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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 973 records · Page 54

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2013

Exploration Space Suit Architecture and Destination Environmental-Based Technology Development

This paper continues forward where EVA Space Suit Architecture: Low Earth Orbit Vs. Moon Vs. Mars left off in the development of a space suit architecture that is modular in design and could be reconfigured prior to launch or during any given mission depending on the tasks or destination. This space suit system architecture and technologies required based on human exploration (EVA) destinations will be discussed, and how these systems should evolve to meet the future exploration EVA needs of the US human space flight program. A series of exercises and analyses provided a strong indication that the Constellation Program space suit architecture, with its maximum reuse of technology and functionality across a range of mission profiles and destinations, is postured to provide a viable solution for future space exploration missions. The destination environmental analysis demonstrates that the modular architecture approach could provide the lowest mass and mission cost for the protection of the crew, given any human mission outside of low-Earth orbit. Additionally, some of the high-level trades presented here provide a review of the environmental and nonenvironmental design drivers that will become increasingly important as humans venture farther from Earth. The presentation of destination environmental data demonstrates a logical clustering of destination design environments that allows a focused approach to technology prioritization, development, and design that will maximize the return on investment, largely independent of any particular design reference mission.

Hill, Terry R.↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Novel Method for Characterizing Spacesuit Mobility through Metabolic Cost

Spacesuit mobility has historically been defined and characterized by a combination of range of motion and joint torque of the individual anatomical joints when performing isolated motions meant to drive that joint only in a given orthogonal plane. While this has been the standard approach for several decades, there are numerous shortcomings that suit designers and engineers would like to see rectified. First, the lack of a standardized method for collecting both range of motion and joint torque translates to many different test setups, procedures and methods of data analysis. Second, all of these previously used methods for data collection lack some degree of repeatability, even within the same test setup and the same conductor; in addition, attempts at higher fidelity data collection techniques require high overhead and cost with minimal improvement. Lastly, isolated motions in standard anatomical planes are not representative of real‐world tasks that a crewmember would be performing during an EVA, be it microgravity or surface exploration based. To address these shortcomings, options are being explored within the Space Suit and Crew Survival Systems Branch to ascertain the feasibility of an alternative approach to defining mobility - one that is more repeatable, lower overhead, and more tied to functional EVA tasks. This paper serves to document the first attempt at such an alternative option - one that looks at the metabolic energy‐cost of a spacesuit. In other words, can we objectively compare the mobility of a spacesuit by evaluating the metabolic cost of that suit to the wearer while performing a battery of functional EVA tasks?

McFarland, Shane↗

NASA NTRS2014

Co-op Essay - Tour 1

The Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) is responsible for the training, planning and performance of all U.S. manned operations in space. Within this directorate all responsibilities are divided up into divisions. The EVA, Robotics & Crew Systems Operations Division performs ground operations and trains astronauts to carry out some of the more "high action" procedures in space. For example they orchestrate procedures like EVAs, or ExtraVehicular Activities (spacewalks), and robotics operations external to the International Space Station (ISS). The robotics branch of this division is responsible for the use of the Mobile Servicing System (MSS). This system is a combination of two robotic mechanisms and a series of equipment used to transport them on the ISS. The MSS is used to capture and position visiting vehicles, transport astronauts during EVAs, and perform external maintenance tasks on the ISS. This branch consists of two groups which are responsible for crew training and flight controlling, respectively. My first co-op tour took place Fall 2013. During this time I was given the opportunity to work in the robotics operations branch of the Mission Operations Directorate at NASA's Johnson Space Center. I was given a variety of tasks that encompassed, at a base level, all the aspects of the branch.

Porter, Derrick↗

NASA NTRS2015

Continued Advancement of Supported Liquid Membranes for Carbon Dioxide Control in Extravehicular Activity Applications

The development of a new, robust, portable life support system (PLSS) is a high priority for NASA in order to support longer and safer extravehicular activity (EVA) missions. One of the critical PLSS functions is maintaining the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the suit at acceptable levels. Although the Metal Oxide (MetOx) canister has historically performed very well, it has a finite CO2 adsorption capacity. Therefore, the size and weight of the unit would have to be increased to extend EVA times. Consequently, new CO2 control technologies must be developed in order to meet mission objectives without increasing the size of the PLSS. Recent work has centered on sorbents that can be regenerated during the EVA; however, this strategy increases the system complexity and power consumption. A much simpler approach is to employ a membrane that vents CO2 to space and retains oxygen (O2). A membrane has many advantages over current technology: it is a continuous system with no limit on capacity, it requires no consumables, and it does not need any hardware to switch beds between absorption and regeneration. Unfortunately, conventional gas separation membranes do not have the needed selectivity for use in the PLSS. However, the required performance could be obtained with a supported liquid membrane (SLM), which consists of a microporous material filled with a liquid that selectively reacts with CO2 over O2. In a recently completed Phase II SBIR project, Reaction Systems, Inc. achieved the required CO2 permeance and selectivity with an SLM in a flat sheet configuration. This paper describes work to convert the SLM into a more compact form and to scale it up to handle more representative process flow rates.

Wickham, David T.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Human and Robotic Exploration Missions to Phobos Prior to Crewed Mars Surface Missions

Phobos is a scientifically significant destination that would facilitate the development and operation of the human Mars transportation infrastructure, unmanned cargo delivery systems and other Mars surface systems. In addition to developing systems relevant to Mars surface missions, Phobos offers engineering, operational, and public engagement opportunities that could enhance subsequent Mars surface operations. These opportunities include the use of low latency teleoperations to control Mars surface assets associated with exploration science, human landing‐site selection and infrastructure development which may include in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to provide liquid oxygen for the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). A human mission to Mars' moons would be preceded by a cargo predeploy of a surface habitat and a pressurized excursion vehicle (PEV) to Mars orbit. Once in Mars orbit, the habitat and PEV would spiral to Phobos using solar electric propulsion based systems, with the habitat descending to the surface and the PEV remaining in orbit. When a crewed mission is launched to Phobos, it would include the remaining systems to support the crew during the Earth‐Mars transit and to reach Phobos after insertion in to Mars orbit. The crew would taxi from Mars orbit to Phobos to join with the predeployed systems in a spacecraft that is based on a MAV, dock with and transfer to the PEV in Phobos orbit, and descend in the PEV to the surface habitat. A static Phobos surface habitat was chosen as a baseline architecture, in combination with the PEV that was used to descend from orbit as the main exploration vehicle. The habitat would, however, have limited capability to relocate on the surface to shorten excursion distances required by the PEV during exploration and to provide rescue capability should the PEV become disabled. To supplement exploration capabilities of the PEV, the surface habitat would utilize deployable EVA support structures that allow astronauts to work from portable foot restraints or body restrain tethers in the vicinity of the habitat. Prototype structures were tested as part of NEEMO 20. PEVs would contain closed loop guidance and provide life support and consumables for two crew for 2 weeks plus reserves. The PEV has a cabin that uses the exploration atmosphere of 8.2 psi with 34% oxygen, enabling use of suit ports for rapid EVA with minimal oxygen prebreathe as well as dust control by keeping the suits outside the pressurized volume. When equipped with outriggers and control moment gyros, the PEV enables EVA tasks of up to 8 pounds of force application without the need to anchor. Tasks with higher force requirements can be performed with PEV propulsion providing the necessary thrust to react forces. Exploration of Phobos builds heavily from the developments of the cis‐lunar proving ground, and significantly reduces Mars surface risk by facilitating the development and testing of habitats, MAVs, and pressurized rover cabins that are all Mars surface forward. A robotic precursor mission to Phobos and Deimos is also under consideration and would need to launch in 2022 to support a 2031 human Phobos mission.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Risk of Adverse Health and Performance Effects of Celestial Dust Exposure

Crew members can be directly exposed to celestial dust in several ways. After crew members perform extravehicular activities (EVAs), they may introduce into the habitat dust that will have collected on spacesuits and boots. Cleaning of the suits between EVAs and changing of the Environmental Control Life Support System filters are other operations that could result in direct exposure to celestial dusts. In addition, if the spacesuits used in exploration missions abrade the skin, as current EVA suits have, then contact with these wounds would provide a source of exposure. Further, if celestial dusts gain access to a suit's interior, as was the case during the Apollo missions, the dust could serve as an additional source of abrasions or enhance suit-induced injuries. When a crew leaves the surface of a celestial body and returns to microgravity, the dust that is introduced into the return vehicle will "float," thus increasing the opportunity for ocular and respiratory injury. Because the features of the respirable fraction of lunar dusts indicate they could be toxic to humans, NASA conducted several studies utilizing lunar dust simulants and authentic lunar dust to determine the unique properties of lunar dust that affect physiology, assess the dermal and ocular irritancy of the dust, and establish a permissible exposure limit for episodic exposure to airborne lunar dust during missions that would involve no more than 6 months stay on the lunar surface. Studies, with authentic lunar soils from both highland (Apollo 16) and mare (Apollo17) regions demonstrated that the lunar soil is highly abrasive to a high fidelity model of human skin. Studies of lunar dust returned during the Apollo 14 mission from an area of the moon in which the soils were comprised of mineral constituents from both major geological regions (highlands and mares regions) demonstrated only minimal ocular irritancy, and pulmonary toxicity that was less than the highly toxic terrestrial crystalline silica (Permissible Exposure Limit [PEL] 0.05 mg/m3) but more toxic than the nuisance dust titanium dioxide (TiO2 [PEL 5.0 mg/m3]). A PEL for episodic exposure to airborne lunar dust during a six-month stay on the lunar surface was established, in consultation with an independent, extramural panel of expert pulmonary toxicologists, at 0.3 mg/m3. The PEL provided for lunar dust is limited to the conditions and exposure specified therefore additional research remains to be accomplished with lunar dust to further address the issues of activation, address other areas of more unique lunar geology (Glotch et al., 2010; Greenhagen et al., 2010), examine potential toxicological effects of inhaled or ingested dust upon other organ systems, such cardiovascular, nervous systems, and examine effects of acute exposure to massive doses of dust such as may occur during off-nominal situations. Work to support the establishment of PELs for Martian dust and dusts of asteroids remains to be accomplished. The literature that describes health effects of exposure to toxic terrestrial dusts provides substantial basis for concern that prolonged exposure to respirable celestial dust could be detrimental to human health. Celestial bodies where a substantial portion of the dust is in the respirable range or where the dusts have large reactive surface areas or contain transition metals or volatile organics, represent greater risks of adverse effects from exposure to the dust. It is possible that in addition to adverse effects to the respiratory system, inhalation and ingestion of celestial dusts could pose risks to other systems

Scully, Robert R.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

The space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 represents the second integrated prototype developed and tested to mature a design that uses advanced technologies to reduce consumables, improve robustness, and provide additional capabilities over the current state of the art. PLSS 2.0 was developed in 2012, with extensive functional evaluations and system performance testing through mid-2014. In late 2014, PLSS 2.0 was integrated with the Mark III space suit in an ambient laboratory environment to facilitate manned testing, designated PLSS 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) testing, in which the PLSS prototype performed the primary life support functions, including suit pressure regulation, ventilation, carbon dioxide control, and cooling of the test subject and PLSS avionics. The intent of this testing was to obtain subjective test subject feedback regarding qualitative aspects of PLSS 2.0 performance such as thermal comfort, sounds, smells, and suit pressure fluctuations due to the cycling carbon dioxide removal system, as well as to collect PLSS performance data over a range of human metabolic rates from 500-3000 Btu/hr. Between October 27 and December 18, 2014, nineteen two-hour simulated EVA test points were conducted in which suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to achieve a target metabolic rate. Six test subjects simulated nominal and emergency EVA conditions with varied test parameters including metabolic rate profile, carbon dioxide removal control mode, cooling water temperature, and Liquid Cooling and Ventilation Garment (state of the art or prototype). The nineteen test points achieved more than 60 hours of test time, with 36 hours accounting for simulated EVA time. The PLSS 2.0 test article performed nominally throughout the test series, confirming design intentions for the advanced PLSS. Test subjects' subjective feedback provided valuable insight into thermal comfort and perceptions of suit pressure fluctuations that will influence future advanced PLSS design and testing strategies.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Unmanned Vacuum Environment Testing

For the first time in more than 30 years, an advanced space suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) design was operated inside a vacuum chamber representative of the flight operating environment. The test article, PLSS 2.0, was the second system-level integrated prototype of the advanced PLSS design, following the PLSS 1.0 Breadboard that was developed and tested throughout 2011. Whereas PLSS 1.0 included five technology development components with the balance the system simulated using commercial-off-the-shelf items, PLSS 2.0 featured first generation or later prototypes for all components less instrumentation, tubing and fittings. Developed throughout 2012, PLSS 2.0 was the first attempt to package the system into a flight-like representative volume. PLSS 2.0 testing included an extensive functional evaluation known as Pre-Installation Acceptance (PIA) testing, Human-in-the-Loop testing in which the PLSS 2.0 prototype was integrated via umbilicals to a manned prototype space suit for 19 two-hour simulated EVAs, and unmanned vacuum environment testing. Unmanned vacuum environment testing took place from 1/9/15-7/9/15 with PLSS 2.0 located inside a vacuum chamber. Test sequences included performance mapping of several components, carbon dioxide removal evaluations at simulated intravehicular activity (IVA) conditions, a regulator pressure schedule assessment, and culminated with 25 simulated extravehicular activities (EVAs). During the unmanned vacuum environment test series, PLSS 2.0 accumulated 378 hours of integrated testing including 291 hours of operation in a vacuum environment and 199 hours of simulated EVA time. The PLSS prototype performed nominally throughout the test series, with two notable exceptions including a pump failure and a Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator (SWME) leak, for which post-test failure investigations were performed. In addition to generating an extensive database of PLSS 2.0 performance data, achievements included requirements and operational concepts verification, as well as demonstration of vehicular interfaces, consumables sizing and recharge, and water quality control.

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS2012

Personal Background Interview of Jim McBarron

Jim McBarron exhibits a wealth of knowledge gathered from more than 40 years of experience with NASA, EVA, and spacesuits. His biography, progression of work at NASA, impact on EVA and the U.S. spacesuit, and career accomplishments are of interest to many. Wright, from the JSC History Office, conducted a personal background interview with McBarron. This interview highlighted the influences and decision-making methods that impacted McBarron's technical and management contributions to the space program. Attendees gained insight on the external and internal NASA influences on career progression within the EVA and spacesuit, and the type of accomplishments and technical advances that committed individuals can make. He concluded the presentation with a question and answer period that included a brief discussion about close calls and Russian spacesuits.

McBarron, Jim↗

NASA NTRS2016

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) 2.0 Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Testing

Watts, Carly↗

NASA NTRS1984

41-G Mission Report - Summary

Challenger's sixth flight launched from KSC at 6:03 CDT October 5, 1984. It returned to Kennedy eight days later, landing on October 13th. Since 41-G was a planned EVA flight, two prime EMUs and one backup short EMU were stowed in the Airlock. No MMUs were carried. Astronaut A and Astronaut B successfully accomplished their 3 l/2 hour EVA on October 11th, Flight Day 7 of the mission. This EVA took place the day after the EMU Checkout and Maintenance Recharge activities. During this time Astronaut A and Astronaut B completed the planned installation of the Orbital Refueling System Ball Valve mod kit as well as an unplanned activity of locking the gimbals on the Ku-Band antenna. They each performed quite well in their EMUs.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2017

Modeling Oxygen Prebreathe Protocols for Exploration Extravehicular Activities Using Variable Pressure Suits

Exploration missions are expected to use variable pressure extravehicular activity (EVA) spacesuits as well as a spacecraft "exploration atmosphere" of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, both of which provide the possibility of reducing the oxygen prebreathe times necessary to reduce decompression sickness (DCS) risk. Previous modeling work predicted 8.4% DCS risk for an EVA beginning at the exploration atmosphere, followed by 15 minutes of in-suit O2 prebreathe, and 6 hours of EVA at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psia). In this study we model notional prebreathe protocols for a variable pressure suit where the exploration atmosphere is unavailable.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Determining Thermal Capabilities for External Transfer Operations on the International Space Station

External transfers on the International Space Station (ISS) have a degree of difficulty caused by the severity of the radiative thermal environment and the complexity of the operational choreography to perform the installation and activation of the hardware. These transfers can be performed robotically, by astronauts during an Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA - spacewalk), or combination of robotic/crew operations. Robotic transfers may include capability to intermittently power the hardware; while the hardware remains unpowered for EVA operations. Robotic transfers can be staged to occur in a favorable thermal environment, though typically take longer than a transfer by crew during an EVA where the hardware may not be robotically compatible. The hardware is under passive thermal control, use of optics/multi-layer insulation/heaters, while being transferred from/to a visiting vehicle, airlock, stowage platform, or external ISS structure and may include additional design components, such as removable protective blankets, to meet the transfer requirements. Thermal analysis must be performed to determine the capability of the hardware being transferred to provide the Mission Control team the products necessary to plan and execute the operation while establishing an awareness for any contingency response. An overview of the thermal aspects in planning these types of transfer operations, the analytical approaches and assumptions, and examples of results are provided in this paper.

Thermal↗

NASA NTRS2018

A Prototype Tool for Assessing Forward Contamination from Space Suits

Crewed exploration missions dramatically increase the capability for large-scale sample collection and return activities, but they also increase the possibility and likelihood of forward contamination. Systematic research on forward contamination from uncrewed spacecraft has steadily progressed since the Viking missions, but parallel research on contamination from space suits has not. Current space suits have leakage rates as high as 100 cc gas/min., but it is unclear how many or what types of microbes are exiting the suits along with this gas. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype swab tool that is capable of maintaining sterility during pressure changes associated with entering and exiting vacuum. The primary objective of recent Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Swab Kit testing is to characterize the type of microorganisms typically found on spacesuit external surfaces under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-associated microorganisms can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 μm gap. Understanding potential leak paths will inform future hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of microorganisms 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. The results of EVA suit molecular microbial community analyses will inform NASA exploration mission operations and hardware design, and help close Strategic Knowledge Gap B5, Forward Contamination to Mars.

Rucker, M.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Extravehicular Activity Micormeteoroid and Orbital Debris Risk Assessment Methodology

A well-known hazard associated with exposure to the space environment is the risk of vehicle failure due to an impact from an micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particle. Among the vehicles of importance to NASA is the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuit” used while performing a US extravehicular activity (EVA). An EMU impact is of great concern as a large leak could prevent an astronaut from safely reaching the airlock in time resulting in a loss of life. For this reason, a risk assessment is provided to the EVA office at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) prior to certification of readiness for each US EVA. To assess the risk of failure, a detailed finite element model (FEM) of the EMU has been created which has regions for the various shielding configurations. Each shielding configuration is based on the layers and materials over the innermost bladder layer that maintains the acceptable atmospheric environment for the astronaut. Ballistic limit equations (BLE) for each shielding configuration have been determined from hypervelocity impact testing of samples of the EMU layup.

Hoffman, K. D.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Extravehicular Activity Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk Assessment Methodology

A well-known hazard associated with exposure to the space environment is the risk of vehicle failure due to an impact from a micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particle. Among the vehicles of importance to NASA is the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuit” used while performing a US extravehicular activity (EVA). An EMU impact is of great concern as a large leak could prevent an astronaut from safely reaching the airlock in time resulting in a loss of life. For this reason, a risk assessment is provided to the EVA office at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) prior to certification of readiness for each US EVA.

Hoffman, Kevin D.↗

NASA NTRS2019

The "Space Activity Suit" - A Historical Perspective and A Primer on the Physiology of Mechanical Counter-Pressure

Since the 1950s, mechanical counter-pressure (MCP) has been investigated as a possible alternative design concept to traditional extra-vehicular activity (EVA) space suits. While traditional gas-pressurized EVA suits provide physiological protection against the ambient vacuum by means of pressurized oxygen to at least 3.1 pounds per square inch absolute (160 millimeters of mercury), MCP provides protection by direct application of pressure on the skin by a fabric. In reviewing the concept, MCP offers distinct potential advantages to traditional EVA suits: lower mass, reduced consumables, increased mobility, increased comfort, less complexity, and improved failure modes. In the mid 1960s to early 1970s, Dr. Paul Webb of Webb Associates developed and tested such a suit under funding from NASA Langley Research Center. This "Space Activity Suit" (SAS) was improved many times while testing in the laboratory and an altitude chamber to as low as 0.3 pounds per square inch absolute (15 millimeters of mercury). This testing, and the reports by Webb documenting it, are often presented as evidence of the feasibility of MCP. In addition, the SAS reports contain a wealth of information regarding the physiological requirements to make MCP work at the time, which is still accurate today. This paper serves to document the Space Activity Suit effort and analyze it in today's context.

McFarland, Shane M.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Psychophysiological Monitoring of Aerospace Crew State

As next-generation space exploration missions necessitate increasingly autonomous systems, there is a critical need to better detect and anticipate crewmember interactions with these systems. The success of present and future autonomous technology in exploration spaceflight is ultimately dependent upon safe and efficient interaction with the human operator. Optimal interaction is particularly important for surface missions during highly coordinated extravehicular activity (EVA), which consists of high physical and cognitive demands with limited ground support. Crew functional state may be affected by a number of variables including workload, stress, and motivation. Real-time assessments of crew state that do not require a crewmember’s time and attention to complete will be especially important to assess operational performance and behavioral health during flight. In response to the need for objective, passive assessment of crew state, the aim of this work is to develop an accurate and precise prediction model of human functional state for surface EVA using multi-modal psychophysiological sensing. The psychophysiological monitoring approach relies on extracting a set of features from physiological signals and using these features to classify an operator’s cognitive state. This work aims to compile a non-invasive sensor suite to collect physiological data in real-time. Training data during cognitive and more complex functional tasks will be used to develop a classifier to discriminate high and low cognitive workload crew states. The classifier will then be tested in an operationally relevant EVA simulation to predict cognitive workload over time. Once a crew state is determined, further research into specific countermeasures, such as decision support systems, would be necessary to optimize the automation and improve crew state and operational performance.

Wusk, Grace C.↗