Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Extravehicular Activity (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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1976

Space shuttle EVA opportunities

A technology assessment is presented on space extravehicular activities (EVA) that will be possible when the space shuttle orbiter is completed and launched. The use of EVA in payload systems design is discussed. Also discussed is space crew training. The role of EVA in connection with the Large Space Telescope and Skylab are described. The value of EVA in constructing structures in space and orbital assembly is examined. Excellent color illustrations are provided which show the proposed EVA functions that were described.

Bland, D. A., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Space Station Human Factors Research Review. Volume 1: EVA Research and Development

An overview is presented of extravehicular activity (EVA) research and development activities at Ames. The majority of the program was devoted to presentations by the three contractors working in parallel on the EVA System Phase A Study, focusing on Implications for Man-Systems Design. Overhead visuals are included for a mission results summary, space station EVA requirements and interface accommodations summary, human productivity study cross-task coordination, and advanced EVAS Phase A study implications for man-systems design. Articles are also included on subsea approach to work systems development and advanced EVA system design requirements.

Cohen, Marc M.↗
NASA NTRS2009

High-Pressure Oxygen Generation for Outpost EVA Study

The amount of oxygen consumption for crew extravehicular activity (EVA) in future lunar exploration missions will be significant. Eight technologies to provide high pressure EVA O2 were investigated. They are: high pressure O2 storage, liquid oxygen (LOX) storage followed by vaporization, scavenging LOX from Lander followed by vaporization, LOX delivery followed by sorption compression, water electrolysis followed by compression, stand-alone high pressure water electrolyzer, Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and Power Elements sharing a high pressure water electrolyzer, and ECLSS and In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Elements sharing a high pressure electrolyzer. A trade analysis was conducted comparing launch mass and equivalent system mass (ESM) of the eight technologies in open and closed ECLSS architectures. Technologies considered appropriate for the two architectures were selected and suggested for development.

Jeng, Frank F.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Utilization of ISS to Develop and Test Operational Concepts and Hardware for Low-Gravity Terrestrial EVA

NASA has considerable experience in two areas of Extravehicular Activities (EVA). The first can be defined as microgravity, orbital EVAs. This consists of everything done in low Earth orbit (LEO), from the early, proof of concept EVAs conducted during the Gemini program of the 1960s, to the complex International Space Station (ISS) assembly tasks of the first decade of the 21st century. The second area of expertise is comprised of those EVAs conducted on the lunar surface, under a gravitational force one-sixth that of Earth. This EVA expertise encapsulates two extremes - microgravity and Earthlike gravitation - but is insufficient as humans expand their exploration purview, most notably with respect to spacewalks conducted on very low-gravity bodies, such as near- Earth objects (NEO) and the moons of Mars. The operational and technical challenges of this category of EVA have yet to be significantly examined, and as such, only a small number of operational concepts have been proposed thus far. To ensure mission success, however, EVA techniques must be developed and vetted to allow the selection of operational concepts that can be utilized across an assortment of destinations whose physical characteristics vary. This paper examines the utilization of ISS-based EVAs to test operational concepts and hardware in preparation for a low-gravity terrestrial EVA. While the ISS cannot mimic some of the fundamental challenges of a low-gravity terrestrial EVA - such as rotation rate and surface composition - it may be the most effective test bed available.

Gast, Matthew A.↗
NASA NTRS2012

EVA Skills Training

Dr. Parazynski and a colleague from Extravehicular Activity (EVA), Robotics, & Crew Systems Operations (DX) worked closely to build the EVA Skills Training Program, and for the first time, defined the gold standards of EVA performance, allowing crewmembers to increase their performance significantly. As part of the program, individuals had the opportunity to learn at their own rate, taking additional water time as required, to achieve that level of performance. This focus on training to one's strengths and weaknesses to bolster them enabled the Crew Office and DX to field a much larger group of spacewalkers for the daunting "wall of EVA" required for the building and maintenance of the ISS. Parazynski also stressed the need for designers to understand the capabilities and the limitations of a human in a spacesuit, as well as opportunities to improve future generations of space. He shared lessons learned (how the Crew Office engaged in these endeavors) and illustrated the need to work as a team to develop these complex systems.

Parazynski, Scott↗
NASA NTRS2022

Recommendations for Developing Space Suit Integrated Food Systems and Delivering Nutrition Before, During, and After Lunar EVA

The concept of providing hydration and nutrition during extravehicular activity (EVA) is nearly as old as the space program itself. Astronauts currently have access to 32 ounces of water through a disposable in-suit drink bag (DIDB) while they are confined to their space suit. During the Apollo program, methods for providing food/nutrition to crewmembers in space suits were included as contingency solutions (1) but were eventually abandoned. The main reasons that provision of in-suit nutrition beyond water was discontinued after Apollo were the complicated engineering requirements, the additional mass and volume that was required for the applicable food formulations, hardware needed for a suit-specialized food system, and because the perceived need for in-suit nutrition during EVAs was not sufficient during the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) eras. A custom-made 165-kcal fruit bar was fitted into the EVA suit during the Space Shuttle program, but crewmembers rarely consumed it during the EVA and rather chose to consume it before or after suited activities (2). Since 2011, between 4 and 13 EVAs have been conducted from the ISS each year, with durations ranging from 1:32 to 8:17 hours (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/spacewalks ). It has been acceptable for the crewmembers to schedule food intake around these relatively infrequent suited activities. Because upcoming Artemis missions will include nominal 8-hour lunar exploration EVAs that are expected to increase in frequency to several (4 to 5) sorties per week (3), the desire for an in-suit nutrition system has increased. In preparation for these missions, requirements to provide in-suit nutrition has been outlined in the most recent NASA Human Spaceflight Standards documents (4). Establishing general recommendations for in-suit nutrition systems precedes the selection of a lunar EVA pressure suit system. The current document is intended to define the rationale for nutrition to support EVA (whether in-suit or from the pantry in the habitat), document the requirements, constraints, and crewmember preferences, and recommend necessary next steps for developing an in-suit EVA nutrition system. Assessments presented in this report include a review of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) food products as potential in-suit formulations, a comparison of conceptual designs for delivering nutrition to a crewmember while confined to a space suit, an evaluation of space suit volume constraints for the placement of in-suit nutrition systems, and feedback from astronauts regarding preferences for nutrition support during EVA. Based on these assessments, recommendations were formulated that can be used to help develop a method to deliver nutrition safely and acceptably to a crewmember while they are confined to a space suit for an EVA duration of up to 8 hours, and a total time in the suit of up to 12 hours.

space suit↗
NASA NTRS2011

A Dual-Chamber Hybrid Inflatable Suitlock (DCIS) for Planetary Surfaces or Deep Space

The Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) Project in conjunction with the NASA Extravehicular Activity (EVA) team has identified a need for a hybrid inflatable and hard shell suitlock that can be used for planetary surface and deep space human exploration missions. Through ongoing analog studies at NASA Desert Research and Technologies Studies (D-RATS) and in NASA's Prototyping Testbed Facility, it has been determined that a compactly stowed, deployable suitlock unit is needed to accommodate advanced EVA egress and ingress operations for various environments with only minor modification.The Dual-Chamber Inflatable Suitlock (DCIS) consists of three hard in-line bulkheads, separating two cylindrical membrane-walled compartments. A dual-compartment suitlock will allow for dust and contaminant control, suit maintenance, and efficient egress / ingress; and the inflatable aspect of the design will allow the unit to stow in a compact package for transport. This paper describes the DCIS functionality, subsystems, and operational scenarios.The novel concepts included in the DCIS are the triple bulkhead, dual-chamber that has one compartment that is continuously pressurized (either at cabin pressure, or may be used for transitional pressure from high-pressure habitats), and a nominal unpressurized second compartment where the suits will be kept for normal operations. The advantages include quicker egress / ingress, capacity for 'shirt sleeve' suit maintenance, and portability of the entire unit.

habitat demonstration unit (HUD)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue

Extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface presents unique risks to crew with possibility for injury. Without appropriate assistance or rescue capability, inability to nominally ambulate and return to a lander, especially during early Artemis missions, could have catastrophic consequences. Mapping likelihood and consequence safety risk associated with identified injury scenarios establishes a baseline from which to assess potential mitigation solutions to ensure crew health and safety. Causes leading to the need for incapacitated crew rescue (ICR) during EVA on the lunar surface were previously identified and classified using an ICR/Acute Injury scenario spectrum. Severe scenarios are those when the affected astronaut requires either partial or full continuous assistance from the rescuer. Evaluation of these continual reliance conditions included calculating event probabilities (likelihoods) associated with an early Artemis mission and mapping them to established Exploration System Directorate (ESD) probability thresholds; safety consequences were analyzed and correlated to defined ESD personnel safety categories. These resulting likelihood and consequence values served as a baseline for assessing risk reduction of three mitigation capabilities: crew assistance (rescuer crew) only, walking assist devices, and a wheeled transport device. Of the twenty-five continual reliance conditions, ten were evaluated as “catastrophic” (Level 5, loss of life) during EVA on the lunar surface with probabilities ranging from moderate to very low during an early Artemis mission. Crew assistance only and walking assist devices showed similar potential for risk reduction, with four of the ten causes decreasing to Level 4. A wheeled transport device further increased risk reduction with six of the ten conditions decreasing to Level 4. Given the catastrophic consequence of several identified conditions, assessments should be performed to determine the feasibility of mitigation capabilities. It is currently unknown whether a rescuer astronaut could effectively provide continuous assistance to enable both crew to return safely to the lander from the standpoint of both suit geometry and human performance. Although resulting in an increase in resources, providing a wheeled transport provides the highest risk reduction potential, and walking assist devices may have prevention as well as mitigation benefits.

lunar surface↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division at NASA JSC was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glove Box (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 10^-5 Torr with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of shroud temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater plates. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through the development of 2 temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits↗
NASA NTRS2019

Monolithic Trace-Contaminant Sorbents Fabricated from 3D-Printed Polymer Precursors

The current trace-contaminant (TC) removal technology for use in Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) involves the use of a packed bed of acid-impregnated granular charcoal, which is difficult to regenerate. In this paper, results are presented on the development of vacuum-regenerable TC sorbents for use in the Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The sorbents are derived from 3D-printed polymer monoliths (e.g., honeycomb structures), which are then carbonized and activated in order to develop porosity, and also to enhance the TC-sorption capacity. Results are presented on the following aspects of carbon-sorbent development: (1) precursor selection; (2) monolith fabrication; (3) shape retention and strength; (4) carbon surface and porosity characterization; (5) TC-sorption capacity and vacuum-regeneration; (6) pressure drop; and (7) sub-scale sorbent prototype. The use of predominantly microporous monolithic carbon is associated with the following benefits: (a) high TC-sorption capacity; (b) low pressure drop; (c) rapid vacuum (pressure-swing) desorption due to thin monolith walls and low pressure drop; (d) good thermal management (high thermal conductivity and low adsorption/desorption thermal effects associated with physisorption); and (e) good resistance to dusty environments.

Portable Life Support System (PLSS)↗
NASA NTRS2024

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station (ISS), the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms and gloves in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glovebox (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 5x10-4 Torr (0.066 Pa) with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater cables. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through two temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Extravehicular Activity (EVA)↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station (ISS), the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms and gloves in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glovebox (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 5x10-4 Torr (0.066 Pa) with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater cables. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through two temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Extravehicular Activity (EVA)↗
NASA NTRS1993

Potential roles for EVA and telerobotics in a unified worksite

Although telerobotics and extravehicular activity (EVA) are often portrayed as competitive approaches to space operations, ongoing research in the Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) has demonstrated the utility of cooperative roles in an integrated EVA/telerobotic work site. Working in the neutral buoyancy simulation environment, tests were performed on interactive roles or EVA subjects and telerobots in structural assembly and satellite servicing tasks. In the most elaborate of these tests to date, EVA subjects were assisted by the SSL's Beam Assembly Teleoperator (BAT) in several servicing tasks planned for Hubble Space Telescope, using the high-fidelity crew training article in the NASA Marshall Neutral Buoyancy Simulator. These tests revealed several shortcomings in the design of BAT for satellite servicing and demonstrated the utility of a free-flying or RMS-mounted telerobot for providing EVA crew assistance. This paper documents the past tests, including the use of free-flying telerobots to effect the rescue of a simulated incapacitated EVA subject, and details planned future efforts in this area, including the testing of a new telerobotic system optimized for the satellite servicing role, the development of dedicated telerobotic devices designed specifically for assisting EVA crew, and conceptual approaches to advanced EVA/telerobotic operations such as the Astronaut Operations Vehicle.

Akin, David↗
NASA NTRS2000

Design of a 2-Hour Prebreathe Protocol for Space Walks (EVAs) from the International Space Station (ISS)

The majority of extravehicular activities (EVAs) performed from the shuttle use a 10.2 psi staged decompression. The International Space Station (ISS) will operate at 14.7 psi, requiring crews to "campout" in the airlock at 10.2 psi. The constraints associated with campout (crew isolation, oxygen usage, and waste management), provided the rationale to develop a 2-hour prebreathe protocol from 14.7 psi. Previous studies on the affect of microgravity and exercise during prebreathe suggested the feasibility of this approach. Various combinations of adynamia (nonwalking subjects), prebreathe exercise doses, and space suit donning options (10.2 vs. 14.7 psi) were analyzed against timeline and consumable constraints. Prospective decompression sickness (DCS) and venous gas emboli (VGE) accept/reject criteria were defined from statistical analysis of historical DCS data, combined with risk management of DCS under ISS mission circumstances. Maximum operational DCS levels were defined based on protecting for EVA capability with two crew members at 95% confidence, throughout ISS lifetime (within the constraints of NASA DCS disposition policy JPG 1800.3). The accept / reject limits were adjusted for greater safety (including Grade IV VGE criteria) based on analysis of related medical factors. Monte-Carlo simulation was performed to design a closed sequential, multi-center laboratory trial, including the capability of rejecting the primary protocol and testing at least one alternate exercise dose, within the 2-hour prebreathe. The 2-hour protocol incorporates 0, breathing for 5 0 min at 14.7 psi, including 10 min dual cycle ergometry at 75%VO(2max). It requires an additional 30 minO2breathing during depress from 14.7 to 10.2 psi, followed by a 30-60 min suit donning break at 10.2 psi/26.5% O2. It concludes with a 40 min in-suit O2 prebreathe. The protocol would be accepted for operations, if the incidence of DCS was less than 15% and Grade IV VGE less than 20%, both at 95% confidence. The above protocol and accept/reject limits were implemented in a multi-center study.

Gernhardt, M. L.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Shallow-Water Nitrox Diving, the NASA Experience

NASA s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) contains a 6.2 million gallon, 12-meter deep pool where astronauts prepare for space missions involving space walks (extravehicular activity EVA). Training is conducted in a space suit (extravehicular mobility unit EMU) pressurized to 4.0 - 4.3 PSI for up to 6.5 hours while breathing a 46% NITROX mix. Since the facility opened in 1997, over 30,000 hours of suited training has been completed with no occurrence of decompression sickness (DCS) or oxygen toxicity. This study examines the last 5 years of astronaut suited training runs. All suited runs are computer monitored and data is recorded in the Environmental Control System (ECS) database. Astronaut training runs from 2004 - 2008 were reviewed and specific data including total run time, maximum depth and average depth were analyzed. One hundred twenty seven astronauts and cosmonauts completed 2,231 training runs totaling 12,880 exposure hours. Data was available for 96% of the runs. It was revealed that the suit configuration produces a maximum equivalent air depth of 7 meters, essentially eliminating the risk of DCS. Based on average run depth and time, approximately 17% of the training runs exceeded the NOAA oxygen maximum single exposure limits, with no resulting oxygen toxicity. The NBL suited training protocols are safe and time tested. Consideration should be given to reevaluate the NOAA oxygen exposure limits for PO2 levels at or below 1 ATA.

Fitzpatrick, Daniel T.↗
NASA NTRS2001

An Experimental Investigation of Dextrous Robots Using EVA Tools and Interfaces

This investigation of robot capabilities with extravehicular activity (EVA) equipment looks at how improvements in dexterity are enabling robots to perform tasks once thought to be beyond machines. The approach is qualitative, using the Robonaut system at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), performing task trials that offer a quick look at this system's high degree of dexterity and the demands of EVA. Specific EVA tools attempted include tether hooks, power torque tools, and rock scoops, as well as conventional tools like scissors, wire strippers, forceps, and wrenches. More complex EVA equipment was also studied, with more complete tasks that mix tools, EVA hand rails, tethers, tools boxes, PIP pins, and EVA electrical connectors. These task trials have been ongoing over an 18 month period, as the Robonaut system evolved to its current 43 degree of freedom (DOF) configuration, soon to expand to over 50. In each case, the number of teleoperators is reported, with rough numbers of attempts and their experience level, with a subjective difficulty rating assigned to each piece of EVA equipment and function. JSC' s Robonaut system was successful with all attempted EVA hardware, suggesting new options for human and robot teams working together in space.

Ambrose, Robert↗
NASA NTRS2011

Shoulder Injuries in US Astronauts Related to EVA Suit Design

Introduction: For every one hour spent performing extravehicular activity (EVA) in space, astronauts in the US space program spend approximately six to ten hours training in the EVA spacesuit at NASA-Johnson Space Center's Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL). In 1997, NASA introduced the planar hard upper torso (HUT) EVA spacesuit which subsequently replaced the existing pivoted HUT. An extra joint in the pivoted shoulder allows increased mobility but also increased complexity. Over the next decade a number of astronauts developed shoulder problems requiring surgical intervention, many of whom performed EVA training in the NBL. This study investigated whether changing HUT designs led to shoulder injuries requiring surgical repair. Methods: US astronaut EVA training data and spacesuit design employed were analyzed from the NBL data. Shoulder surgery data was acquired from the medical record database, and causal mechanisms were obtained from personal interviews Analysis of the individual HUT designs was performed as it related to normal shoulder biomechanics. Results: To date, 23 US astronauts have required 25 shoulder surgeries. Approximately 48% (11/23) directly attributed their injury to training in the planar HUT, whereas none attributed their injury to training in the pivoted HUT. The planar HUT design limits shoulder abduction to 90 degrees compared to approximately 120 degrees in the pivoted HUT. The planar HUT also forces the shoulder into a forward flexed position requiring active retraction and extension to increase abduction beyond 90 degrees. Discussion: Multiple factors are associated with mechanisms leading to shoulder injury requiring surgical repair. Limitations to normal shoulder mechanics, suit fit, donning/doffing, body position, pre-existing injury, tool weight and configuration, age, in-suit activity, and HUT design have all been identified as potential sources of injury. Conclusion: Crewmembers with pre-existing or current shoulder injuries or certain anthropometric body types should conduct NBL EVA training in the pivoted HUT.

Scheuring, R. A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

EMU Lessons Learned Database

As manned space exploration takes on the task of traveling beyond low Earth orbit, many problems arise that must be solved in order to make the journey possible. One major task is protecting humans from the harsh space environment. The current method of protecting astronauts during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) is through use of the specially designed Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). As more rigorous EVA conditions need to be endured at new destinations, the suit will need to be tailored and improved in order to accommodate the astronaut. The Objective behind the EMU Lessons Learned Database(LLD) is to be able to create a tool which will assist in the development of next-generation EMUs, along with maintenance and improvement of the current EMU, by compiling data from Failure Investigation and Analysis Reports (FIARs) which have information on past suit failures. FIARs use a system of codes that give more information on the aspects of the failure, but if one is unfamiliar with the EMU they will be unable to decipher the information. A goal of the EMU LLD is to not only compile the information, but to present it in a user-friendly, organized, searchable database accessible to all familiarity levels with the EMU; both newcomers and veterans alike. The EMU LLD originally started as an Excel database, which allowed easy navigation and analysis of the data through pivot charts. Creating an entry requires access to the Problem Reporting And Corrective Action database (PRACA), which contains the original FIAR data for all hardware. FIAR data are then transferred to, defined, and formatted in the LLD. Work is being done to create a web-based version of the LLD in order to increase accessibility to all of Johnson Space Center (JSC), which includes converting entries from Excel to the HTML format. FIARs related to the EMU have been completed in the Excel version, and now focus has shifted to expanding FIAR data in the LLD to include EVA tools and support hardware such as the Pistol Grip Tool (PGT) and the Battery Charger Module (BCM), while adding any recently closed EMU-related FIARs.

Matthews, Kevin M., Jr.↗