Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Johnson, Brian J.

Publications and source records attributed to Johnson, Brian J..

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2019

Extravehicular Activity Framework for Exploration - 2019

The Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Framework for Exploration describes NASA's EVASystem Goals in the broader context of ongoing human spaceflight efforts. The purpose of thisdocument is to drive integration, coordination and communication of the EVA community'sexploration development plans as crafted to meet long-term EVA needs. Inclusive in the EVAcommunity are NASA partners in academia and industry. The 2019 EVA Framework outlinesthe office's current method to answer the following questions: What product does NASA useto compare, contrast and integrate across the elements of the EVA community's perceivedgaps, risks, and unfunded work, particularly for future systems intended for use beyond LowEarth Orbit (LEO)? What product does NASA use to proactively coordinate support acrossthe EVA community's wide spectrum of exploration development work? Where can one go toobtain awareness of ongoing efforts, particularly during consideration of new-start activitiesand proposals? These questions lead to the need for a product that speaks to the distributednature of the EVA System across human spaceflight programs, concept studies and flightvehicle architectural elements. This framework can be used and evaluated by the EVAcommunity to assess the full spectrum of needs and answer the question of "what are wemissing" or "are we doing things that just do not make sense". In the end is the EVAcommunity effectively pursuing the future needs of EVA? If answers to those questions revealthe need for change or re-prioritization then actions can be taken through existing projectcontrol processes as well as revision to this document and supporting project plans.

Alpert, Brian K.↗
NASA NTRS2017

EVA Systems Technology Gaps and Priorities 2017

Performance of Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA) has been and will continue to be a critical capability for human space flight. Human exploration missions beyond LEO will require EVA capability for either contingency or nominal activities to support mission objectives and reduce mission risk. EVA systems encompass a wide array of products across pressure suits, life support systems, EVA tools and unique spacecraft interface hardware (i.e. EVA Translation Paths and EVA Worksites). In a fiscally limited environment with evolving transportation and habitation options, it is paramount that the EVA community's strategic planning and architecture integration products be reviewed and vetted for traceability between the mission needs far into the future to the known technology and knowledge gaps to the current investments across EVA systems. To ascertain EVA technology and knowledge gaps many things need to be brought together, assessed and analyzed. This includes an understanding of the destination environments, various mission concept of operations, current state of the art of EVA systems, EVA operational lessons learned, and reference advanced capabilities. A combined assessment of these inputs should result in well-defined list of gaps. This list can then be prioritized depending on the mission need dates and time scale of the technology or knowledge gap closure plan. This paper will summarize the current state of EVA related technology and knowledge gaps derived from NASA's Exploration EVA Reference Architecture and Operations Concept products. By linking these products and articulating NASA's approach to strategic development for EVA across all credible destinations an EVA could be done in, the identification of these gaps is then used to illustrate the tactical and strategic planning for the EVA technology development portfolio. Finally, this paper illustrates the various "touch points" with other human exploration risk identification areas including human health and performance.

Johnson, Brian J.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Southern Hemisphere Additional Ozonesondes (SHADOZ) Ozone Climatology (2005-2009): Tropospheric and Tropical Tropopause Layer (TTL) Profiles with Comparisons to Omi-based Ozone Products

We present a regional and seasonal climatology of SHADOZ ozone profiles in the troposphere and tropical tropopause layer (TTL) based on measurements taken during the first five years of Aura, 2005-2009, when new stations joined the network at Hanoi, Vietnam; Hilo, Hawaii; Alajuela Heredia, Costa Rica; Cotonou, Benin. In all, 15 stations operated during that period. A west-to-east progression of decreasing convective influence and increasing pollution leads to distinct tropospheric ozone profiles in three regions: (1) western Pacific eastern Indian Ocean; (2) equatorial Americas (San Cristobal, Alajuela, Paramaribo); (3) Atlantic and Africa. Comparisons in total ozone column from soundings, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI, on Aura, 2004-) satellite and ground-based instrumentation are presented. Most stations show better agreement with OMI than they did for EPTOMS comparisons (1998-2004; Earth-ProbeTotal Ozone Mapping Spectrometer), partly due to a revised above-burst ozone climatology. Possible station biases in the stratospheric segment of the ozone measurement noted in the first 7 years of SHADOZ ozone profiles are re-examined. High stratospheric bias observed during the TOMS period appears to persist at one station. Comparisons of SHADOZ tropospheric ozone and the daily Trajectory-enhanced Tropospheric Ozone Residual (TTOR) product (based on OMIMLS) show that the satellite-derived column amount averages 25 low. Correlations between TTOR and the SHADOZ sondes are quite good (typical r2 0.5-0.8), however, which may account for why some published residual-based OMI products capture tropospheric interannual variability fairly realistically. On the other hand, no clear explanations emerge for why TTOR-sonde discrepancies vary over a wide range at most SHADOZ sites.

gravity waves↗
NASA NTRS2004

Results from an Investigation into Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) Training Related Shoulder Injuries

The number and complexity of extravehicular activities (EVAs) required for the completion and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) is unprecedented. The training required to successfully complete this magnitude of space walks presents a real risk of overuse musculoskeletal injuries to the EVA crew population. There was mounting evidence raised by crewmembers, trainers, and physicians at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) between 1999 and 2002 that suggested a link between training in the Neutral - Buoyancy Lab (NBL) and the several reported cases of shoulder injuries. The short- and long-term health consequences of shoulder injury to astronauts in training as well as the potential mission impact associated with surgical intervention to assigned EVA crew point to this as a critical problem that must be mitigated. Thus, a multi-directorate tiger team was formed in December of 2002 led by the EVA Office and Astronaut Office at the JSC. The primary objectives of this Tiger Team were to evaluate the prevalence of these injuries and substantiate the relationship to training in the NBL with the crew person operating in the EVA Mobility Unit (EMU). Between December 2002 and June of 2003 the team collected data, surveyed crewmembers, consulted with a variety of physicians, and performed tests. The results of this effort were combined with the vast knowledge and experience of the Tiger Team members to formulate several findings and over fifty recommendations. This paper summarizes those findings and recommendations as well as the process by which these were determined. The Tiger Team concluded that training in the NBL was directly linked to several major and minor shoulder injuries that had occurred. With the assistance of JSC flight surgeons, outside consultants, and the lead crewmember/physician on the team, the mechanisms of injury were determined. These mechanisms were then linked to specific aspects of the hardware design, operational techniques, and the training environment. During the 1999 to 2003 time frame many variables converged to make it impossible to determine with any accuracy which one or two root causes were primarily involved. Therefore a broad range of recommendations was established to prevent future injury to crewmembers training in the NBL in the near term. Many of these recommendations are lessons learned that are essentially timeless and therefore should be passed on to future EVA endeavors to ensure that hardware designs and operational techniques utilized in the future consider the demands of training on the human body here on earth.

Johnson, Brian J.↗
NASA NTRS2003

EMU Shoulder Injury Tiger Team Report

The number and complexity of extravehicular activities required for the completion and maintenance of the International Space Station is unprecedented. It is not surprising that training to perform these space walks presents a risk of overuse musculoskeletal injuries. The goal of this tiger team, created in December 2002, was to identify the different factors contributing to the risk of EVA training-related shoulder injury in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab at the Sonny Carter Training Facility and to make recommendations that would either significantly reduce or eliminate those risks. Since 1999, concerns have been expressed about the risk of shoulder injury associated with EVA training at the NBL, particularly in inverted body positions (McMonigal, 1999). A survey was developed and administered to 42 astronauts and astronaut candidates; the results suggest a causal relationship between EVA training at the NBL and the observed injuries. Also, during the tiger team review, it became evident that training in the extravehicular mobility unit may also result in other types of injuries, including fingernail delamination, elbow pain, knee pain, foot pain, and nerve compression leading to transient loss of sensation in certain areas of the upper or lower extremity. A multi-directorate team to detect, evaluate and respond to the medical issues associated with EVA training should be implemented immediately and given the appropriate resources and authority to reduce the risk of injury to crew during training to a level as low as reasonably achievable.

Williams, David R.↗