SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mobility ports”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2010

Ka-Band Waveguide Two-Way Hybrid Combiner for MMIC Amplifiers

The design, simulation, and characterization of a novel Ka-band (32.05 0.25 GHz) rectangular waveguide two-way branch-line hybrid unequal power combiner (with port impedances matched to that of a standard WR-28 waveguide) has been created to combine input signals, which are in phase and with an amplitude ratio of two. The measured return loss and isolation of the branch-line hybrid are better than 22 and 27 dB, respectively. The measured combining efficiency is 92.9 percent at the center frequency of 32.05 GHz. This circuit is efficacious in combining the unequal output power from two Ka-band GaAs pseudomorphic high electron mobility transistor (pHEMT) monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) power amplifiers (PAs) with high efficiency. The component parts include the branch-line hybrid-based power combiner and the MMIC-based PAs. A two-way branch-line hybrid is a four-port device with all ports matched; power entering port 1 is divided in phase, and into the ratio 2:1 between ports 3 and 4. No power is coupled to port 2. MMICs are a type of integrated circuit fabricated on GaAs that operates at microwave frequencies, and performs the function of signal amplification. The power combiner is designed to operate over the frequency band of 31.8 to 32.3 GHz, which is NASA's deep space frequency band. The power combiner would have an output return loss better than 20 dB. Isolation between the output port and the isolated port is greater than 25 dB. Isolation between the two input ports is greater than 25 dB. The combining efficiency would be greater than 90 percent when the ratio of the two input power levels is two. The power combiner is machined from aluminum with E-plane split-block arrangement, and has excellent reliability. The flexibility of this design allows the combiner to be customized for combining the power from MMIC PAs with an arbitrary power output ratio. In addition, it allows combining a low-power GaAs MMIC with a high-power GaN MMIC. The arbitrary port impedance allows matching the output impedance of the MMIC PA directly to the waveguide impedance without transitioning first into a transmission line with characteristic impedance of 50 ohms. Thus, by eliminating the losses associated with a transition, the overall SSPA efficiency is enhanced. For reducing the cost and weight when required in very large quantities, such as in the beam-forming networks of phased-array antenna systems, the combiner can be manufactured using metal-plated plastic. Two hybrid unequal power combiners can be cascaded to realize a non-binary combiner (for e.g., a three-way) and can be synergistically optimized for low VSWR (voltage standing wave ratio), low insertion loss, high isolation, and wide bandwidth using commercial off-the-shelf electromagnetic software design tools.

Simons, Rainee N.↗

NASA NTRS1983

Surface and allied studies in silicon solar cells

Two main results are presented. The first deals with a simple method that determines the minority-carrier lifetime and the effective surface recombination velocity of the quasi-neutral base of silicon solar cells. The method requires the observation of only a single transient, and is amenable to automation for in-process monitoring in manufacturing. This method, which is called short-circuit current decay, avoids distortion in the observed transient and consequent inacccuracies that arise from the presence of mobile holes and electrons stored in the p/n junction spacecharge region at the initial instant of the transient. The second main result consists in a formulation of the relevant boundary-value problems that resembles that used in linear two-port network theory. This formulation enables comparisons to be made among various contending methods for measuring material parameters of p/n junction devices, and enables the option of putting the description in the time domain of the transient studies in the form of an infinite series, although closed-form solutions are also possible.

Lindholm, F. A.↗

NASA NTRS1985

Experiences with neutral buoyance testing mockups

Contingency operations with neutral bouyancy simulation on a space platform is considered. Some task simulated are aft payload port deployment and retraction, removal and replacement of the control moment cyro, and deployment of the manual hand crank appendage. It is decided that crewmen can perform fine motor activities when simple aids are provided, certain tasks can be accomplished with less efforts when the crewman is afforded additional mobility, manual translation of large mass items is feasible, and that during the installation of replaceable units application of alignment indicators provide significant assistance to crewmen.

Dellacamera, B.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar: Lunar Habitat Concepts

This paper will describe lunar habitat concepts that were defined as part of the Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar (CxAT-Lunar) in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. There are many challenges to designing lunar habitats such as mission objectives, launch packaging, lander capability, and risks. Surface habitats are required in support of sustaining human life to meet the mission objectives of lunar exploration, operations, and sustainability. Lunar surface operations consist of crew operations, mission operations, EVA operations, science operations, and logistics operations. Habitats are crewed pressurized vessels that include surface mission operations, science laboratories, living support capabilities, EVA support, logistics, and maintenance facilities. The challenge is to deliver, unload, and deploy self-contained habitats and laboratories to the lunar surface. The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis. Figure 1 and 2 depicts the notional outpost configurations for this trade set. Trade set two (TS2) investigated a mobile architecture approach with the campaign focused on early exploration using two small pressurized rovers and a mobile logistics support capability. This exploration concept will not be described in this paper. Trade set three (TS3) investigated delivery of a "core' habitation capability in support of an early outpost that would mature into the TS1 full outpost capability. Three core habitat concepts were defined for this campaign analysis. One with a four port core habitat, another with a 2 port core habitat, and the third investigated leveraging commonality of the lander ascent module and airlock pressure vessel hard shell. The paper will describe an overview of the various habitat concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suit-port airlock function such as redundant airlock(s), suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as closed loop life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other Hab units, and a common interface mechanism for future growth and mating to a pressurized rover. The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, and medical operations.

Toups, Larry↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

xPLSS Structural Backplate Design, Manufacture, and Test Overview

NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) has been developing and building a new detailed design of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) space suit to support future International Space Station (ISS) and Lunar Artemis missions. The Exploration Portable Life Support System (xPLSS) of the xEMU contains some clever new technologies to meet the requirements to provide Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) capability on the ISS and the Moon. The suit must interface with and fit through ports and airlocks of at least three vehicles: ISS, Human Landing System (HLS), and Gateway. The first partial xPLSS experimental flight unit called SWME EXPRESS Rack Flight Experiment (SERFE) that was a rack-deployed thermal control system payload on the ISS for two years (2020-2022). The first complete assembly of the xEMU was built as a Design Verification Test (DVT) unit (2022); similar to but more extensive than an Engineering Development Unit (EDU). The xPLSS Backplate serves not only as the structural backbone of the xPLSS and SERFE systems but also contains innovative design features to reduce the: mass, complexity, parts count, number ofseals (and therefore leak potential), and outer dimensions of the entire assembly. This paper provides an overview of these new design features, manufacturing processes, system interfaces, and SERFE/DVT test results of the Backplate as part of the xPLSS/xEMU.

xPLSS↗

NASA NTRS2023

xPLSS Structural Backplate Design, Manufacture, and Test Overview

xPLSS↗

NASA NTRS2009

Aerodynamics of a Gulfstream G550 Nose Landing Gear Model

In this paper we discuss detailed steady and unsteady aerodynamic measurements of a Gulfstream G550 nose landing gear model. The quarter-scale, high-fidelity model includes part of the lower fuselage and the gear cavity. The full model configuration allowed for removal of various gear components (e.g. light cluster, steering mechanism, hydraulic lines, etc.) in order to document their effects on the local flow field. The measurements were conducted at a Reynolds number of 7.3 x 10(exp 4) based on the shock strut (piston) diameter and a freestream Mach number of 0.166. Additional data were also collected at lower Mach numbers of 0.12 and 0.145 and correspondingly lower Reynolds numbers. The boundary layer on the piston was tripped to enable turbulent flow separation, so as to better mimic the conditions encountered during flight. Steady surface pressures were gathered from an extensive number of static ports on the wheels, door, fuselage, and within the gear cavity. To better understand the resultant flow interactions between gear components, surface pressure fluctuations were collected via sixteen dynamic pressure sensors strategically placed on various subcomponents of the gear. Fifteen of the transducers were flush mounted on the gear surface at fixed locations, while the remaining one was a mobile transducer that could be placed at numerous varying locations. The measured surface pressure spectra are mainly broadband in nature, lacking any local peaks associated with coherent vortex shedding. This finding is in agreement with off-surface flow measurements using PIV that revealed the flow field to be a collection of separated shear layers without any dominant vortex shedding processes.

Neuhart, Dan H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Fitness for Duty Standards Using Pre- and Post-Flight Capsule Egress and Suited Functional Performance Tasks in Simulated Reduced Gravity (Pilot Egress Fitness)

As NASA prepares for exploration missions, it will be critical to understand and build upon known crew capabilities. Specifically, we need to know the functional capacities of crew at different stages of a mission and characterize these profiles so that the appropriate vehicle requirements and mission concepts of operations (ConOps) can be developed. One of the most complex phases of any missions is when there is a transition between gravity environments. For instance, both physiological adaptation to microgravity and subsequent re-entry into a gravity environment result in reduced functional capacity, even with rigorous adherence to inflight countermeasures. Quantification of the astronauts’ post-landing functional performance is necessary to design ConOps for exploration missions. Specifically, these two high-risk tasks may have to be performed soon after gravity transitions: •Unassisted capsule egress task after return to Earth •Planetary extravehicular activity (EVA) soon after landing on Mars or the Moon This study has been broken down into two phases. A pilot phase to assess the overall feasibility and demonstrate the capability to do these tasks shortly after landing and the full Egress Fitness study, which will be part of the CIPHER complement. This study uses a functional task approach to characterize performance of these high-risk tasks in long-duration ISS crewmembers before flight and shortly after return to Earth. Prior to any testing, each astronaut subject completes a suit fit check to ensure adequate sizing and mobility to be able to complete the EVA tasks. Pilot Egress Fitness pre-flight and post-flight testing includes an Earth based emergency egress out of a functional capsule mockup, and a short Mars gravity EVA simulation including suit donning, hatch egress, ladder descent, task board cable operations, baggage transfer over sand/rocky regolith, alignment with a rear entry port, and suit egress. Pre-flight testing can occur almost anytime pre-flight, but post-flight scheduling is much more critical with the capsule egress test occurring 1-4 hours after landing and the planetary EVA approximately 18-36 hours after landing. Data collected for both tasks includes task completion time, photo, and video. The EVA portion also includes collection of metabolic and heart rate. Pilot Egress Fitness study has completed baseline pre-flight testing on 3 astronaut subjects. Post-flight testing of the first two subjects will be completed in November 2021 and the final subject around March 2022. Results and lessons learned from this pilot study will inform the full Egress Fitness study, which will incorporate additional pre-flight sessions, longer EVA tasks, and post-flight testing on R+1, 4, and 7 to characterize the timeframe of recovery

J R Norcross↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Fitness for Duty Standards Using Pre- and Post-Flight Capsule Egress and Suited Functional Performance Tasks in Simulated Reduced Gravity

The transition between gravity environments will involve one of the most complex, high-risk phases of any mission. For example, the reduced functional capacity caused by physiological deconditioning adaptations in microgravity coupled with the stressors of re-entry into partial gravity environments will increase risks to crew, even with rigorous adherence to inflight countermeasures. Quantification of the astronauts’ post-landing functional performance is necessary to design ConOps for exploration missions. Specifically, these two high-risk scenarios may be required to be performed soon after gravity transitions: • Nominal and/or emergency unassisted capsule egress task after return to Earth • Planetary extravehicular activity (EVA) soon after landing on Mars or the Moon This study is broken down into two phases. Phase 1: A feasibility study that will assess the overall feasibility and demonstrate the capability to do these tasks shortly after landing. Phase 2: the full Egress Fitness study, which is part of the CIPHER complement. This study uses a task-based approach to characterize functional performance of these high-risk scenarios in long-duration ISS crewmembers before flight and shortly after return to Earth. Prior to any testing, each astronaut subject completes a suit fit check to ensure adequate sizing and a mobility assessment to confirm completion of the EVA tasks. Pilot Egress Fitness pre-flight and post-flight testing includes an Earth-based emergency egress out of a functional capsule mockup and a short Mars gravity EVA simulation including suit donning, hatch egress, ladder descent, task board cable operations, baggage transfer over sand/rocky regolith, alignment with a rear entry port, and suit egress. Pre-flight testing will occur at any time point prior to flight. Post-flight assessment is much more critical with the capsule egress test that will occur 1–4 hours after landing and the planetary EVA approximately 18–36 hours after landing. The CIPHER study will incorporate additional pre-flight sessions, longer EVA tasks that include traverse and geology sampling, and post-flight sessions on R+1, 4, and 8 to characterize the timeframe of recovery. Data collected for both tasks include task completion time, photo, and video. The EVA portion also includes collection of metabolic and heart rate. Pilot Egress Fitness study has completed both baseline and post-flight testing on four astronaut subjects, with all four able to complete post-flight EVA testing and three able to complete postflight capsule egress testing. Preliminary results observe individual physiological variations, which were to be expected but also suggest the need to carefully track the timeline from undock to landing to testing. Furthermore, some task performance instructions and equipment may need to be adjusted to ensure results are primarily physiological. These and other lessons learned will be addressed with minor protocol changes in the full CIPHER Egress Fitness study.

J R Norcross↗

NASA NTRS2015

Experimentally Determined Heat Transfer Coefficients for Spacesuit Liquid Cooled Garments

A Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) Portable Life Support System 2.0 (PLSS 2.0) test has been conducted at NASA Johnson Space Center in the PLSS Development Laboratory from October 27, 2014 to December 19, 2014. These closed-loop tests of the PLSS 2.0 system integrated with human subjects in the Mark III Suit at 3.7 psi to 4.3 psi above ambient pressure performing treadmill exercise at various metabolic rates from standing rest to 3000 BTU/hr (880 W). The bulk of the PLSS 2.0 was at ambient pressure but effluent water vapor from the Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator (SWME) and the Auxiliary Membrane Evaporator (Mini-ME), and effluent carbon dioxide from the Rapid Cycle Amine (RCA) were ported to vacuum to test performance of these components in flight-like conditions. One of the objectives of this test was to determine the heat transfer coefficient (UA) of the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG). The UA, an important factor for modeling the heat rejection of an LCG, was determined in a variety of conditions by varying inlet water temperature, flowrate, and metabolic rate. Three LCG configurations were tested: the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) LCG, the Oceaneering Space Systems (OSS) LCG, and the OSS auxiliary LCG. Other factors influencing accurate UA determination, such as overall heat balance, LCG fit, and the skin temperature measurement, will also be discussed.

Bue, Grant↗

NASA NTRS2015

Experimentally Determined Overall Heat Transfer Coefficients for Spacesuit Liquid Cooled Garments

A Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) Portable Life Support System 2.0 (PLSS 2.0) test has been conducted at NASA Johnson Space Center in the PLSS Development Laboratory from October 27, 2014 to December 19, 2014. These closed-loop tests of the PLSS 2.0 system integrated with human subjects in the Mark III Suit at 3.7 psi to 4.3 psi above ambient pressure performing treadmill exercise at various metabolic rates from standing rest to 3000 BTU/hr (880 W). The bulk of the PLSS 2.0 was at ambient pressure but effluent water vapor from the Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator (SWME) and the Auxiliary Membrane Evaporator (Mini-ME), and effluent carbon dioxide from the Rapid Cycle Amine (RCA) were ported to vacuum to test performance of these components in flight-like conditions. One of the objectives of this test was to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (UA) of the Liquid Cooling Garment (LCG). The UA, an important factor for modeling the heat rejection of an LCG, was determined in a variety of conditions by varying inlet water temperature, flow rate, and metabolic rate. Three LCG configurations were tested: the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) LCG, the Oceaneering Space Systems (OSS) LCG, and the OSS auxiliary LCG. Other factors influencing accurate UA determination, such as overall heat balance, LCG fit, and the skin temperature measurement, will also be discussed.

Bue, Grant↗

NASA NTRS2016

Z-2 Architecture Description and Requirements Verification Results

The Z-2 Prototype Planetary Extravehicular Space Suit Assembly is a continuation of NASA's Z series of spacesuits. The Z-2 is another step in NASA's technology development roadmap leading to human exploration of the Martian surface. The suit was designed for maximum mobility at 8.3 psid, reduced mass, and to have high fidelity life support interfaces. As Z-2 will be man-tested at full vacuum in NASA JSC's Chamber B, it was manufactured as Class II, making it the most flight-like planetary walking suit produced to date. The Z-2 suit architecture is an evolution of previous EVA suits, namely the ISS EMU, Mark III, Rear Entry I-Suit and Z-1 spacesuits. The suit is a hybrid hard and soft multi-bearing, rear entry spacesuit. The hard upper torso (HUT) is an all-composite structure and includes a 2-bearing rolling convolute shoulder with Vernier sizing mechanism, removable suit port interface plate (SIP), elliptical hemispherical helmet and self-don/doff shoulder harness. The hatch is a hybrid aluminum and composite construction with Apollo style gas connectors, custom water pass-thru, removable hatch cage and interfaces to primary and auxiliary life support feed water bags. The suit includes Z-1 style lower arms with cam brackets for Vernier sizing and government furnished equipment (GFE) Phase VI gloves. The lower torso includes a telescopic waist sizing system, waist bearing, rolling convolute waist joint, hard brief, 2 bearing soft hip thigh, Z-1 style legs with ISS EMU style cam brackets for sizing, and conformal walking boots with ankle bearings. The Z-2 Requirements Verification Plan includes the verification of more than 200 individual requirements. The verification methods include test, analysis, inspection, demonstration or a combination of methods. Examples of unmanned requirements include suit leakage, proof pressure testing, operational life, mass, isometric man-loads, sizing adjustment ranges, internal and external interfaces such as in-suit drink bag, partial pressure relief valve, purge valve, donning stand and ISS Body Restraint Tether (BRT). Examples of manned requirements include verification of anthropometric range, suit self-don/doff, secondary suit exit method, donning stand self-ingress/egress and manned mobility covering eight functional tasks. The eight functional tasks include kneeling with object pick-up, standing toe touch, cross-body reach, walking, reach to the SIP and helmet visor. This paper will provide an overview of the Z-2 design. Z-2 requirements verification testing was performed with NASA at the ILC Houston test facility. This paper will also discuss pre-delivery manned and unmanned test results as well as analysis performed in support of requirements verification.

Graziosi, Dave↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat

The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.

Lunar Suface↗

NASA NTRS2016

Concept of Operations for a Prospective "Proving Ground" in the Lunar Vicinity

NASA is studying a "Proving Ground" near the Moon to conduct human space exploration missions in preparation for future flights to Mars. This paper describes a concept of operations ("conops") for activities in the Proving Ground, focusing on the construction and use of a mobile Cislunar Transit Habitat capable of months-long excursions within and beyond the Earth-Moon system. Key elements in the conops include the Orion spacecraft (with mission kits for docking and other specialized operations) and the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket. Potential additions include commercial launch vehicles and logistics carriers, solar electric propulsion stages to move elements between different orbits and eventually take them on excursions to deep space, a node module with multiple docking ports, habitation and life support blocks, and international robotic and piloted lunar landers. The landers might include reusable ascent modules which could remain docked to in-space elements between lunar sorties. The architecture will include infrastructure for launch preparation, communication, mission control, and range safety. The conops describes "case studies" of notional missions chosen to guide the design of the architecture and its elements. One such mission is the delivery of a ~10-ton pressurized element, co-manifested with an Orion on a Block 1B Space Launch System rocket, to the Proving Ground. With a large solar electric propulsion stage, the architecture could enable a year-long mission to land humans on a near-Earth asteroid. In the last case, after returning to near-lunar space, two of the asteroid explorers could join two crewmembers freshly arrived from Earth for a Moon landing, helping to safely quantify the risk of landing deconditioned crews on Mars. The conops also discusses aborts and contingency operations. Early return to Earth may be difficult, especially during later Proving Ground missions. While adding risk, limited-abort conditions provide needed practice for Mars, from which early return is likely to be impossible.

Love, Stanley G.↗

NASA NTRS1991

Walking robot: A design project for undergraduate students

The objective of the University of Maryland walking robot project was to design, analyze, assemble, and test an intelligent, mobile, and terrain-adaptive system. The robot incorporates existing technologies in novel ways. The legs emulate the walking path of a human by an innovative modification of a crank-and-rocker mechanism. The body consists of two tripod frames connected by a turning mechanism. The two sets of three legs are mounted so as to allow the robot to walk with stability in its own footsteps. The computer uses a modular hardware design and distributed processing. Dual-port RAM is used to allow communication between a supervisory personal computer and seven microcontrollers. The microcontrollers provide low-level control for the motors and relieve the processing burden on the PC.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2014

Carbon Dioxide Washout Testing Using Various Inlet Vent Configurations in the Mark-III Space Suit

Requirements for using a space suit during ground testing include providing adequate carbon dioxide (CO2) washout for the suited subject. Acute CO2 exposure can lead to symptoms including headache, dyspnea, lethargy, and eventually unconsciousness or even death. Symptoms depend on several factors including inspired partial pressure of CO2 (ppCO2), duration of exposure, metabolic rate of the subject, and physiological differences between subjects. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis has predicted that the configuration of the suit inlet vent has a significant effect on oronasal CO2 concentrations. The main objective of this test was to characterize inspired oronasal ppCO2 for a variety of inlet vent configurations in the Mark-III suit across a range of workload and flow rates. Data and trends observed during testing along with refined CFD models will be used to help design an inlet vent configuration for the Z-2 space suit. The testing methodology used in this test builds upon past CO2 washout testing performed on the Z-1 suit, Rear Entry I-Suit, and the Enhanced Mobility Advanced Crew Escape Suit. Three subjects performed two test sessions each in the Mark-III suit to allow for comparison between tests. Six different helmet inlet vent configurations were evaluated during each test session. Suit pressure was maintained at 4.3 psid. Suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to generate metabolic workloads of approximately 2000 and 3000 BTU/hr. Supply airflow rates of 6 and 4 actual cubic feet per minute were tested at each workload. Subjects wore an oronasal mask with an open port in front of the mouth and were allowed to breathe freely. Oronasal ppCO2 was monitored real-time via gas analyzers with sampling tubes connected to the oronasal mask. Metabolic rate was calculated from the CO2 production measured by an additional gas analyzer at the air outlet from the suit. Real-time metabolic rate measurements were used to adjust the treadmill workload to meet target metabolic rates. This paper provides detailed descriptions of the test hardware, methodology and results, as well as implications for future inlet vent designs and ground testing.

Korona, F. Adam↗

NASA NTRS2014

CO2 Washout Testing Using Various Inlet Vent Configurations in the Mark-III Space Suit

Requirements for using a space suit during ground testing include providing adequate carbon dioxide (CO2) washout for the suited subject. Acute CO2 exposure can lead to symptoms including headache, dyspnea, lethargy and eventually unconsciousness or even death. Symptoms depend on several factors including inspired partial pressure of CO2 (ppCO2), duration of exposure, metabolic rate of the subject and physiological differences between subjects. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) analysis has predicted that the configuration of the suit inlet vent has a significant effect on oronasal CO2 concentrations. The main objective of this test was to characterize inspired oronasal ppCO2 for a variety of inlet vent configurations in the Mark-III suit across a range of workload and flow rates. Data and trends observed during testing along with refined CFD models will be used to help design an inlet vent configuration for the Z-2 space suit. The testing methodology used in this test builds upon past CO2 washout testing performed on the Z-1 suit, Rear Entry I-Suit (REI) and the Enhanced Mobility Advanced Crew Escape Suit (EM-ACES). Three subjects performed two test sessions each in the Mark-III suit to allow for comparison between tests. Six different helmet inlet vent configurations were evaluated during each test session. Suit pressure was maintained at 4.3 psid. Suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to generate metabolic workloads of approximately 2000 and 3000 BTU/hr. Supply airflow rates of 6 and 4 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) were tested at each workload. Subjects wore an oronasal mask with an open port in front of the mouth and were allowed to breathe freely. Oronasal ppCO2 was monitored real-time via gas analyzers with sampling tubes connected to the oronasal mask. Metabolic rate was calculated from the total oxygen consumption and CO2 production measured by additional gas analyzers at the air outlet from the suit. Realtime metabolic rate measurements were used to adjust the treadmill workload to meet target metabolic rates. This paper provides detailed descriptions of the test hardware, methodology and results, as well as implications for future inlet vent designs and ground testing.

Korona, F. Adam↗

NASA NTRS2014

CO2 Washout Testing Using Various Inlet Vent Configurations in the Mark-III Space Suit

Requirements for using a space suit during ground testing include providing adequate carbon dioxide (CO2) washout for the suited subject. Acute CO2 exposure can lead to symptoms including headache, dyspnea, lethargy and eventually unconsciousness or even death. Symptoms depend on several factors including inspired partial pressure of CO2 (ppCO2), duration of exposure, metabolic rate of the subject and physiological differences between subjects. Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) analysis has predicted that the configuration of the suit inlet vent has a significant effect on oronasal CO2 concentrations. The main objective of this test was to characterize inspired oronasal ppCO2 for a variety of inlet vent configurations in the Mark-III suit across a range of workload and flow rates. Data and trends observed during testing along with refined CFD models will be used to help design an inlet vent configuration for the Z-2 space suit. The testing methodology used in this test builds upon past CO2 washout testing performed on the Z-1 suit, Rear Entry I-Suit (REI) and the Enhanced Mobility Advanced Crew Escape Suit (EM-ACES). Three subjects performed two test sessions each in the Mark-III suit to allow for comparison between tests. Six different helmet inlet vent configurations were evaluated during each test session. Suit pressure was maintained at 4.3 psid. Suited test subjects walked on a treadmill to generate metabolic workloads of approximately 2000 and 3000 BTU/hr. Supply airflow rates of 6 and 4 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) were tested at each workload. Subjects wore an oronasal mask with an open port in front of the mouth and were allowed to breathe freely. Oronasal ppCO2 was monitored real-time via gas analyzers with sampling tubes connected to the oronasal mask. Metabolic rate was calculated from the total oxygen consumption and CO2 production measured by additional gas analyzers at the air outlet from the suit. Real-time metabolic rate measurements were used to adjust the treadmill workload to meet target metabolic rates. This paper provides detailed descriptions of the test hardware, methodology and results, as well as implications for future inlet vent designs and ground testing.

Korona, F. Adam↗