SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This video shows astronauts Covey, Hilmers, and Hauck training in SES. It involves a simulated EVA rescue using the RMS. Training demonstrates the movement of a free-floating astronaut for grapple with the arm.
Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). When the gloves are pressurized, they restrict movement and create pressure points during tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally more severe injuries such as onycholysis. Glove injuries, both anecdotal and recorded, have been reported during EVA training and flight persistently through NASA's history regardless of mission or glove model. Theories as to causation such as glove-hand fit are common but often lacking in supporting evidence. Previous statistical analysis has evaluated onycholysis in the context of crew anthropometry only. The purpose of this study was to analyze all injuries (as documented in the medical records) and available risk factor variables with the goal to determine engineering and operational controls that may reduce hand injuries due to the EVA glove in the future. A literature review and data mining study were conducted between 2012 and 2014. This study included 179 US NASA crew who trained or completed an EVA between 1981 and 2010 (crossing both Shuttle and ISS eras) and wore either the 4000 Series or Phase VI glove during Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit EVA training and flight. All injuries recorded in medical records were analyzed in their association to candidate risk factor variables. Those risk factor variables included demographic characteristics, hand anthropometry, glove fit characteristics, and training/EVA characteristics. Utilizing literature, medical records and anecdotal causation comments recorded in crewmember injury data, investigators were able to identify several risk factors associated with increased risk of glove related injuries. Prime among them were smaller hand anthropometry, duration of individual suited exposures, and improper glove-hand fit as calculated by the difference in the anthropometry middle finger length compared to the baseline EVA glove middle finger length.
Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). When the gloves are pressurized, they restrict movement and create pressure points during tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally more severe injuries such as onycholysis. Glove injuries, both anecdotal and recorded, have been reported during EVA training and flight persistently through NASA's history regardless of mission or glove model. Theories as to causation such as glove-hand fit are common but often lacking in supporting evidence. Previous statistical analysis has evaluated onycholysis in the context of crew anthropometry only (Opperman et al 2010). The purpose of this study was to analyze all injuries (as documented in the medical records) and available risk factor variables with the goal to determine engineering and operational controls that may reduce hand injuries due to the EVA glove in the future. A literature review and data mining study were conducted between 2012 and 2014. This study included 179 US NASA crew who trained or completed an EVA between 1981 and 2010 (crossing both Shuttle and ISS eras) and wore either the 4000 Series or Phase VI glove during Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit EVA training and flight. All injuries recorded in medical records were analyzed in their association to candidate risk factor variables. Those risk factor variables included demographic characteristics, hand anthropometry, glove fit characteristics, and training/EVA characteristics. Utilizing literature, medical records and anecdotal causation comments recorded in crewmember injury data, investigators were able to identify several risk factors associated with increased risk of glove related injuries. Prime among them were smaller hand anthropometry, duration of individual suited exposures, and improper glove-hand fit as calculated by the difference in the anthropometry middle finger length compared to the baseline EVA glove middle finger length.
Footage showing astronauts Lounge and Hoffman donning EVA suits while astronaut Durrance watches is presented. The footage also shows Lounge and Hoffman working on an ASTRO-1 mockup in the WETF.
A time and motion study of Apollo 15 lunar surface activity led to examination of four distinct areas of crewmen activity. These areas are: an analysis of lunar mobility, a comparative analysis of tasks performed in 1-g training and lunar EVA, an analysis of the metabolic cost of two activities that are performed in several EVAs, and a fall/near-fall analysis. An analysis of mobility showed that the crewmen used three basic mobility patterns (modified walk, hop, side step) while on the lunar surface. These mobility patterns were utilized as adaptive modes to compensate for the uneven terrain and varied soil conditions that the crewmen encountered. A comparison of the time required to perform tasks at the final 1-g lunar EVA training sessions and the time required to perform the same task on the lunar surface indicates that, in almost all cases, it took significantly more time (on the order of 40%) to perform tasks on the moon. This increased time was observed even after extraneous factors (e.g., hardware difficulties) were factored out.
The training for the crew members of the STS-96 Discovery Shuttle is presented. Crew members are Kent Rominger, Commander; Rick Husband, Pilot; Mission Specialists, Tamara Jernigan, Ellen Ochoa, and Daniel Barry; Julie Payette, Mission Specialist (CSA); and Valery Ivanovich Tokarev, Mission Specialist (RSA). Scenes show the crew sitting and talking about the Electrical Power System; actively taking part in virtual training in the EVA Training VR (Virtual Reality) Lab; using the Orbit Space Vision Training System; being dropped in water as a part of the Bail-Out Training Program; and taking part in the crew photo session.
STS-114 Discovery crew is shown in various training exercises at Johnson Space Center. The crew consists of Eileen Collins, Commander; James Kelley, Pilot; Charles Camarda, Mission Specialist; Wendy Lawrence, Mission Specialist; Soichi Noguchi, Mission Specialist; Steve Robinson, Mission Specialist; and Andy Thomas, Mission Specialist. The exercises include: 1) EVA training in the VR lab; 2) Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) EVA Training; 3) Walk to Motion Base Simulator; 4) EVA Preparations in ISS Airlock; and 7) Emergency Egress from Crew Compartment Trainer (CCT). A crew photo session is also presented. Footage of The Space Shuttle Atlantis inside the Kennedy Space Center Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) after its demating from the Solid Rocket Booster and External Tank is shown. The video ends with techniques for inspecting and repairing Thermal Protection System tiles, a video of external tank production at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) and redesign of the foam from the bipod ramp at Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF).
The Expedition 3 crewmembers, Frank Culbertson, Jr., Mikhail Turin, and Vladimir Dezhurov, are seen during various stages of their training. Footage includes Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL), EVA Preparation and Post Training in the International Space Station Airlock Mock-up, in the NBL Space Station Remote Manipulator System Workstation, and during the T-38 flight at Ellington Field.
Virtual fit tests using 3D body scans have provided a cost-effective means to predictively assess spacesuit fit for the current and future astronaut population. However, fit is a complex issue influenced by physical interferences, subjective preference, and many other factors. Fit can substantially differ between the type of hardware, environmental conditions, and tasks being performed. Namely, fit changes across different contexts, such as 3D printed mockup evaluations, pressurized one-g suited test events, neutral buoyancy and other training events, and flight extravehicular activities (EVA). These challenges make it difficult to validate virtual fit frameworks to physical suit sizing. This study proposes a new method of validation using the wealth of historically archived suit fit data. Physically Assessed Fit (PAF) data was assessed from astronauts and test volunteers who wore the legacy Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The data was collected during the past decades at NASA and considered to be most reliable and dependable. Each participant was 3D scanned for body shape and spacesuit-critical dimensions were measured per NASA guidelines. The participants’ size preference for hard upper torso (HUT) assembly was retrieved from their pressurized suit fit check records. Fit assessments were also updated after one-g EVA training, neutral buoyancy training, and EVA flights. Virtually Assessed Fit (VAF) was done by overlaying the CAD model of a HUT with the 3D body scans of the PAF participants. Each body scan was iteratively adjusted for the position inside the HUT to minimize the suit-to-body contact interference while satisfying a set of prescribed requirements. Then the residual contact area, depth, and volume were quantified as VAF metrics. This process was repeated for the different HUT sizes, including medium, large, and extra-large. Statistical modeling is currently in progress and will be presented at the conference. A statistical classifier will be developed to predict a fit probability for different HUT sizes as a function of the corresponding person’s VAF metrics. The HUT size with the highest fit probability will constitute the most likely size selection for the person, and the prediction will be compared against the corresponding PAF data. The participant data will be randomly pre-grouped into either a model development or validation subset. While the model development subset will be used to build the probability model, the validation subset will be used to assess the model accuracy. Also, the locations and magnitudes of suit-body-contacts will be estimated from VAF. This information can identify the critical suit geometry and body shape features that influence suit fit. The variations found in PAF size selections by subjects with similar VAF metrics will allow for investigations into subjective preferences, for example, tight versus loose fit. Overall, this study is expected to provide a structured validation of a virtual suit fit framework, which has not been possible in the past. The outcome can also provide useful insights and potential limitations for interpreting virtual fit tests for future spacesuit designs and population accommodation.
The crew of Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-114 is seen conducting several training exercises in preparation for their mission. The crew consists of Commander Eileen Collins, Pilot James Kelly, and Mission Specialists Soichi Noguchi and Stephen Robinson. With them are Yuri Malenchenko, Sergei Moschenko, and Edward Lu, the intended Expedition 7 crew of the International Space Station (ISS). During extravehicular activity (EVA) training in the virtual reality (VR) laboratory, crew members explore the exterior of the ISS, seen on a monitor. Suiting up with VR equipment is also shown. More EVA training takes place in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL). Here the astronauts are suited up for the NBL pool, and lowered into the water on a platform. After a crew photo session, the astronauts are seated in the Motion Base Simulator in their flight suits. The simulator is shown rocking side-to-side. The crew also hears a hands-on explanation of EVA preparations in the ISS airlock, and practices emergency egress from the CCT, a simulator shaped like an orbiter.
Footage shows the crew of STS-98 during various phases of their training, including an undocking simulation in the Fixed Bases Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS), bailout training, and extravehicular activity (EVA) training at the NBL.
Outline: Background; Terrestrial experience -Initial investigation into MSK (MusculoSKeletal) injuries -MSK Medicine Program -Training injuries -NBL (Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory) EMU (Extravehicular activity Mobility Unit) Work Hardening Program -Return to duty -Post-flight reconditioning program; Inflight musculoskeletal conditions; Lunar Surface Operations; Post-flight injuries.
The beauty of the view from the office of a spacewalking astronaut gives the impression of simplicity, but few beyond the astronauts, and those who train them, know what it really takes to get there. Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training is an intense process that utilizes NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) to develop a very specific skill set needed to safely construct and maintain the orbiting International Space Station. To qualify for flight assignments, astronauts must demonstrate the ability to work safely and efficiently in the physically demanding environment of the spacesuit, possess an acute ability to resolve unforeseen problems, and implement proper tool protocols to ensure no tools will be lost in space. Through the insights and the lessons learned by actual EVA astronauts and EVA instructors, this paper twill take you on a journey through an astronaut's earliest experiences working in the spacesuit. termed the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), in the underwater training environment of the NBL. This work details an actual Suit Qualification NBL training event, outlines the numerous challenges the astronauts face throughout their initial training, and the various ways they adapt their own abilities to overcome them. The goal of this paper is to give everyone a small glimpse into what it is really like to work in a spacesuit.
Live footage shows the crewmembers of STS-101, Commander James D. Halsell Jr., Pilot Scott J. Horowitz, and Mission Specialists Susan J. Helms, Yuri Vladimirovich Usachev, James S. Voss, Mary Ellen Weber, and Jeffrey N. Williams, participating in various crew training. Footage includes the crew Photo Session, crew Compartment Bailout Training, SAFER EVA Virtual Reality Training, ISS Ingress Training, Shuttle Simulator Rendezvous Training, EVA Preparation, and ISS Stowage Training.
Live footage shows the crewmembers of STS-96, Commander Kent V. Rominger, Pilot Rick D. Husband, Mission Specialists Ellen Ochoa, Tamara E. Jernigan, Daniel T. Barry, Julie Payette and Valery Ivanovich Tokarev during various training activities. Scenes include astronaut suit-up, EVA training in the Virtual Reality Lab, Orbiter space vision training, bailout training, and crew photo session. Footage also shows individual crew interviews, repair activities to the external fuel tank, and Discovery's return to the launch pad. The engineers are seen sanding, bending, and painting the foam used in repairing the tank. An animation of the deployment of the STARSHINE satellite, International Space Station, and the STS-96 Mission is presented. Footage shows the students from Edgar Allen Poe Middle School sanding, polishing, and inspecting the mirrors for the STARSHINE satellite. Live footage also includes students from St. Michael the Archangel School wearing bunny suits and entering the clean room at Goddard Space Flight Center.
In general metabolic rates tend to be higher in NBL than in flight: a) Restraint method dependent; b) Significant differences between the NBL and flight for BRT and APFR (buoyancy effects); and c) No significant difference between NBL and flight for free float and SRMS/SSRMS operations. The total metabolic energy expenditure for a given task and for the EVA as a whole are similar between NBL and flight: a) NBL metabolic rates are higher, but training EVAs are constrained to 5 hours; and b) Flight metabolic rates are lower, but the EVAs are typically an hour or more longer in duration. NBL metabolic rates provide a useful operational tool for flight planning. Quantifying differences and similarities between training and flight improves knowledge for preparation of safe and efficient EVAs.
In general metabolic rates tend to be higher in NBL than in flight: a) Restraint method dependant; b) Significant differences between the NBL and flight for BRT and APFR (buoyancy effects). c) No significant difference between NBL and flight for free float and SRMS/SSRMS operations. The total metabolic energy expenditure for a given task and for the EVA as a whole are similar between NBL and flight: a) NBL metabolic rates are higher, but training EVAs are constrained to 5 1/2 hours. b) Flight metabolic rates are lower, but the EVAs are typically an hour or more longer in duration. NBL metabolic rates provide a useful operational tool for flight planning. Quantifying differences and similarities between training and flight improves knowledge for preparation of safe and efficient EVAs.
First half of Gemini program noting design, prelaunch operations, astronaut training, EVA, ETC