Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Crew Performance”

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 1,369 records · Page 76
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Cockpit Adaptive Automation and Pilot Performance

The introduction of high-level automated systems in the aircraft cockpit has provided several benefits, e.g., new capabilities, enhanced operational efficiency, and reduced crew workload. At the same time, conventional 'static' automation has sometimes degraded human operator monitoring performance, increased workload, and reduced situation awareness. Adaptive automation represents an alternative to static automation. In this approach, task allocation between human operators and computer systems is flexible and context-dependent rather than static. Adaptive automation, or adaptive task allocation, is thought to provide for regulation of operator workload and performance, while preserving the benefits of static automation. In previous research we have reported beneficial effects of adaptive automation on the performance of both pilots and non-pilots of flight-related tasks. For adaptive systems to be viable, however, such benefits need to be examined jointly in the context of a single set of tasks. The studies carried out under this project evaluated a systematic method for combining different forms of adaptive automation. A model for effective combination of different forms of adaptive automation, based on matching adaptation to operator workload was proposed and tested. The model was evaluated in studies using IFR-rated pilots flying a general-aviation simulator. Performance, subjective, and physiological (heart rate variability, eye scan-paths) measures of workload were recorded. The studies compared workload-based adaptation to to non-adaptive control conditions and found evidence for systematic benefits of adaptive automation. The research provides an empirical basis for evaluating the effectiveness of adaptive automation in the cockpit. The results contribute to the development of design principles and guidelines for the implementation of adaptive automation in the cockpit, particularly in general aviation, and in other human-machine systems. Project goals were met or exceeded. The results of the research extended knowledge of automation-related performance decrements in pilots and demonstrated the positive effects of adaptive task allocation. In addition, several practical implications for cockpit automation design were drawn from the research conducted. A total of 12 articles deriving from the project were published.

Parasuraman, Raja↗
NASA NTRS2011

Crew Survivability After a Rapid Cabin Depressurization Event

Anecdotal evidence acquired through historic failure investigations involving rapid cabin decompression (e.g. Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 11) show that full evacuation of the cabin atmosphere may occur within seconds. During such an event, the delta-pressure between the sealed suit ventilation system and the cabin will rise at the rate of the cabin depressurization; potentially at a rate exceeding the capability of the suit relief valve. It is possible that permanent damage to the suit pressure enclosure and ventilation loop components may occur as the integrated system may be subjected to delta pressures in excess of the design to pressures. Additionally, as the total pressure of the suit ventilation system decreases, so does the oxygen available to the crew. The crew may be subjected to a temporary incapacitating, but non-lethal, hypoxic environment. It is expected that the suit will maintain a survivable atmosphere on the crew until the vehicle pressure control system recovers or the cabin has otherwise attained a habitable environment. A common finding from the aforementioned reports indicates that the crew would have had a better chance at surviving the event had they been in a protective configuration, that is, in a survival suit. Making use of these lessons learned, the Constellation Program implemented a suit loop in the spacecraft design and required that the crew be in a protective configuration, that is suited with gloves on and visors down, during dynamic phases of flight that pose the greatest risk for a rapid and uncontrolled cabin depressurization event: ascent, entry, and docking. This paper details the evaluation performed to derive suit pressure garment and ventilation system performance parameters that would lead to the highest probability of crew survivability after an uncontrolled crew cabin depressurization event while remaining in the realm of practicality for suit design. This evaluation involved: (1) assessment of stakeholder expectations to validate the functionality being imposed; (2) review/refinement of concept of operations to establish the potential triggers for such an event and define the response of the spacecraft and suit ventilation loop pressure control systems; and (3) assessment of system capabilities with respect to structural capability and pressure control. 1 Crew and Thermal Systems Division, NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code: AES29, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston,

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Crew Survivability After a Rapid Cabin Depressurization Event

Anecdotal evidence acquired through historic failure investigations involving rapid cabin decompression (e.g. Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 11) show that full evacuation of the cabin atmosphere may occur within seconds. During such an event, the delta-pressure between the sealed suit ventilation system and the cabin will rise at the rate of the cabin depressurization; potentially at a rate exceeding the capability of the suit relief valve. It is possible that permanent damage to the suit pressure enclosure and ventilation loop components may occur as the integrated system may be subjected to delta pressures in excess of the design-to pressures. Additionally, as the total pressure of the suit ventilation system decreases, so does the oxygen available to the crew. The crew may be subjected to a temporarily incapacitating, but non-lethal, hypoxic environment. It is expected that the suit will maintain a survivable atmosphere on the crew until the vehicle pressure control system recovers or the cabin has otherwise attained a habitable environment. A common finding from the aforementioned reports indicates that the crew would have had a better chance at surviving the event had they been in a protective configuration, that is, in a survival suit. Making use of these lessons learned, the Constellation Program implemented a suit loop in the spacecraft design and required that the crew be in a protective configuration, that is suited with gloves on and visors down, during dynamic phases of flight that pose the greatest risk for a rapid and uncontrolled cabin depressurization event: ascent, entry, and docking. This paper details the evaluation performed to derive suit pressure garment and ventilation system performance parameters that would lead to the highest probability of crew survivability after an uncontrolled crew cabin depressurization event while remaining in the realm of practicality for suit design. This evaluation involved: (1) assessment of stakeholder expectations to validate the functionality being imposed; (2) review/refinement of concept of operations to establish the potential triggers for such an event and define the response of the spacecraft and suit ventilation loop pressure control systems; and (3) assessment of system capabilities with respect to structural capability and pressure control.

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

NASA Docking System (NDS) Interface Definitions Document (IDD)

The NASA Docking System (NDS) mating system supports low approach velocity docking and provides a modular and reconfigurable standard interface, supporting crewed and autonomous vehicles during mating and assembly operations. The NDS is NASA's implementation for the emerging International Docking System Standard (IDSS) using low impact docking technology. All NDS configurations can mate with the configuration specified in the IDSS Interface Definition Document (IDD) released September 21, 2010. The NDS evolved from the Low Impact Docking System (LIDS). The acronym international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS) is also used to describe this system. NDS and iLIDS may be used interchangeability. Some of the heritage documentation and implementations (e.g., software command names) used on NDS will continue to use the LIDS acronym. The NDS IDD defines the interface characteristics and performance capability of the NDS, including uses ranging from crewed to autonomous space vehicles and from low earth orbit to deep space exploration. The responsibility for developing space vehicles and for making them technically and operationally compatible with the NDS rests with the vehicle providers. Host vehicle examples include crewed/uncrewed spacecraft, space station modules, elements, etc. Within this document, any docking space vehicle will be referred to as the host vehicle. This document defines the NDS-to-NDS interfaces, as well as the NDS-to-host vehicle interfaces and performance capability.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2011

Development of the Orion Crew Module Static Aerodynamic Database: Hypersonic - Part 1

The Orion aerodynamic database provides force and moment coefficients given the velocity, attitude, configuration, etc. of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The database is developed and maintained by the NASA CEV Aerosciences Project team from computational and experimental aerodynamic simulations. The database is used primarily by the Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC) team to design vehicle trajectories and assess flight performance. The initial hypersonic re-entry portion of the Crew Module (CM) database was developed in 2006. Updates incorporating additional data and improvements to the database formulation and uncertainty methodologies have been made since then. This paper details the process used to develop the CM database, including nominal values and uncertainties, for Mach numbers greater than 8 and angles of attack between 140deg and 180deg. The primary available data are more than 1000 viscous, reacting gas chemistry computational simulations using both the Laura and Dplr codes, over a range of Mach numbers from 2 to 37 and a range of angles of attack from 147deg to 172deg. Uncertainties were based on grid convergence, laminar-turbulent solution variations, combined altitude and code-to-code variations, and expected heatshield asymmetry. A radial basis function response surface tool, NEAR-RS, was used to fit the coefficient data smoothly in a velocity-angle-of-attack space. The resulting database is presented and includes some data comparisons and a discussion of the predicted variation of trim angle of attack and lift-to-drag ratio. The database provides a variation in trim angle of attack on the order of +/-2deg, and a range in lift-to-drag ratio of +/-0.035 for typical vehicle flight conditions.

Bibb, Karen L.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Advanced Technologies for Future Spacecraft Cockpits and Space-based Control Centers

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a new era of Space Exploration, aimed at sending crewed spacecraft beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO), in medium and long duration missions to the Lunar surface, Mars and beyond. The challenges of such missions are significant and will require new technologies and paradigms in vehicle design and mission operations. Current roles and responsibilities of spacecraft systems, crew and the flight control team, for example, may not be sustainable when real-time support is not assured due to distance-induced communication lags, radio blackouts, equipment failures, or other unexpected factors. Therefore, technologies and applications that enable greater Systems and Mission Management capabilities on-board the space-based system will be necessary to reduce the dependency on real-time critical Earth-based support. The focus of this paper is in such technologies that will be required to bring advance Systems and Mission Management capabilities to space-based environments where the crew will be required to manage both the systems performance and mission execution without dependence on the ground. We refer to this concept as autonomy. Environments that require high levels of autonomy include the cockpits of future spacecraft such as the Mars Exploration Vehicle, and space-based control centers such as a Lunar Base Command and Control Center. Furthermore, this paper will evaluate the requirements, available technology, and roadmap to enable full operational implementation of onboard System Health Management, Mission Planning/re-planning, Autonomous Task/Command Execution, and Human Computer Interface applications. The technology topics covered by the paper include enabling technology to perform Intelligent Caution and Warning, where the systems provides directly actionable data for human understanding and response to failures, task automation applications that automate nominal and Off-nominal task execution based on human input or integrated health state-derived conditions. Shifting from Systems to Mission Management functions, we discuss the role of automated planning applications (tactical planning) on-board, which receive data from the other cockpit automation systems and evaluate the mission plan against the dynamic systems and mission states and events, to provide the crew with capabilities that enable them to understand, change, and manage the timeline of their mission. Lastly, we discuss the role of advanced human interface technologies that organize and provide the system md mission information to the crew in ways that maximize their situational awareness and ability to provide oversight and control of aLl the automated data and functions.

Garcia-Galan, Carlos↗
NASA NTRS1976

Payload crew interface design criteria and techniques. Task 1: Inflight operations and training for payloads

Guidelines are developed for use in control and display panel design for payload operations performed on the aft flight deck of the orbiter. Preliminary payload procedures are defined. Crew operational concepts are developed. Payloads selected for operational simulations were the shuttle UV optical telescope (SUOT), the deep sky UV survey telescope (DUST), and the shuttle UV stellar spectrograph (SUSS). The advanced technology laboratory payload consisting of 11 experiments was selected for a detailed evaluation because of the availability of operational data and its operational complexity.

Carmean, W. D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats

NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.

space habitats↗
NASA NTRS1997

STS-86 Day 01 Highlights

On this first day of the STS-86 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. James D. Wetherbee, Jr., Pilot Michael J. Bloomfield, Mission Specialists Scott E. Parazynski, Jean-Loup Chretien, Vladimir G. Titov, Wendy B. Lawrence and David A. Wolf can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew can be seen being readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

STS-95 Day 01 Highlights

On this first day of the STS-95 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Curtis L. Brown, Pilot Steven W. Lindsey, Mission Specialists Scott E. Parazynski, Stephen K. Robinson, and Pedro Duque, and Payload Specialists Chiaki Mukai and John H. Glenn, can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2009

Smart Ultrasound Remote Guidance Experiment (SURGE) Preliminary Findings

To date, diagnostic quality ultrasound images were obtained aboard the International Space Station (ISS) using the ultrasound of the Human Research Facility (HRF) rack in the Laboratory module. Through the Advanced Diagnostic Ultrasound in Microgravity (ADUM) and the Braslet-M Occlusion Cuffs (BRASLET SDTO) studies, non-expert ultrasound operators aboard the ISS have performed cardiac, thoracic, abdominal, vascular, ocular, and musculoskeletal ultrasound assessments using remote guidance from ground-based ultrasound experts. With exploration class missions to the lunar and Martian surfaces on the horizon, crew medical officers will necessarily need to operate with greater autonomy given communication delays (round trip times of up to 5 seconds for the Moon and 90 minutes for Mars) and longer periods of communication blackouts (due to orbital constraints of communication assets). The SURGE project explored the feasibility and training requirements of having non-expert ultrasound operators perform autonomous ultrasound assessments in a simulated exploration mission outpost. The project aimed to identify experience, training, and human factors requirements for crew medical officers to perform autonomous ultrasonography. All of these aims pertained to the following risks from the NASA Bioastronautics Road Map: 1) Risk 18: Major Illness and Trauna; 2) Risk 20) Ambulatory Care; 3) Risk 22: Medical Informatics, Technologies, and Support Systems; and 4) Risk 23: Medical Skill Training and Maintenance.

Hurst, Victor↗
NASA NTRS2006

Lunar Surface Scenarios: Habitation and Life Support Systems for a Pressurized Rover

Pressurized rovers will be a critical component of successful lunar exploration to enable safe investigation of sites distant from the outpost location. A pressurized rover is a complex system with the same functions as any other crewed vehicle. Designs for a pressurized rover need to take into account significant constraints, a multitude of tasks to be performed inside and out, and the complexity of life support systems to support the crew. In future studies, pressurized rovers should be given the same level of consideration as any other vehicle occupied by the crew.

Anderson, Molly↗
NASA NTRS1979

Performance considerations in long-term spaceflight

Maintenance of skilled performance during extended space flight is of critical importance to both the health and safety of crew members and to the overall success of mission goals. An examination of long term effects and performance requirements is therefore a factor of immense importance to the planning of future missions. Factors that were investigated include: definition of performance categories to be investigated; methods for assessing and predicting performance levels; in-flight factors which can affect performance; and factors pertinent to the maintenance of skilled performance.

Akins, F. R.↗
NASA NTRS1987

Information transfer in pilots' use of a collision avoidance system

A flight simulator study of pilots' use of the Traffic-alert and Collision Avoidance System is described. Three levels of information on the location of other air traffic were presented to different groups of airline pilots. The amount of informtion on the location of other traffic had little effect on pilots' performance of the maneuvers commanded by the collision avoidance system. Measured crew responses were similar with no presentation of traffic location, with limited information, and with continuous traffic information. No learning effects were observed, and differences in flight experience did not contribute to the performance difference found.

Chappell, Sheryl L.↗
NASA NTRS1997

STS-82 Mission Highlight Presentation

The STS-82 is the second in a series of planned service missions to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The flight crew of STS-82, Cmdr. Kenneth D. Bowersox, Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, Mission specialists, Mark C. Lee, Steven A. Hawley, Gregory J. Harbaugh, Steven L. Smith, and Joseph R. Tanner can be seen performing pre-launch activities preparing for the night launch. The crew meets the press for pre-launch photos before being transported to the launch pad. Several views can be seen of the final inspection team on the O level and the crew being readied in the 'white room'. Launch activities such as the oxygen vent hood retraction, liftoff, SRB separation, and personnel activities in the Houston Integrated Mission Control room are viewed. Subsequent footage is provided of the crew's activities during the HST rendezvous and docking, Extravehicular Activities (EVA's) preparation and EVA numbers 1, 3 and 5. During the first EVA the earth can be seen clearly in a reflection off of HST's offshroud during its 60th orbit crossing the equator. The HST deployment and views of the Hale-Bopp comet are clearly seen before Discovery's reentry and landing. After reentry a beautiful view of Discovery moving at 10,400 mph can be seen looking east from Mission Control. The ususal twin sonic boom precedes Discovery's touchdown on runway 15 at Kennedy Space Center. This second HST service mission orbited Earth 150 times and traveled 1.4 million miles.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1998

STS-89 Day 01 Highlights

On this first day of the STS-89 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Terrence W. Wilcutt, Pilot Frank Edwards, and Mission Specialists Michael P. Anderson, James F. Reilly, Bonnie J. Dunbar, Salizhan Shakirovich Sharipov, David A. Wolf and Andrew S.W. Thomas, can be seen performing pre-launch activities such as eating the traditional breakfast, crew suit-up, and the ride out to the launch pad. Also, included are various panoramic views of the shuttle on the pad. The crew is readied in the 'white room' for their mission. After the closing of the hatch and arm retraction, launch activities are shown including countdown, engine ignition, launch, and the separation of the Solid Rocket Boosters.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1999

Functional Performance Evaluation

The Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Project (EDOMP) was established to address specific issues associated with optimizing the ability of crews to complete mission tasks deemed essential to entry, landing, and egress for spaceflights lasting up to 16 days. The main objectives of this functional performance evaluation were to investigate the physiological effects of long-duration spaceflight on skeletal muscle strength and endurance, as well as aerobic capacity and orthostatic function. Long-duration exposure to a microgravity environment may produce physiological alterations that affect crew ability to complete critical tasks such as extravehicular activity (EVA), intravehicular activity (IVA), and nominal or emergency egress. Ultimately, this information will be used to develop and verify countermeasures. The answers to three specific functional performance questions were sought: (1) What are the performance decrements resulting from missions of varying durations? (2) What are the physical requirements for successful entry, landing, and emergency egress from the Shuttle? and (3) What combination of preflight fitness training and in-flight countermeasures will minimize in-flight muscle performance decrements? To answer these questions, the Exercise Countermeasures Project looked at physiological changes associated with muscle degradation as well as orthostatic intolerance. A means of ensuring motor coordination was necessary to maintain proficiency in piloting skills, EVA, and IVA tasks. In addition, it was necessary to maintain musculoskeletal strength and function to meet the rigors associated with moderate altitude bailout and with nominal or emergency egress from the landed Orbiter. Eight investigations, referred to as Detailed Supplementary Objectives (DSOs) 475, 476, 477, 606, 608, 617, 618, and 624, were conducted to study muscle degradation and the effects of exercise on exercise capacity and orthostatic function (Table 3-1). This chapter is divided into three parts. Part 1 describes specific findings from studies of muscle strength, endurance, fiber size, and volume. Part 2 describes results from studies of how in-flight exercise affects postflight exercise capacity and orthostatic function. Part 3 focuses on the development of new noninvasive methods for assessing body composition in astronauts and how those methods can be used to correlate measures of exercise performance and changes in body composition.

Greenisen, Michael C.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Overview of Umbilical Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Interfaces in Life Support Systems on Spacecraft Vehicles and Applications for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)

Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for manned spacecraft vehicles have been performed for contingencies and nominal operations numerous times throughout history. This paper will investigate how previous U.S. manned spacecraft vehicles provided life support to crewmembers performing the EVA. Specifically defined are umbilical interfaces with respect to crewmember cooling, drinking water, air (or oxygen), humidity control, and carbon dioxide removal. As historical data is available, the need for planned versus contingency EVAs in previous vehicles as well as details for a nominal EVA day versus a contingency EVA day will be discussed. The hardware used to provide the cooling, drinking water, air (or oxygen), humidity control, and carbon dioxide removal, and the general functions of that hardware, will also be detailed, as information is available. The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV or Orion) EVA interfaces will be generically discussed to provide a glimpse of how similar they are to the EVA interfaces in previous vehicles. Conclusions on strategies that should be used for CEV based on previous spacecraft EVA interfaces will be made in the form of questions and recommendations.

Peterson, Laurie J.↗