Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU)”

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 91 records · Page 5

Flexible Packaging Concept for a Space Suit Portable Life Support Subsystem

Neither the Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), the space suit currently used for space shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) missions, nor the Apollo EMU, the space suit successfully used on previous lunar missions, will satisfy the requirements for the next generation Constellation Program (CxP) lunar suit. The CxP system or Constellation Space Suit Element (CSSE) must be able to tolerate more severe environmental and use conditions than any previous system. These conditions include missions to the severely cold lunar poles and up to 100 Extravehicular Activity (EVA) excursions without ground maintenance. Much effort is focused on decreasing the mass and volume of the Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) over previous suit designs in order to accommodate the required increase in functionality. This paper documents the progress of a conceptual packaging effort of a flexible backpack for the CSSE PLSS. The flexible backpack concept relies on a foam protection system to absorb, distribute, and dissipate the energy from falls on the lunar surface. Testing and analysis of the foam protection system concept that was conducted during this effort indicates that this method of system packaging is a viable solution.

Thomas, Gretchen↗

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↗

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↗

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Tessa Reiber↗

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

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

Mary Suzanne Bell↗

Reexamination of METMAN, Recommendations on Enhancement of LCVG, and Development of New Concepts for EMU Heat Sink

METMAN is a 41-node transient metabolic computer code developed in 1970 and revised in 1989 by Lockheed Engineering and Sciences, Inc. This program relies on a mathematical model to predict the transient temperature distribution in a body influenced by metabolic heat generation and thermal interaction with the environment. A more complex 315-node model is also available that not only simulates the thermal response of a body exposed to a warm environment, but is also capable of describing the thermal response resulting from exposure to a cold environment. It is important to compare the two models for the prediction of the body's thermal response to metabolic heat generation and exposure to various environmental conditions. Discrepancies between the twi models may warrant an investigation of METMAN to ensure its validity for describing the body's thermal response in space environment. The Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment is a subsystem of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). This garment, worn under the pressure suit, contains the liquid cooling tubing and gas ventilation manifolds; its purpose is to alleviate or reduce thermal stress resulting from metabolic heat generation. There is renewed interest in modifying this garment through identification of the locus of maximum heat transfer at body-liquid cooled tubing interface. The sublimator is a vital component of the Primary Life Support System (PLSS) in the EMU. It acts as a heat sink to remove heat and humidity from the gas ventilating circuit and the liquid cooling loop of the LCVG. The deficiency of the sublimator is that the ice, used as the heat sink, sublimates into space. There is an effort to minimize water losses in the feedwater circuit of the EMU. This requires developing new concepts to design an alternative heat sink system. Efforts are directed to review and verify the heat transfer formulation of the analytical model employed by METMAN. A conceptual investigation of regenerative non-venting heat-sink subsystem for the EMU is recommended.

Karimi, Amir↗

Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Sensors for the Constellation Space Suit Life Support System for Surface Exploration

This paper presents the findings of the trade study to evaluate carbon dioxide (CO2) sensing technologies for the Constellation (Cx) space suit life support system for surface exploration. The trade study found that nondispersive infrared absorption (NDIR) is the most appropriate high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) technology for the CO2 sensor for the Cx space suit. The maturity of the technology is high, as it is the basis for the CO2 sensor in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The study further determined that while there is a range of commercial sensors available, the Cx CO2 sensor should be a new design. Specifically, there are light sources (e.g., infrared light emitting diodes) and detectors (e.g., cooled detectors) that are not in typical commercial sensors due to cost. These advanced technology components offer significant advantages in performance (weight, volume, power, accuracy) to be implemented in the new sensor. The exact sensor design (light source, transmitting optics, path length, receiving optics and detector) will be specific for the Cx space suit and will be determined by the performance requirements of the Cx space suit. The paper further identifies specifications for some of the critical performance parameters as well as discussing the engineering aspects of implementing the sensor into the Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The paper then presents testing results from three CO2 sensors with respect to issues important to Extravehicular Activity (EVA) applications; stability, humidity dependence and low pressure compatibility. The three sensors include two NDIR sensors, one commercial and one custom-developed by NASA (for a different purpose), and one commercial electrochemical sensor. The results show that both NDIR sensors have excellent stability, no dependence on ambient humidity (when the ambient temperature is above the dew point) and operate in low pressure conditions and after being exposed to a full vacuum. The commercial electrochemical sensor was not suitable for the Cx space suit for surface exploration. Finally, the paper identifies a number of techniques currently under development that offer significant advantages for EVA applications. These include miniaturized, room temperature, solid electrolyte systems and advanced optical detectors.

Dietrich, Daniel L.↗

Carbon Monoxide Accumulation in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit

Introduction: Life support technology in large closed systems like submarines and space stations catalyzes carbon monoxide (CO) to carbon dioxide, which is easily removed. However, in a small system like the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), spacesuit, CO from exogenous (contaminated oxygen (O (sub 2) supply) and endogenous (human metabolism) sources will accumulate in the free suit volume. The free volume becomes a sink for CO that is rebreathed by the astronaut. The accumulation through time depends on many variables: the amount absorbed by the astronaut, the amount produced by the astronaut (between 0.28 and 0.34 moles per hour per kilogram)[1], the amount that enters the suit from contaminated O (sub 2), the amount removed through suit leak, the free volume of the suit, and the O (sub 2) partial pressure[2], just to list a few. Contamination of the EMU O (sub 2) supply with no greater than 1 part per million CO was the motivation for empirical measurements from CO pulse oximetry (SpCO) as well as mathematical modeling of the EMU as a rebreather for CO. Methods: We developed a first-order differential mixing equation as well as an iterative method to compute CO accumulation in the EMU. Pre-post measurements of SpCO (Rad-57, Masimo Corporation) from EMU ground training and on-orbit extravehicular activities (EVAs) were collected. Results: Initial modeling without consideration of the astronaut as a sink but only the source of CO showed that after 8 hours breathing 100 percent O (sub 2) with a 10 milliliter per minute (760 millimeters Hg at 21 degrees Centigrade standard) suit leak, an endogenous production rate of 0.23 moles per hour per kilogram for a 70 kilogram person with 42 liters (1.5 cubic feet) free suit volume resulted in a peak CO partial pressure (pCO) of 0.047 millimeters Hg at 4.3 pounds per square inch absolute (222 millimeters Hg). Preliminary results based on a 2008 model[3] with consideration of the astronaut as a sink and source of CO suggests that most of the rebreathed CO stays bound to hemoglobin and myoglobin and; therefore, pCO only increased to 0.002 millimeters Hg in the EMU. Hemoglobin saturation after 8 hours was an insignificant 0.4 percent compared to about 4 percent for cigarette smokers in the general population. This preliminary modeling result supplements 11 pre-post index finger SpCO measurements from EMU ground training (mean 0.5 percent versus 1 percent, probability equal to 0.41 from paired t-test) and 10 on-orbit pre-post EVAs (mean 1.5 percent versus 1.1 percent, probability equal to 0.17 from paired t-test) that showed no consistent increase, at least no increase outside the accuracy of the oximeter (1 percent display resolution with plus or minus 3 percent Standard Deviation). Discussion: Simulations continue, but a preliminary conclusion is that rebreathing endogenous CO accumulating in the EMU is not a serious medical issue during EVA. The absence of CO poisoning signs or symptoms following hundreds of EVAs is also good empirical evidence that corroborates the limited SpCO measurements and preliminary modeling results.

Conkin, J.↗

ISS EVA80 EMU Water in the Helmet Failure and Associated Analytical Response

On March 23rd, 2022, during Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) 80 aboard the International Space Station (ISS) crew identified an 8-10-inch diameter thin film of water in the pressure bubble of the suit during repress. This launched an investigation to determine the cause of the water in the helmet as well as short- and long-term mitigation efforts to enable return to EVA as quickly as possible. The investigation analysis efforts in combination with hardware inspection and testing determined the most likely cause of the water in the helmet to be sublimator carryover as a result of high latent loading put on the system. In parallel with this investigation, efforts were being made to mitigate any future water in the helmet events. The short-term mitigation strategy developed is to install absorbent material in the pressure bubble to capture water as it enters the helmet before it can impact the astronauts. This hardware is referred to as the Helmet Absorption Band (HAB) and Helmet Absorption Pad – Extender (HAP-E). Longer-term mitigation strategies include a device to capture small water events before entering the helmet by installing a water capture system in the vent loop of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). This effort is coined the T2 Water Capture System. Additionally, developing an on-orbit sublimator challenge test which will be able to verify sublimator performance before and after EVAs. The sublimator is the hardware which condenses water vapor and removes it from the vent loop, and this hardware is referred to as the EMU Moisture Injection Test System (EMITS). Based on the investigation and short-term water capture solutions the ISS Program decided to return to nominal EVAs on October 7, 2022. With the addition of the long-term mitigation strategies, the team hopes to be able to prevent any future water in the helmet events.

Veronica Lee Pizor↗

Freeze Tolerant Radiator for an Advanced EMU

During an Extravehicular Activity (EVA), the astronaut s metabolic heat and the heat produced by the Portable Life Support Unit (PLSS) must be rejected. This heat load is currently rejected by a sublimator, which vents up to eight pounds of water each EVA. However, for advanced space missions of the future, water venting to space needs to be minimized because resupply impacts from earth will be prohibitive. If this heat load could be radiated to space from the PLSS, which has enough surface area to radiate most of the heat, the amount of water now vented could be greatly reduced. Unfortunately, a radiator rejects heat at a relatively constant rate, but the astronauts generate a variable heat load depending on how hard they are working. Without a way to vary the heat removal rate, the astronaut would experience cold discomfort or even frostbite. A proven method allowing a radiator to be turned-down is to sequentially allow tubes that carry the heat transfer fluid to the radiator to freeze. A drawback of current freezable radiators using this method is that they are far to heavy for use on a PLSS, because they use heavy construction to prevent the tubes from bursting as they freeze and thaw. This creates the need for a large radiator to reject most of the heat but with a lightweight tube that doesn t burst as it freezes and thaws. The new freezable radiator for the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) has features to accommodate the expansion of the radiator fluid when it freezes, and still have the high tube to fin conductance needed to minimize the number and weight of the tubes. Radiator fluid candidates are water and a propylene glycol-water mixture. This design maintains all materials within their elastic limits so that large volume changes can be achieved without breaking the tube. This concept couples this elastic expansion with an extremely lightweight, extremely high conductivity carbon fiber fin that can carry the heat needed to thaw a frozen tube. By using most of the exposed surface area of the PLSS as a radiator, the system can reject about 75% of the highest heat load, and reduce the loss of water through sublimation by a factor of four. The proposed radiator and a small water tank can be no heavier than the current system.

Copeland, Robert J.↗

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↗

Lunar roving vehicle magnetic tests

The qualification model of the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) was tested in the Spacecraft Magnetic Test Facility (SMTF) at the GSFC Magnetic Test Site. Magnetic field measurements were made, both with the vehicle in its as received state and also subsequent to final deperm treatment. These measurements, together with information supplied to GSFC regarding the magnetic moment of the astronaut's extravehicular mobility units (EMU's) were used to calculate 0.5 nanotesla (gamma) contours around the LRV. The results are tabulated. Magnetic field measurements were also made with various items of LRV equipment operational. No significant changes were noted, except during operation of the vehicle wheels.

Boyle, J. C.↗

Apollo operations handbook: Extravehicular mobility unit. Volume 1: System description, CSD-A-789-(1), Apollo 15-17, revision

This volume provides familiarization information essential to the operation of the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU), and describes the configuration combinations for the ATLB separable-components and the accessory contract end items. Configuration deviations may be made as dictated by specific crew/mission requirements. Operational procedures and malfunction detection procedures are found in Volume II of this handbook.

James L Gibson↗

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.↗

Extravehicular mobility unit

The Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) consisted of a highly mobile, anthropomorphic pressure vessel and a portable life support system. The EMU used for the first lunar landing is described along with the changes made in the EMU design during the program to incorporate the results of experience and to provide new capabilities. The performance of the EMU is discussed.

Maurice A. Carson↗

Payload influences on technology development and utilization of the Space Shuttle extravehicular mobility unit

Historical EVA approaches are examined. The considered data emphasize the overall importance of EVA for Shuttle payload operations. Twenty requirement categories related to crew protection, crew performance, and payload protection are listed in a table. Attention is given to a preliminary assessment of payload related requirements, an evaluation of the natural thermal environment in the case of the Shuttle orbiter bay, and the ability of the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) to protect the crewman from induced or natural radiation as found in the Van Allen radiation belt South Atlantic anomaly. On the basis of the evaluation it appears very likely that design improvements alone can make the EMU meet payload requirements without requiring significant technology advances.

Patrick, J. W.↗

Study of EVA operations associated with satellite services

Extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) factors associated with satellite servicing activities are identified and the EMU improvements necessary to enhance satellite servicing operations are outlined. Areas of EMU capabilities, equipment and structural interfaces, time lines, EMU modifications for satellite servicing, environmental hazards, and crew training are vital to manned Eva/satellite services and as such are detailed. Evaluation of EMU capabilities indicates that the EMU can be used in performing near term, basic satellite servicing tasks; however, satellite servicing is greatly enhanced by incorporating key modifications into the EMU. The servicing missions involved in contamination sensitive payload repair are illustrated. EVA procedures and equipment can be standardized, reducing both crew training time and in orbit operations time. By standardizing and coordinating procedures, mission cumulative time lines fall well within the EMU capability.

Nash, J. O.↗