Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “EVA”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigating Risks Due to Artemis EVA Tempo Via Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Spaceflight operations pose unique challenges to crew health, safety, and resource management. As space agencies and private companies continue to push the boundaries of human exploration, it is essential to understand the risks associated with Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) and develop strategies to mitigate them. The tempo at which EVAs are conducted – the total number and frequency of these activities – can have a profound impact on medical risks, resource consumption, and overall mission success. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) provides a powerful framework for evaluating complex systems and identifying potential hazards. Our work employs the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) [1] to simulate mission events, occurrence and treatment of medical conditions, and track the utilization of resources. Coupled with the Evidence Library [2], a medical evidence base for exploration-class missions developed by the Exploration Medical Capability within NASA’s Human Research Program, we can estimate these risks with increased fidelity and optimize medical kit contents to meet specific mission requirements. This presentation provides a detailed examination of how EVA tempo influences medical risk estimates for a lunar surface design reference mission. A comprehensive analysis is conducted to assess the additional mass and volume burden imposed on medical kits required to maintain adequate levels of risk mitigation. Furthermore, we estimate the distribution of the number of successful EVAs completed based on the level of task impairment imposed by medical events and flight rules related to specific medical events, such as decompression sickness.

Modeling↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The History of EVA Safety at NASA

With NASA’s past and current involvement in Human Space Exploration in low Earth orbit and on the Moon, in lunar orbit and on the surface in the near future, and interplanetary space and the surface of Mars in the coming decades, the safety of the crew during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) remains paramount. EVAs during human space flight will challenge the crew and Mission Control for not only maintenance and reliability tasks but also exploration activities during a mission. Outside of launch and landing, EVA is the most dangerous crewed operation during a mission, making proper safety measures essential. This paper will explore how EVA safety operations havebeen managed throughout NASA’s history during the Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle programs, how it is currently being managed for the International Space Station Program, and how these methods are planned to be utilized for Exploration efforts for human space flight into the future. Understanding the theory and processes that led to the documented safety requirements in the past and present will give insight into how to manage Exploration operations in the future, and may lead to process improvement with the advancements of technology in work today.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS2008

EVA Hand Tool Design Considerations, Development, and General Requirements Interpretation: A Junior Engineer’s Guide

This paper serves as a guide to developing hand tools for use by crewmembers during extravehicular activity (EVA) in outer space. It outlines the fundamentals of EVAs and related provisions, providing a starting point and perspective for engineers unfamiliar with designing equipment to be used during manned spaceflight. Common EVA hardware constraints, which are often unclear, are interpreted and traced back to a source or justification because, as in any design field, fully understanding the basis and intent of a design requirement is needed to properly satisfy it. Lastly, miscellaneous design considerations and lessons learned in tool development are discussed. The information found within is drawn from commonly cited NASA and EVA related documents as well as from professional experiences.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS1974

The role of EVA on Space Shuttle

The purpose of this paper is to present the history of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) through the Skylab Program and to outline the expected tasks and equipment capabilities projected for the Space Shuttle Program. Advantages offered by EVA as a tool to extend payload capabilities and effectiveness and economic advantages of using EVA will be explored. The presentation will conclude with some guidelines and recommendations for consideration by payload investigators in establishing concepts and designs utilizing EVA support.

Carson, M. A.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Shuttle EVA description and design criteria

The STS extravehicular mobility unit, orbiter EVA provisions, EVA equipment, factors affecting employment of EVA, EVA mission integration, baselined extravehicular activity are discussed. Design requirements are also discussed.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1984

Crew and life support: EVA

Four general recommendations by the EVA subpanel are listed as follows: 1) EVA design standard document needs to be dveloped in the next 6 to 12 months and updated as technology progresses. 2) NASA needs to couple EVA design personnel closer to the user community. 3) there appears to be a lack of centralized NASA responsibility for the EVA community. 4) Panel activity should continue to promote exchange of information and understanding of user problems, and to stimulate technology activity.

Johnston, R. S.↗
NASA NTRS1985

Recent Shuttle EVA operations and experience

This paper describes the hardware used and the experience gained during the Space Shuttle extravehicular activities (EVAs) or 'spacewalks' of 1984. Seven EVAs on four missions were conducted with objectives including hardware verification, satellite repair, hydrazine transfer, and satellite retrieval. The hardware used on these flights fall into two categories - general EVA hardware (e.g. the Manned Maneuvering Unit) and mission-unique hardware (e.g. apogee kick motor capture device, used to retrieve the WESTAR VI and PALAPA B-2 satellites). The successful completion of the mission objectives resulted in an increased knowledge of EVA operations and a broader base of Space Shuttle capabilities which are applicable to future operations.

Rogers, L. J. A.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Human factors in space station architecture 2. EVA access facility: A comparative analysis of 4 concepts for on-orbit space suit servicing

Four concepts for on-orbit spacesuit donning, doffing, servicing, check-out, egress and ingress are presented. These are: the Space Transportation System (STS) Type (shuttle system enlarged), the Transit Airlock (Shuttle Airlock with suit servicing removed from the pump-down chamber), the Suitport (a rear-entry suit mates to a port in the airlock wall), and the Crewlock (a small, individual, conformal airlock). Each of these four concepts is compared through a series of seven steps representing a typical Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) mission: (1) Predonning suit preparation; (2) Portable Life Support System (PLSS) preparation; (3) Suit Donning and Final Check; (4) Egress/Ingress; (5) Mid-EVA rest period; (6) Post-EVA Securing; (7) Non-Routine Maintenance. The different characteristics of each concept are articulated through this step-by-step approach. Recommendations concerning an approach for further evaluations of airlock geometry, anthropometrics, ergonomics, and functional efficiency are made. The key recommendation is that before any particular airlock can be designed, the full range of spacesuit servicing functions must be considered, including timelines that are most supportive of EVA human productivity.

Cohen, Marc M.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Automatic antenna switching design for Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) communication system

An Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) crewmember had two-way communications with the space station in the Ku-band frequency (12 to 18 GHz). The maximum range of the EVA communications link with the space station is approximately one kilometer for nominal values for transmitter power, antenna gains, and receiver noise figure. The EVA Communications System, that will continue to function regardless of the astronaut's position and orientation, requires an antenna system that has full spherical coverage. Three or more antennas that can be flush mounted on the astronaut's space suit (EMU) and/or his propulsive backpack (MMU), will be needed to provide the desired coverage. As the astronaut moves in the space station, the signal received by a given EVA antenna changes. An automatic antenna switching system is needed that will switch the communication system to the antenna with the largest signal strength. A design for automatic antenna switching is presented and discussed.

Randhawa, Manjit S.↗
NASA NTRS1988

Design, development and evaluation of Stanford/Ames EVA prehensors

Space Station operations and maintenance are expected to make unprecedented demands on astronaut EVA. With Space Station expected to operate with an 8 to 10 psi atmosphere (4 psi for Shuttle operations), the effectivness of pressurized gloves is called into doubt at the same time that EVA activity levels are to be increased. To address the need for more frequent and complex EVA missions and also to extend the dexterity, duration, and safety of EVA astronauts, NASA Ames and Stanford University have an ongoing cooperative agreement to explore and compare alternatives. This is the final Stanford/Ames report on manually powered Prehensors, each of which consists of a shroud forming a pressure enclosure around the astronaut's hand, and a linkage system to transfer the motions and forces of the hand to mechanical digits attached to the shroud. All prehensors are intended for attachment to a standard wrist coupling, as found on the AX-5 hard suit prototype, so that realistic tests can be performed under normal and reduced gravity as simulated by water flotation.

Leifer, Larry J.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Evolution of EVA Capabilities for Space Station Construction and Maintenance: Soviet and American Experience

The evolution of both Soviet and American Extravehicular Activity (EVA) is discussed. A qualitative review evaluates each EVA with respect to risk, criticality, complexity, and duration. Graphics summarizing increase and rate of increase in productivity emphasize related advancements in the space suits, EVA tools, and equipment technology. Specifics that demonstrated ingenuity in accomplishing unplanned activities which required man's direct manipulation of large payloads and structures are presented. Accumulated EVA successes allow an effective, flexible, recommended approach for construction and maintenance of Space Station to be given in conclusion.

Cathy D Kramer↗
NASA NTRS1990

EVA and telerobot interaction

We are about to enter into a new era - that of astronauts working hand in hand with telerobots in space. This has been done to some degree with astronauts and the Space Station Shuttle's Remote Manipulator Arm. However, for the Space Station Freedom, not only will astronauts be working with the RMS type system but also with smaller, more dexterous systems such as the Flight Telerobotic Servicer (FTS). Because EVA time is a premium resource, the most effective use of the astronauts and the telerobot will be required. There may be some tasks for which it is most efficient to have both the EVA astronaut and the telerobot working together. This type of close integration has not occurred before and brings up many issues. Most of these issues are related to technology: communication must be infallible, new control systems and devices may be required, enhanced telerobot safety systems may be necessary. IVA operations may also be affected by the combined EVA telerobot tasks. There is also the issue of how the EVA astronaut and the telerobot work on separate tasks but at the same time. For both situations, research and development of at least some new technology is required; enhanced communication both by voice and data, sophisticated collision detection systems, more responsive controls and displays. These new systems or system enhancements may require knowledge base systems for their operation. Some of the important issues, types of tasks, the FTS capabilities, the technology that is needed to address those issues, and the possible impact on Space Station Freedom are reviewed.

Willshire, Kelli F.↗
NASA NTRS1992

EVA results of Shuttle Mission STS-37

The paper summarizes EVA results of the STS-37 mission that flew in April 1991, with emphasis on the unscheduled EVA to free the Compton GRO antenna. The EVA Development Flight Experiment (EDFE) objectives and equipment description are also presented. The EDFE consisted of three experiments conducted during STS-37 to evaluate both designs of crew translation equipment and loads imparted by crew members while performing typical EVA work site tasks for Space Station Freedom. The experiments were used to evaluate static and dynamic loads and ease of operation of four separate translation systems operating on a fixed track. Various measures of performance of the crew equipment and translation aids are discussed. The rates and accelerations experienced during translation aided by the manipulator foot restraint and remote manipulator system were found to be comfortable.

Whitsett, C. E.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Techniques for Improving the Performance of Future EVA Maneuvering Systems

The Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue (SAFER) is a small propulsive backpack that was developed as an in-house effort at Johnson Space Center; it is a lightweight system which attaches to the underside of the Primary Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) backpack of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). SAFER provides full six-axis control, as well as Automatic Attitude Hold (AAH), by means of a set of cold-gas nitrogen thrusters and a rate sensor-based control system. For compactness, a single hand controller is used, together with mode switching, to command all six axes. SAFER was successfully test-flown on the STS-64 mission in September 1994 as a Development Test Objective (DTO); development of an operational version is now proceeding. This version will be available for EVA self-rescue on the International Space Station and Mir, starting with the STS-86/Mir-7 mission in September 1997. The DTO SAFER was heavily instrumented, and produced in-flight data that was stored in a 12 MB computer memory on-board. This has allowed post-flight analysis to yield good estimates for the actual mass properties (moments and products of inertia and center of mass location) encountered on-orbit. By contrast, Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) post-flight results were generated mainly from analysis of video images, and so were not very accurate. The main goal of the research reported here was to use the detailed SAFER on-orbit mass properties data to optimize the design of future EVA maneuvering systems, with the aim being to improve flying qualities and/or reduce propellant consumption. The Automation, Robotics and Simulation Division Virtual Reality (VR) Laboratory proved to be a valuable research tool for such studies. A second objective of the grant was to generate an accurate dynamics model in support of the reflight of the DTO SAFER on STS-76/Mir-3. One complicating factor was the fact that a hand controller stowage box was added to the underside of SAFER on this flight; the position of this box was such that two of the SAFER jets plume it. A second complication was that the EVA astronaut will sometimes be transporting a massive experiment package. This will not only alter the overall mass properties significantly, but can itself also be plumed.

Williams, Trevor W.↗
NASA NTRS1995

EVA safety: Space suit system interoperability

The results and the recommendations of the International Academy of Astronautics extravehicular activities (IAA EVA) Committee work are presented. The IAA EVA protocols and operation were analyzed for harmonization procedures and for the standardization of safety critical and operationally important interfaces. The key role of EVA and how to improve the situation based on the identified EVA space suit system interoperability deficiencies were considered.

Skoog, A. I.↗
NASA NTRS1998

Comparison of Human Modeling Tools for Efficiency of Prediction of EVA Tasks

Design of ExtraVehicular Activity (EVA) interfaces for International Space Station is important to successful assembly. This is highlighted by the recent rise in the estimate of time required for EVA during the assembly to 900 hours. The traditional method of evaluating EVA design is examination of mockups in neutral buoyancy testing. While effective, this is costly. Any tools for streamlining this process have positive cost and schedule implications for Station design. The human modelling software package Jack has been shown to be a useful tool in computer-aided design of space hardware requiring actuation in EVA. The package has been used to aid in the design of flight hardware for a Station Assembly Mission; evaluation was based on comparison of the computer simulations with neutral buoyancy simulations. When used to predict the feasibility of tasks, the software was found to be effective for reach and visibility evaluation. Some limitations have been encountered in prediction of work clearances. Another human simulator is currently being evaluated using the same hardware and comparisons to the same Neutral Buoyancy simulations. Preliminary results for ERGO, which is derived from robotics software, indicate similar strengths and weaknesses.

Dischinger, H. Charles, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2001

The Use of Human Modeling of EVA Tasks as a Systems Engineering Tool

Computer-generated human models have been used in aerospace design for a decade. They have come to be highly reliable for worksite analysis of certain types of EVA tasks. In many design environments, this analysis comes after the structural design is largely complete. However, the use of these models as a development tool is gaining acceptance within organizations that practice good systems engineering processes. The design of the United States Propulsion Module for the International Space Station provides an example of this application. The Propulsion Module will provide augmentation to the propulsion capability supplied by the Russian Service Module Zvezda. It is a late addition to the set of modules provided by the United States to the ISS Program, and as a result, faces design challenges that result from the level of immaturity of its integration into the Station. Among these are heat dissipation and physical envelopes. Since the rest of the Station was designed to maximize the use of the cooling system, little margin is available for the addition of another module. The Propulsion Module will attach at the forward end of the Station, and will be between the Orbiter and the rest of ISS. Since cargo must be removed from the Payload Bay and transferred to Station by the Canadarm, there is a potential for protrusions from the module, such as thruster booms, to interfere with robotic operations. These and similar engineering issues must be addressed as part of the development. In the implementation of good system design, all design solutions should be analyzed for compatibility with all affected subsystems. Human modeling has been used in this project to provide rapid input to system trades of design concepts. For example, the placement of radiators and avionics components for optimization of heat dissipation had to be examined for feasibility of EVA translation paths and worksite development. Likewise, the location of and mechanism for the retraction of thruster booms was partly driven by available Orbiter, robotic arm, and other module envelopes; worksite analysis was required for early assessment of task success. Since these trade studies included the EVA analysis as part of the decision criteria, the design had a high degree of assurance of EVA supportability from the outset. This approach contributes greatly to mission success.

Dischinger, H. Charles, Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Health and Safety Benefits of Small Pressurized Suitport Rovers as EVA Surface Support Vehicles

Pressurized safe-haven providing SPE protection and decompression sickness (DCS) treatment capabilities within 20 mins at all times. Up to 50% reduction in time spent in EVA suits (vs. Unpressurized Rovers) for equal or greater Boots-on-Surface EVA exploration time. Reduces suit-induced trauma and provides improved options for nutrition, hydration, and waste-management. Time spent inside SPR during long translations may be spent performing resistive and cardiovascular exercise. Multiple shorter EVAs versus single 8 hr EVAs increases DCS safety and decreases prebreathe requirements. SPRs also offer many potential operational, engineering and exploration benefits not addressed here.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗