Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Extravehicular Activity”

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 271 records · Page 15

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Power, Avionics, and Software (PAS) 101

EVA systems consist of a spacesuit or garment, a PLSS, a PAS system, and spacesuit interface hardware. The PAS system is responsible for providing power for the suit, communication of several types of data between the suit and other mission assets, avionics hardware to perform numerous data display and processing functions, and information systems that provide crewmembers data to perform their tasks with more autonomy and efficiency. Irimies discussed how technology development efforts have advanced the state-of-the-art in these areas and shared technology development challenges.

Irimies, David↗

Human Landing System (HLS) Program Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Compatibility Interface Requirements Document (IRD)

The purpose of this document is to establish a set of EVA compatibility design requirements for the HLS Program. This document contains the fundamental information required for building hardware compatible with suited EVA flight crewmembers to perform EVAs. Compatibility requirements are located in section 3.0 with a gravity field applicability table provided in APPENDIX G, Human Landing System Program Applicability Matrix. Each HLS Provider will use the EHP-provided matrix in Appendix G to assess applicability to the awarded mission provider on a per-mission basis. Providers will negotiate applicability with EHP, and this will be documented in the appropriate Annex (reference section 2.2)

Christine N Kovich↗

A Historical Overview of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Meteoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

Nearly 300 spacewalks have been conducted over the last 25 years to help build and maintain the International Space Station (ISS). During the nearly 2,000 hours of extra-vehicular activity (EVA), crew members wear extra-vehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuits” to mitigate hazards of the space environment including impacts from meteoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particles. NASA includes detailed EMU MMOD risk analyses as part of the ISS EVA review and approval process. This paper provides a general historical overview of the ISS EVA MMOD risks and the associated risk assessment process. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team produces the ISS EVA MMOD risk analyses using the Bumper3 MMOD risk analysis code in conjunction with detailed information about the EVA including crew-member EVA work sites, crew translation paths, suit orientation, and duration. Detailed physical models of the EMU spacesuits and the ISS are included and tailored for each EVA analysis. Two types of MMOD risk are included: (1) Penetration, and (2) Catastrophic. Penetration risk is for any size leak in the EMU suit. Catastrophic risk is a subset of Penetration Risk and only includes penetrations that cause a 4mm diameter hole (or larger) in the inner “bladder” layer of the EMU suit. This size hole will exceed the ability of the EMU suit to compensate. The MMOD risk analyses also utilize the latest orbital debris environment and meteoroid environment models including additional transient factors to account for recent satellite break-ups and annual meteor storms. These additional factors and the associated increase in EVA MMOD risk are considered when scheduling an EVA to reduce EMU MMOD risk.

Dana M. Lear↗

Development, Validation and Approval of A Planetary Extravehicular Activity Prebreathe Protocol: NASA Exploration Atmosphere Tests 1 & 2

INTRODUCTION: Denitrogenation prebreathe protocols used to mitigate DCS risk for Space Shuttle and International Space Station EVAs are validated for the microgravity environment, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory surface EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary/Lunar missions as planned by the Artemis program. Living in an “Exploration Atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA for future Moon and Mars missions as a compromise that balances pre-EVA prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. A prebreathe validation campaign at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in 2022–2023 has aimed to validate the prebreathe durations and is being operationalized by NASA for use in upcoming Lunar EVAs. METHODS: Twelve volunteers lived in a hyboparic chamber for 11 days with an “exploration atmosphere” of 56.6kPa/34% O2 66% N2. Subjects acclimated to this atmosphere for 48 hrs and thereafter participated in five 6-hour simulated EVAs at 34kPa/85% O2 / 15% N2 over the course of 11 days. Prior to each simulated EVA, subjects underwent a 20-minute prebreathe at 85% O2. The EVA simulation was designed to include tasks that are physically and ergonomically representative of future planetary EVAs, proportionate to the subject’s VO2max. Decompression stress was evaluated during the simulated EVA by serial doppler and echocardiographs alternating every 15 min, as well as clinical monitoring for DCS signs/symptoms. Venous gas emboli (VGE) and DCS outcomes were verified against NASA Standard 3001, which guides allowable prebreathe protocol acceptance criteria. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Venous gas emboli (VGE) were identified during EVAs. No Grade IV VGE were observed. Two cases of mild, Type I DCS were identified in the subjects over the course of 50 EVA exposures. Ten planned EVA exposures were eliminated due to mask fit, metabolic rate, or subject safety concerns. One subject was removed from the study due to presence of left ventricular VGE. Additionally, two doppler techs also experienced DCS, and one case of hypoxia was noted. All cases of DCS resolved with treatment. No cases of severe DCS were observed. The observed incidence (4%, 1.1–13.5% at 95% confidence) met the NASA Standard 3001 criteria leading to the transition of this protocol from research to operational use for upcoming Lunar missions.

Exploration Atmosphere↗

A Review of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

Nearly 300 spacewalks have been conducted over the last 25 years to support the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). During the nearly 2,000 hours of extra-vehicular activity (EVA), crew wore extra-vehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuits” to help mitigate hazards of the space environment including impacts from micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particles. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts detailed EMU MMOD risk analyses as part of the ISS EVA review and approval process. This paper provides a general historical overview of the ISS EVA MMOD risks and the associated risk assessment process. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team produces the ISS EVA MMOD risk analyses using the Bumper MMOD risk analysis code in conjunction with detailed information about the EVA including crew member EVA work sites, crew translation paths, suit orientation, and durations. Detailed physical models of the EMU spacesuit and the ISS are included and tailored for each EVA analysis. Two types of MMOD risk are included: (1) Penetration, and (2) Catastrophic. Penetration risk is for any size leak in the EMU suit. Catastrophic risk is a subset of Penetration Risk and only includes penetrations that cause a 4mm diameter hole (or larger) in the pressure-maintaining “bladder” layer of the EMU suit. This size hole will exceed the ability of the EMU suit to compensate. The MMOD risk analyses also utilize the latest orbital debris environment and meteoroid environment models including additional transient factors to account for recent satellite break-ups and annual meteor storms. These additional factors and the associated increase in EVA MMOD risk are considered when scheduling EVAs to reduce EMU MMOD risk.

Dana M. Lear↗

ISS External Microorganisms: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Planetary Protection Samples During Extravehicular Activity

We have designed, built, and tested a sampling kit (Fig. 1) to aseptically collect microbiological samples from exterior surfaces on the ISS (International Space Station). The kit was flown to ISS as part of the NG-19 commercial cargo mission in August of 2023. Astronauts will use the kit to collect samples from six exterior surfaces on ISS. These samples will be frozen at -80°C after collection and returned to the ground for next generation DNA sequencing. The results of this experiment will help inform planetary protection requirements for crewed missions. We hypothesize that there are detectable microbial communities outside ISS and that these communities originate from inside ISS. Current life support systems do not include any components for reducing microbial leakage. Gases are vented from inside ISS without filtration and there are currently no protocols in place to minimize bioburden on space suit exteriors prior to use. It is important to quantify the bioburden on current vehicles so that achievable limits can be set for crewed missions to astrobiologically relevant locations like Mars.

Planetary Protection↗

A Review of International Space Station Extravehicular Activity Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Risk

Nearly 300 spacewalks have been conducted over the last 25 years to support the construction and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS). During the nearly 2,000 hours of extra-vehicular activity (EVA), crew wore extra-vehicular mobility unit (EMU) “spacesuits” to help mitigate hazards of the space environment including impacts from micrometeoroid and orbital debris (MMOD) particles. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducts detailed EMU MMOD risk analyses as part of the ISS EVA review and approval process. This paper provides a general historical overview of the ISS EVA MMOD risks and the associated risk assessment process. The NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Team produces the ISS EVA MMOD risk analyses using the Bumper MMOD risk analysis code in conjunction with detailed information about the EVA including crew member EVA work sites, crew translation paths, suit orientation, and durations. Detailed physical models of the EMU spacesuit and the ISS are included and tailored for each EVA analysis. Two types of MMOD risk are included: (1) Penetration, and (2) Catastrophic. Penetration risk is for any size leak in the EMU suit. Catastrophic risk is a subset of Penetration Risk and only includes penetrations that cause a 4mm diameter hole (or larger) in the pressure-maintaining “bladder” layer of the EMU suit. This size hole will exceed the ability of the EMU suit to compensate. The MMOD risk analyses also utilize the latest orbital debris environment and meteoroid environment models including additional transient factors to account for recent satellite break-ups and annual meteor storms. These additional factors and the associated increase in EVA MMOD risk are considered when scheduling EVAs to reduce EMU MMOD risk.

Dana M. Lear↗