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 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nasa Exploration Atmosphere Tests 3 & 4: Development and Validation of Planetary Extravehicular Activity Prebreathe Protocols for Alternate Atmospheres and Suit Pressures

INTRODUCTION: Space suits operate at low pressures to optimize astronauts’ performance. The drop in pressure from the habitat environment to the suit carries a risk of decompression sickness (DCS), which is mitigated by a 95% O2 prebreathe protocol. Prebreathe protocols for the lunar surface have a significantly higher risk compared to International Space Station microgravity Extravehicular Activities (EVA). In previous studies, we validated a prebreathe protocol from a 56.5 kPa 34% O2 cabin to a 29.6 kPa EVA pressure; however, the enriched oxygen cabin environment poses a flammability risk that requires significant changes to material design and selections. Here, we report outcomes for prebreathe protocols from a sub-30% O2 cabin and associated changes necessary to control DCS risk critical to upcoming lunar missions. METHODS: Fourteen volunteers completed 11-day hypobaric chamber studies with an “alternate exploration atmosphere” of 66.2kPa, 28.5% O2. Subjects acclimated for 48 hrs and then participated in five 6-hour simulated EVAs at 29.6 or 35.6kPa, 95% O2. Prior to EVA, subjects underwent a 20, 90, or 150-minute prebreathe. The EVA simulation was designed to be representative of future planetary EVAs, proportionate to the subject’s VO2max. Decompression stress was monitored by real-time doppler and echocardiograph alternating every 15 min, as well as clinical monitoring for DCS signs/symptoms. Venous gas emboli (VGE) and DCS outcomes were verified against NASA-STD-3001 acceptance criteria. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Venous gas emboli (VGE) were identified during all EVAs. A neurological DCS case was identified in the 90-min/29.6kPa prebreathe, terminating further testing of this protocol. No DCS cases were identified in the 150 min/29.6kPa protocol. The 20 min/36.5kPa protocol was rejected due to a Type II DCS case. All DCS symptoms resolved with treatment, with no sequelae post initial treatment of DCS. These various test points highlighted to the significant benefit of elevated suit pressure to shorten prebreathe protocols, but also the difficulty in assessing and managing DCS during sustained EVA operations in remote planetary surfaces.

decompression sickness↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration Conops (Excon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. Tasked by the new Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program(EHP), a team of stakeholders from engineering, flight operations, human health and performance, astromaterials and science, and the crew office worked together to perform EVAs in 3 simulated lunar environments. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into 3 distinct tests titled after the EHP integrated test team: Joint EVA Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1was conducted near Kilbourne Holeby El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept operations(con-ops), risks and technology.JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission with a simulated Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Excon mockup space suit. The Excon mockup suit is a light-weight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU)simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration ConOps (ExCon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into three distinct tests titled after the EVA & Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) integrated test team: Joint EVA & HSM Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1 was conducted near Kilbourne Hole by El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept of operations (con-ops), risks and technology. JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff, Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission including a Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Exploration Concept of Operations (ExCon) mockup space suit. The ExCon mockup suit is a lightweight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration Conops (Excon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into three distinct tests titled after the EVA & Human Surface Mobility (HSM) Program (EHP) integrated test team: Joint EVA & HSM Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1 was conducted near Kilbourne Hole by El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept of operations (con-ops), risks and technology. JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff, Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission including a Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Exploration Concept of Operations (ExCon) mockup space suit. The ExCon mockup suit is a lightweight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2019

Field-Aged Glass/Backsheet and Glass/Glass PV Modules: Encapsulant Degradation Comparison

Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) is the predominant encapsulant in crystalline-silicon photovoltaic (PV) modules; however, its degradation is a subject of major concern, which causes significant power loss under field conditions. This article presents a comparison of EVA degradation in field-aged PV modules with glass/backsheet (G/B) and glass/glass (G/G) architectures. Modulelevel characterization included UV fluorescence imaging and I-V measurements. Material analytical techniques, including colorimetry, differential scanning calorimetry, thermogravimetric analysis, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, and Raman spectroscopy, were performed to correlate the module performance parameters with EVA material properties. An intense EVA discoloration in G/G modules was observed, which was corroborated by higher module Isc and Pmax degradation rates compared with its counterpart G/B modules. Higher power degradation was accompanied by a significant increase in EVA crosslinking, vinyl acetate content, yellowness index, and presence of functional groups containing unsaturated moieties that are linked to degradation products of photothermal reaction, and a higher decrease in the degree of crystallinity. The absence of a polymeric backsheet in hermetically sealed G/G modules, which restricts photobleaching and enhances the entrapment of volatile acetic acid and other degradation by-products, plays a major role in causing higher EVA degradation in G/G modules. This article concludes that EVA might have been a good choice of an encapsulant for the G/B modules over the decades, but it may prove to be an inappropriate choice for the G/G modules because of potential degassing, corrosion, and/or discoloration issues. Ionomers or polyester-based encapsulants like polyolefins could be best suited for G/G modules as it appears to be a current trend in the industry.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Nanomechanical and Fluorescence Characterizations of Weathered PV Module Encapsulation

Nanoindentation and fluorescence spectroscopy provide spatially resolved mechanical and chemical characterization for degradation of poly (ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) (EVA) encapsulants aged under accelerated weathering and in field deployed photovoltaic (PV) modules. For the accelerated weathering tests, two different EVA formulations in the glass/EVA/glass-laminated coupons were exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light for 180 days at three different temperatures (40, 60, and 80 °C) and UV intensities (0.4, 2.2, and 2.9 W/m2/nm at 340 nm). The fluorescence spectra and moduli were uniform through the cross section of both EVA formulations at the lowest temperature and UV intensity; however, under the highest temperature and UV intensity, the UV irradiated sides showed lower moduli and higher fluorescence compared to the opposite sides. For EVA obtained from PV modules deployed 27 years in Sacramento, CA, USA, changes in fluorescence intensity across the thickness were relatively greater than changes in modulus. On the other hand, for EVA obtained from the same type of module stored in the shed for 27 years, no fluorescence was observed, and a uniform modulus was seen through the EVA layer, but with substantially higher values than those obtained from the field-deployed modules. The different extent of changes between laboratory and field exposures suggests the importance of considering effects of temperature and UV intensity for designing a reliable accelerated testing. This study uniquely demonstrates the capability of microscale characterization using nanoindentation and fluorescence microscopy to monitor mechanical and chemical degradation of EVA encapsulants in PV modules.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Characterizations of Aged Glass/Ethylene Vinyl Acetate/Glass Using Fluorescence Spectroscopy and Instrumented Indentation

Ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) is widely used as an encapsulant in photovoltaic devices, which are exposed to simultaneous UV irradiation, thermal, and humidity conditions. Aging behaviors of the EVA were characterized using confocal fluorescence spectroscopy with submicron scale resolutions of cross-sections of aged EVA samples. Additionally, mechanical properties of fluorescing regions in the aged EVAs where fluorescence emission was measured were investigated using a nanoindentation technique. In this study, we characterized two different formulations of EVA in glass/EVA/glass specimens after UV irradiation at 40 degrees C, 60 degrees C and 80 degrees C with 50 % relative humidity for 180 days. The fluorescence intensities on the UV irradiated sides of EVA samples were higher than those for the unexposed sides over wavelengths from 400 nm to 800 nm, and intensity differences between the two sides became more pronounced when the specimens were aged at higher temperatures. Elastic moduli of UV irradiated side for samples measured by instrumented indentation decreased, compared to unaged EVA samples, while fluorescent intensity increased with increasing the aging temperature.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS1972

Apollo 16 time and motion study

A time and motion study is presented of astronaut lunar surface activity on Apollo 16 which consists of five distinct analyses: an evaluation of lunar mobility, a comparison of task performance in 1-g training and lunar EVA, a study of metabolic costs and adaptation, a discussion of falls, and retrieval of fallen objects. Two basic mobility patterns, the hop or canter and the traditional walking gait, were consistently utilized in longer traverses. The metabolic rates associated with these two mobility types, each used by a different astronaut, were relatively equivalent. The time to perform tasks on the lunar surface was significantly longer (on the order of 70%) than the time to perform the same tasks during the last 1-g training session. These results corroborated the findings on Apollo 15 and were not significantly different from them. There was general improvement in lunar EVA performance upon repetition of tasks. Metabolic rate (BTU/hr.) and metabolic cost (BTU) decreased over successive EVAs. Specifically, the metabolic rate associated with riding the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) decreased by approximately 18% from EVA 1 to EVA 2 and by 15% from EVA 2 to EVA 3.

Kubis, J. F.↗
NASA NTRS1974

The role of manned extravehicular activity in reducing the cost of space payloads

Substantial cost savings and performance improvement will result by the use of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) to supplement or replace automation. Taking an all-pallet version of Langley Research Center's Advanced Technology Laboratory payload as an example, $54.5 million should be saved by EVA over automation, considering deployment and stowing only. Additional savings should accrue when reduced-reliability equipment (where permitted) is substituted for high reliability equipment and EVA is used for repairs. More comprehensively, launch and operation costs could also be reduced by elimination of the need to return to the ground for repairs; and production spending might be reduced when an entire vehicle was saved by manned EVA repair not feasible via automation. Potential disadvantages include increased cost due to development and manufacture of EVA equipment, payload provisions to enable EVA interfaces, training, orbiter modification, and prevention of EVA-caused contamination. Possible applications to the Space Shuttle missions are discussed.

Alton, L. R.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Outfitting for space

EVA missions, beginning with the Space Shuttle and continuing through the 80's and 90's are evaluated in an evolutionary perspective. The projected large space structures, to be assembled in orbit, will require EVA for their construction. Various parameters of EVA are analyzed, including: EVA tasks and system requirements, system pressurization level, and radiation protection. Existing technology and already proven EVA techniques are considered adequate for future EVA missions, with some modifications. Space suit pressure, for example, can be increased from 4 to 8 psi, depending on ambient pressure in the spacecraft. Radiation shielding might have to be improved for higher altitude LEO's. Also, new restraint systems will probably be required for the more complicated EVA tasks.

Brouillet, A. O.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Physiological and technological considerations for Mars mission extravehicular activity

The nature of the suit is a function of the needs of human physiology, the ambient environment outside the suit, and the type of activity to be accomplished while in the suit. The physiological requirements that must be provided for in the Martian Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suit will be reviewed. The influence of the Martian environment on the EVA suit and EVA capabilities is elaborated, and the Martian environment is compared with the lunar environment. The differences that may influence the EVA design are noted. The type, nature, and duration of activities to be done in transit to Mars and on the Martian surface will be evaluated and the impact of these activities on the requirements for EVA systems will be discussed. Furthermore, the interaction between Martian surface transportation systems and EVA systems will be covered. Finally, options other than EVA will be considered such as robotics, nonanthropometric suits, and vehicles with anthropometric extremities or robotic end effectors.

Waligora, James M.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Impact of Solar Array Position on ISS Vehicle Charging

The International Space Station (ISS), because of its large structure and high voltage solar arrays, has a complex plasma interaction with the ionosphere in low Earth orbit (LEO). This interaction of the ISS US Segment photovoltaic (PV) power system with the LEO ionospheric plasma produces floating potentials on conducting elements of the ISS structure relative to the local plasma environment. To control the ISS floating potentials, two Plasma Contactor Units (PCUs) are installed on the Z1 truss. Each PCU discharges accumulated electrons from the Space Station structure, thus reducing the potential difference between the ISS structure and the surrounding charged plasma environment. Operations of the PCUs were intended to keep the ISS floating potential to 40 Volts (Reference 1). Exposed dielectric surfaces overlying conducting structure on the Space Station will collect an opposite charge from the ionosphere as the ISS charges. In theory, when an Extravehicular Activity (EVA) crewmember is tethered to structure via the crew safety tether or when metallic surfaces of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) come in contact with conducting metallic surfaces of the ISS, the EMU conducting components, including the perspiration-soaked crewmember inside, can become charged to the Space Station floating potential. The concern is the potential dielectric breakdown of anodized aluminum surfaces on the EMU producing an arc from the EMU to the ambient plasma, or nearby ISS structure. If the EMU arcs, an electrical current of an unknown magnitude and duration may conduct through the EVA crewmember, producing an unacceptable condition. This electrical current may be sufficient to startle or fatally shock the EVA crewmember (Reference 2). Hence, as currently defined by the EVA community, the ISS floating potential for all nominal and contingency EVA worksites and translation paths must have a magnitude less than 40 volts relative to the local ionosphere at all times during EVA. Arcing from the EMU is classified as a catastrophic hazard, which requires two-failure tolerant controls, i.e., three hazard controls. Each PCU is capable of maintaining the ISS floating potential below the requirement during EVA. The two PCUs provide a single failure tolerant control of ISS floating potential. In the event of the failure of one or two PCUs, a combination of solar array shunting and turning the solar arrays into their own wakes will be used to supply control of the plasma hazard (Reference 3). The purpose of this paper is to present on-orbit information that shows that ISS solar array placement with respect to the ISS velocity vector can control solar array plasma charging, and hence, provide an operational control for the plasma hazard. Also, this paper will present on-orbit information that shows that shunting of the ISS solar arrays can control solar array plasma charging, and hence, provide an additional operational control for the plasma hazard.

Alred, John↗
NASA NTRS2011

Phase VI Glove Durability Testing

The current state-of-the-art space suit gloves, the Phase VI gloves, have an operational life of 25 -- 8 hour Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) in a dust free, manufactured microgravity EVA environment. Future planetary outpost missions create the need for space suit gloves which can endure up to 90 -- 8 hour traditional EVAs or 576 -- 45 minute suit port-based EVAs in a dirty, uncontrolled planetary environment. Prior to developing improved space suit gloves for use in planetary environments, it is necessary to understand how the current state-of-the-art performs in these environments. The Phase VI glove operational life has traditionally been certified through cycle testing consisting of International Space Station (ISS)-based EVA tasks in a clean environment, and glove durability while performing planetary EVA tasks in a dirty environment has not previously been characterized. Testing was performed in the spring of 2010 by the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) to characterize the durability of the Phase VI Glove and identify areas of the glove design which need improvement to meet the requirements of future NASA missions. Lunar simulant was used in this test to help replicate the dirty lunar environment, and generic planetary surface EVA tasks were performed during testing. A total of 50 manned, pressurized test sessions were completed in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) using one pair of Phase VI gloves as the test article. The 50 test sessions were designed to mimic the total amount of pressurized cycling the gloves would experience over a 6 month planetary outpost mission. The gloves were inspected periodically throughout testing, to assess their condition at various stages in the test and to monitor the gloves for failures. Additionally, motion capture and force data were collected during 18 of the 50 test sessions to assess the accuracy of the cycle model predictions used in testing and to feed into the development of improved cycle model tables. This paper provides a detailed description of the test hardware and methodology, shares the results of the testing, and provides recommendations for future work.

Mitchell, Kathryn↗
NASA NTRS2013

Effects of the 8 psia / 32% O2 Atmosphere on the Human in the Spaceflight Environment

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. There are elements of exploration that may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but there are critical elements of exploration that will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA intensive phases of missions. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This paper provides a literature review of the human health and performance risks associated with the 8 psia/32% O2 environment. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasures protocols, effective food preparation at 8 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. As a first effort, the trade space originally considered in the EAWG was re-evaluated looking for ways to decrease the hypoxic dose by further enriching the O2% or increasing the pressure. After discussion with the NASA engineering and materials community, it was determined that the O2 could be enriched from 32% to 34% and the pressure increased from 8.0 to 8.2 psia without significant penalty. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. Once decided, the proposed internal environment, if different than current experience, should be evaluated through appropriately simulated research studies. In many cases, the human physiologic concerns can be investigated effectively through integrated multi-discipline ground-based studies. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Environmental control↗
NASA NTRS2013

An Onboard ISS Virtual Reality Trainer

Prior to the retirement of the Space Shuttle, many exterior repairs on the International Space Station (ISS) were carried out by shuttle astronauts, trained on the ground and flown to the Station to perform these specific repairs. With the retirement of the shuttle, this is no longer an available option. As such, the need for ISS crew members to review scenarios while on flight, either for tasks they already trained for on the ground or for contingency operations has become a very critical issue. NASA astronauts prepare for Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA) or Spacewalks through numerous training media, such as: self-study, part task training, underwater training in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL), hands-on hardware reviews and training at the Virtual Reality Laboratory (VRLab). In many situations, the time between the last session of a training and an EVA task might be 6 to 8 months. EVA tasks are critical for a mission and as time passes the crew members may lose proficiency on previously trained tasks and their options to refresh or learn a new skill while on flight are limited to reading training materials and watching videos. In addition, there is an increased need for unplanned contingency repairs to fix problems arising as the Station ages. In order to help the ISS crew members maintain EVA proficiency or train for contingency repairs during their mission, the Johnson Space Center's VRLab designed an immersive ISS Virtual Reality Trainer (VRT). The VRT incorporates a unique optical system that makes use of the already successful Dynamic On-board Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) software to assist crew members with procedure reviews and contingency EVAs while on board the Station. The need to train and re-train crew members for EVAs and contingency scenarios is crucial and extremely demanding. ISS crew members are now asked to perform EVA tasks for which they have not been trained and potentially have never seen before. The Virtual Reality Trainer (VRT) provides an immersive 3D environment similar to the one experienced at the VRLab crew training facility at the NASA Johnson Space Center. VRT bridges the gap by allowing crew members to experience an interactive, 3D environment to reinforce skills already learned and to explore new work sites and repair procedures outside the Station.

Miralles, Evelyn↗
NASA NTRS2014

The ISS 2B PVTCS Ammonia Leak: An Operational History

In 2006, the Photovoltaic Thermal Control System (PVTCS) for the International Space Station's 2B power channel began leaking ammonia at a rate of approximately 1.5lbm/year (out of a starting approximately 53lbm system ammonia mass). Initially, the operations strategy was "feed the leak," a strategy successfully put into action via Extra Vehicular Activity during the STS‐134 mission. During this mission the system was topped off with ammonia piped over from a separate thermal control system. This recharge was to have allowed for continued power channel operation into 2014 or 2015, at which point another EVA would have been required. Without these periodic EVAs to refill the 2B coolant system, the channel would eventually leak enough fluid as to risk pump cavitation and system failure, resulting in the loss of the 2B power channel - the most critical of the Space Station's 8 power channels. In mid‐2012, the leak rate increased to approximately 5lbm/year. Once discovered, an EVA was planned and executed within a 5 week timeframe to drastically alter the architecture of the PVTCS via connection to a dormant thermal control system not intended to be utilized as anything other than spare components. The purpose of this rerouting of the TCS was to increase system volume and to isolate the photovoltaic radiator, thought to be the likely leak source. This EVA was successfully executed on November 1st, 2012 and left the 2B PVTCS in a configuration where the system was now being adequately cooled via a totally different radiator than what the system was designed to utilize. Unfortunately, data monitoring over the next several months showed that the isolated radiator was not leaking, and the system itself continued to leak steadily until May 9th, 2013. It was on this day that the ISS crew noticed the visible presence of ammonia crystals escaping from the 2B channel's truss segment, signifying a rapid acceleration of the leak from 5lbm/year to 5lbm/day. Within 48 hours of the crew noticing the leak, an EVA was in progress to replace the coolant pump - the only other replaceable leak source. This paper will explore the management of the 2B PVTCS leak from the operations perspective. It will discuss the methodology of performing the STS‐134 refill, the considerations and contingency plans which went into the architectural overhaul of the system in 2012, and the unprecedented effort which went into the EVA response to the visible leak of May 2013. In particular the paper will focus on the techniques utilized by flight controllers to monitor the system health and to respond to such instances as the rapid May 2013 leak by putting the electrical system in a safe configuration for loss of cooling, and will use recorded telemetry of these events to describe system response to EVA crew and ground actions. It will discuss the innovative design for redundancy of the integrated truss structure's cooling systems which allowed for this leak to be managed with minimal impact to other ISS operations and electrical services, contrasted against the real unintended operations consequences of utilizing the flexibility of the spacecraft's design in this manner. The paper will discuss how the training of the crew and flight controller personnel has adapted to the changing architecture of the power system and the unpredictable nature of the 2B leak.

Vareha, Anthony↗