testing; 3) validate the recommended “exploration atmosphere” prebreathe protocol; 4) validate prebreathe protocols for additional atmospheric combinations that bound the most likely potential operating ranges of future vehicles and spacesuits; and 5) update DCS risk estimation models based on results of prebreathe validation studies. DISCUSSION: Details and data from completion of the first two steps of the strategic roadmap will be presented; the third step is currently underway, with pilot results provided in a companion presentation. Steps four and five will require a multi-year series of chamber tests; collaborations are being pursued.

Andrew F. J. Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Physical Demand during Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Returning to the moon requires many advances in current space technology. One major aspect of this development is a new exploration spacesuit (xEMU). Taking lessons learned from Apollo era suitsand the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) used on the International Space Station (ISS), xEMU will have increased mobility, dust mitigation, headspace, glove fit, and life support capabilities. Artemis astronauts in xEMU will complete a far more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedule than Apolloand ISS. Notably, metabolic rates during Apollo lunar EVA tasks were observed to be up to 50% lower than similar tasks performed in a ground analog environment under simulated partial gravity with newer suits. Therefore, understanding the physical demands of lunar surface exploration operations is criticalto ensuring best outcomes operating within the constraints of xEMU and planning for exploration EVA activities. This study utilized the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the lunar environment and continuously offload subjects to lunar gravity. Two male subjects completed two days of EVAs wearing the pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing suit fit and mobility checks, as well as simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverse tasks in an end-to-end EVA (E2E) task block and standalone (SA) task blocks. We recorded continuous values of metabolic rate (MR) and heart rate (HR) to assess physical demand. During the E2E task block, subjects did not rest between tasks to simulate continuous effort from task to task, as in real EVAs. In comparison, subjects had a 5-minute break after each SA task block to allow for the metabolic rate and heart rate to return to baseline.MR values were categorized as low (≤ 700 BTU/hr), medium (700-1000 BTU/HR), and high (≥ 1000 BTU/hr), while HR values were categorized as low (≤150) and high (>150). During the 16 tasks in the E2E block, subjects averaged low MR in 6% of tasks, medium MR in 47% of tasks, and high MR in 47% of tasks. While MR was consistent between subjects, Subject 1 averaged low HR for 100% of these tasks, while Subject 2 averaged low HR in 44% of tasks. During the 23 tasks in the SA task blocks, subjects averaged low MR in 26% of tasks, medium MR in 52% of tasks, and high MR in 22% of tasks. Again, HR was different between subjects, with subject 1 averaging low HR in 100% of these tasks while subject 2 averaged low HR in 70%. Across all tasks in this study, subjects reached maximum MR and HR values during a 500m traverse at 30% grade in the E2E block (subject 1: 1747 BTU/hr, 150 BPM; subject 2: 1656 BTU/hr, 177 BPM).Understanding the physical demand to complete exploration EVA tasks will be instrumental to the future success of exploration spacesuit designs and missions. Further work in this study will be needed to characterize MR during exploration EVA tasks, including expanding the subject pool and testing new suit designs.

Taylor E Schlotman↗
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↗