Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EVA suit”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dual Glovebox Thermal Vacuum Chamber: Testing Capabilities for Spacesuit Arms and Gloves

The development of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits and hand mobility EVA tasks are complex, high risk, and difficult to test in a simulated space environment. During the early assembly of the International Space Station, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division’s Systems Test Branch at NASA JSC was tasked to design a chamber that could use two Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) arms in a simulated space environment versus testing with a full suit. The Dual Glove Box (DGB) Chamber was built and served to help develop EVA tools and operations to assist with Return to Flight for the Space Shuttle after the Columbia accident. With the recent development of the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) and new commercial suits through the Extravehicular Activities Services (xEVAS) contract, the DGB can support the need to do suit component testing at thermal extremes and EVA operations without the cost of full suit testing. The DGB can simulate realistic delta pressures, vacuum down to 10^-5 Torr with roughing and cryogenic pumps, and a wide range of shroud temperatures achieved via a combination of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), conditioned Gaseous Nitrogen (GN2), and Infrared (IR) lamps. Recent developmental work has verified operational status of the chamber and expanded the capabilities of the DGB to include thermal contact testing of suit gloves through the development of 2 temperature-controlled grab bars. This paper will discuss the history and capabilities of the DGB, and the chamber’s future role in the development of new spacesuit systems.

Kaixin Cui↗
NASA NTRS2009

Metabolic and Subjective Results Review of the Integrated Suit Test Series

Crewmembers will perform a variety of exploration and construction activities on the lunar surface. These activities will be performed while inside an extravehicular activity (EVA) spacesuit. In most cases, human performance is compromised while inside an EVA suit as compared to a crewmember s unsuited performance baseline. Subjects completed different EVA type tasks, ranging from ambulation to geology and construction activities, in different lunar analog environments including overhead suspension, underwater and 1-g lunar-like terrain, in both suited and unsuited conditions. In the suited condition, the Mark III (MKIII) EVA technology demonstrator suit was used and suit pressure and suit weight were parameters tested. In the unsuited conditions, weight, mass, center of gravity (CG), terrain type and navigation were the parameters. To the extent possible, one parameter was varied while all others were held constant. Tests were not fully crossed, but rather one parameter was varied while all others were left in the most nominal setting. Oxygen consumption (VO2), modified Cooper-Harper (CH) ratings of operator compensation and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured for each trial. For each variable, a lower value correlates to more efficient task performance. Due to a low sample size, statistical significance was not attainable. Initial findings indicate that suit weight, CG and the operational environment can have a large impact on human performance during EVA. Systematic, prospective testing series such as those performed to date will enable a better understanding of the crucial interactions of the human and the EVA suit system and their environment. However, work remains to be done to confirm these findings. These data have been collected using only unsuited subjects and one EVA suit prototype that is known to fit poorly on a large demographic of the astronaut population. Key findings need to be retested using an EVA suit prototype better suited to a larger anthropometric portion of the astronaut population, and elements tested only in the unsuited condition need to be evaluated with an EVA suit and appropriate analog environment.

Norcross, J.R.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Mechanically Strong, Lightweight Porous Materials Developed (X-Aerogels)

Aerogels are attractive materials for a variety of NASA missions because they are ultralightweight, have low thermal conductivity and low-dielectric constants, and can be readily doped with other materials. Potential NASA applications for these materials include lightweight insulation for spacecraft, habitats, and extravehicular activity (EVA) suits; catalyst supports for fuel cell and in situ resource utilization; and sensors for air- and water-quality monitoring for vehicles, habitats, and EVA suits. Conventional aerogels are extremely fragile and require processing via supercritical fluid extraction, which adds cost to the production of an aerogel and limits the sizes and geometries of samples that can be produced from these materials. These issues have severely hampered the application of aerogels in NASA missions.

Leventis, Nicholas↗
NASA NTRS2005

Research Needs in Electrostatics for Lunar and Mars Space Missions

The new space exploratory vision announced by President Bush on January 14, 2004, initiated new activities at the National Science and Space Administration (NASA) for human space missions to further explore our solar system. NASA is undertaking Lunar exploration to support sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars and beyond. A series of robotic missions to the Moon by 2008 to prepare for human exploration as early as 2015 but no later than 2020 are anticipated. In a similar way, missions to the Moon and Mars are being planned in Europe, Japan and Russia. These space missions will require international participation to solve problems in a number of important technological areas where research is needed, including biomedical risk mitigation as well as life support and habitability on the surface of Mars. Mitigation of dust hazards is one of the most important problems to be resolved for both Lunar and Mars missions. Both Lunar and Martian regolith are unique materials and completely different from the terrestrial soils that we are exposed to on earth. The total absence of water and an atmosphere on the moon and the formation of soil and fine dust by micrometeorite impacts over billions of years resulted in a layer of soil with unique properties. The soil is primarily basaltic in composition with a high glass concentration. The depth of the soil layer varies from a few meters in the mare areas (dark areas on the Lunar near side) to tens of meters in the highland areas (the lighter mountainous areas) and the particle size distribution of this dust layer varies widely with a major mass fraction less than 10 micrometer in diameter. The hard soil from the moon which has been extensively studied by several researchers showed clearly unique properties of Lunar soil. Apollo astronauts became aware of the potentially serious threat to crew health and mission hardware that can be caused by the lunar dust. As reported by McKay and Carrier the mass fraction of the lunar dust with particle diameter smaller than 20p.m probably represents up to 30% of the total mass of regolith. Apollo astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmidt reported that these fine dust particles were clinging to the Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) suits and to the visors and were limiting the activity on the surface of the moon. The dust particles that were transported with the EVA suits into the lunar module floated throughout the cabin. Crews inhaled the dust particles and noted that they smelled like gun smoke, caused a chocking sensation in the throat and eye irritation. In addition,, some of the mechanical systems were not functioning well because of the dust deposition. It appeared that the dust particles are highly charged electrostatically and Dr. Schmidt noted that future successful Lunar missions will require appropriate dust mitigation technology for protecting astronauts from inhaling toxic particles and mission's life supporting equipment from contamination with the dust particles.

Calle, Carlos I.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Moon to Mars (M2M): Exploration Atmosphere

As humans leave the bounds of Earth to explore the lunar surface and beyond, crew will don extravehicular activity (EVA) suits to learn more about these extraterrestrial environments, establish sustained presence, and perform needed upgrades and maintenance to their space vehicle and habitation systems. Spacefaring vehicle and habitation design will need to support these EVA excursions while ensuring crew health and safety. A crucial technological design advancement towards this goal is the use of a lower pressure exploration atmosphere (EA) that enables high efficiency EVA, rather than the sea level atmosphere of 14.7 psia, 21% oxygen (O 2 ) found on the International Space Station, Shuttle, and most other Russian and Chinese space vehicles and stations. Early space vehicles (Mercury through Apollo Programs) used a 5 psia, 100% O 2 environment, which eliminated the need for pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols, simplified the life support system to a single gas, and saved structural mass. For longer duration missions (Skylab), a diluent gas was added, changing the atmosphere to 5 psia, 70-74% O 2 to prevent atelectasis while remaining normoxic. As in-flight science became a top priority, Shuttle and ISS atmospheres were chosen to operate at sea level allowing for simpler ground-based study control conditions. Consequently this led to long pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols involving up to 4 hours of O 2 prebreathe because the EVA suit still operated at a low pressure of 4.3 psid. To increase operational efficiency, the Shuttle was retroactively certified to operate using 10.2 psia, 26.5% O 2 , reducing O 2 prebreathe time to 40-75 min. Current plans for M2M habitats on the Lunar surface require EVA, thus EA recommendation became 8 psia and 32% O 2 but was revised to 8.2 psia and 34% O 2 to decrease hypoxia exposure. Unfortunately, the benefits of EA in support of safe and efficient EVAs comes with the challenge of fire management in a higher-than-normal O 2 % environment. Although known for decades, the recommended forward work to address fire management has only recently begun. Current flammability tests include examining material propagation and ignition sources as well as fire mitigation processes to better understand these properties for proposed new EA environments. Fire safety, DCS risk, and mission design all contribute to the multifaceted parameters of EA. Thus while it is clear that EA is required to achieve the goals of future exploratory space missions, final specifications are still being evaluated for optimizing crew health and safety.

space atmosphere↗
NASA NTRS2011

The Extravehicular Suit Impact Load Attenuation Study for Use in Astronaut Bone Fracture Prediction

The NASA Integrated Medical Model (IMM) assesses the risk, including likelihood and impact of occurrence, of all credible in-flight medical conditions. Fracture of the proximal femur is a traumatic injury that would likely result in loss of mission if it were to happen during spaceflight. The low gravity exposure causes decreases in bone mineral density which heightens the concern. Researchers at the NASA Glenn Research Center have quantified bone fracture probability during spaceflight with a probabilistic model. It was assumed that a pressurized extravehicular activity (EVA) suit would attenuate load during a fall, but no supporting data was available. The suit impact load attenuation study was performed to collect analogous data. METHODS: A pressurized EVA suit analog test bed was used to study how the offset, defined as the gap between the suit and the astronaut s body, impact load magnitude and suit operating pressure affects the attenuation of impact load. The attenuation data was incorporated into the probabilistic model of bone fracture as a function of these factors, replacing a load attenuation value based on commercial hip protectors. RESULTS: Load attenuation was more dependent on offset than on pressurization or load magnitude, especially at small offsets. Load attenuation factors for offsets between 0.1 - 1.5 cm were 0.69 +/- 0.15, 0.49 +/- 0.22 and 0.35 +/- 0.18 for mean impact forces of 4827, 6400 and 8467 N, respectively. Load attenuation factors for offsets of 2.8 - 5.3 cm were 0.93 +/- 0.2, 0.94 +/- 0.1 and 0.84 +/- 0.5, for the same mean impact forces. Reductions were observed in the 95th percentile confidence interval of the bone fracture probability predictions. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in uncertainty and improved confidence in bone fracture predictions increased the fidelity and credibility of the fracture risk model and its benefit to mission design and operational decisions.

Lewandowski, Beth E.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Design of a lunar transportation system, volume 2

The Spring 1990 Introduction to Design class was asked to conceptually design second generation lunar vehicles and equipment as a semester design project. A brief summary of four of the final projects, is presented. The designs were to facilitate the transportation of personnel and materials. The eight topics to choose from included flying vehicles, ground based vehicles, robotic arms, and life support systems. A lunar flying vehicle that uses clean propellants for propulsion is examined. A design that will not contribute to the considerable amount of caustic pollution already present in the sparse lunar atmosphere is addressed by way of ballistic flight techniques. A second generation redesign of the current Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) suit to increase operating time, safety, and efficiency is also addressed. A separate life support system is also designed to be permanently attached to the lunar rover. The two systems would interact through the use of an umbilical cord connection. A ground based vehicle which will travel for greater distances than a 37.5 kilometer radius from a base on the lunar surface was designed. The vehicle is pressurized due to the fact that existing lunar rovers are limited by the EVA suits currently in use. A robotic arm for use at lunar bases or on roving vehicles on the lunar surface was designed. The arm was originally designed as a specimen gathering device, but it can be used for a wide range of tasks through the use of various attachments.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2007

Recommendations for Exploration Space Medicine from the Apollo Medical Operations Project

Introduction: A study was requested in December, 2005 by the Space Medicine Division at the NASA-Johnson Space Center (JSC) to identify Apollo mission issues relevant to medical operations that had impact to crew health and/or performance. The objective was to use this new information to develop medical requirements for the future Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), Lunar Habitat, and Advanced Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits that are currently being developed within the exploration architecture. Methods: Available resources pertaining to medical operations on the Apollo 7 through 17 missions were reviewed. Ten categories of hardware, systems, or crew factors were identified in the background research, generating 655 data records in a database. A review of the records resulted in 280 questions that were then posed to surviving Apollo crewmembers by mail, face-to-face meetings, or online interaction. Response analysis to these questions formed the basis of recommendations to items in each of the categories. Results: Thirteen of 22 surviving Apollo astronauts (59%) participated in the project. Approximately 236 pages of responses to the questions were captured, resulting in 107 recommendations offered for medical consideration in the design of future vehicles and EVA suits based on the Apollo experience. Discussion: The goals of this project included: 1) Develop or modify medical requirements for new vehicles; 2) create a centralized database for future access; and 3) take this new knowledge and educate the various directorates at NASA-JSC who are participating in the exploration effort. To date, the Apollo Medical Operations recommendations are being incorporated into the exploration mission architecture at various levels and a centralized database has been developed. The Apollo crewmembers input has proved to be an invaluable resource, prompting ongoing collaboration as the requirements for the future exploration missions continue to evolve and be refined.

Scheuring, R. a.↗
NASA NTRS1976

EVA space suit Evaporative Cooling/Heating Glove System (ECHGS)

A new astronaut glove, the Evaporative Cooling/Heating Glove System (ECHGS), was designed and developed to allow the handling of objects between -200 F and +200 F. Active heating elements, positioned at each finger pad, provide additional heat to the finger pads from the rest of the finger. A water evaporative cooling system provides cooling by the injection of water to the finger areas and the subsequent direct evaporation to space. Thin, flexible insulation has been developed for the finger areas to limit thermal conductivity. Component and full glove tests have shown that the glove meets and exceeds the requirements to hold a 11/2 inch diameter bar at + or - 200 F for three minutes within comfort limits. The ECHGS is flexible, lightweight and comfortable. Tactility is reasonable and small objects can be identified especially by the fingertips beyond the one half width active elements.

Coss, F. A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Development of an Objective Space Suit Mobility Performance Metric Using Metabolic Cost and Functional Tasks

Existing methods for evaluating EVA suit performance and mobility have historically concentrated on isolated joint range of motion and torque. However, these techniques do little to evaluate how well a suited crewmember can actually perform during an EVA. An alternative method of characterizing suited mobility through measurement of metabolic cost to the wearer has been evaluated at Johnson Space Center over the past several years. The most recent study involved six test subjects completing multiple trials of various functional tasks in each of three different space suits; the results indicated it was often possible to discern between different suit designs on the basis of metabolic cost alone. However, other variables may have an effect on real-world suited performance; namely, completion time of the task, the gravity field in which the task is completed, etc. While previous results have analyzed completion time, metabolic cost, and metabolic cost normalized to system mass individually, it is desirable to develop a single metric comprising these (and potentially other) performance metrics. This paper outlines the background upon which this single-score metric is determined to be feasible, and initial efforts to develop such a metric. Forward work includes variable coefficient determination and verification of the metric through repeated testing.

Norcross, J. R.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Development of an Objective Space Suit Mobility Performance Metric Using Metabolic Cost and Functional Tasks

Existing methods for evaluating EVA suit performance and mobility have historically concentrated on isolated joint range of motion and torque. However, these techniques do little to evaluate how well a suited crewmember can actually perform during an EVA. An alternative method of characterizing suited mobility through measurement of metabolic cost to the wearer has been evaluated at Johnson Space Center over the past several years. The most recent study involved six test subjects completing multiple trials of various functional tasks in each of three different space suits; the results indicated it was often possible to discern between different suit designs on the basis of metabolic cost alone. However, other variables may have an effect on real-world suited performance; namely, completion time of the task, the gravity field in which the task is completed, etc. While previous results have analyzed completion time, metabolic cost, and metabolic cost normalized to system mass individually, it is desirable to develop a single metric comprising these (and potentially other) performance metrics. This paper outlines the background upon which this single-score metric is determined to be feasible, and initial efforts to develop such a metric. Forward work includes variable coefficient determination and verification of the metric through repeated testing.

McFarland, Shane M.↗
NASA NTRS1991

A prototype power assist EVA glove

The most recent generation of space suit EVA gloves has addressed the problem of loose fit and stiffness in the fingers, but it remains difficult to build a glove assembly with low metacarpophalangeal joint stiffness. Fatigue due to constantly displacing the glove from a neutral position has been reported as the limiting factor in some EVA activities. This paper outlines an actuation system that uses gas filled bladders attached to the back of the EVA glove to provide the necessary force to bend the glove at the metacarpal joint, thus providing greater endurance during finger grasping tasks. A simple on-off controller senses hand movement through small pressure sensors between the finger and the glove restraint. The controller then fills or exhausts the bladders on the back of the glove to effectively move the neutral position of the glove as the hand inside moves.

Main, John A.↗
NASA NTRS2002

STS-112 Crew Training Clip

Footage shows the crew of STS-112 (Jeffrey Ashby, Commander; Pamela Melroy, Pilot; David Wolf, Piers Sellers, Sandra Magnus, and Fyodor Yurchikhin, Mission Specialists) during several parts of their training. The video is arranged into short segments. In 'Topside Activities at the NBL', Wolf and Sellers are fitted with EVA suits for pool training. 'Pre-Launch Bailout Training in CCT II' shows all six crew members exiting from the hatch on a model of a shuttle orbiter cockpit. 'EVA Training in the VR Lab' shows a crew member training with a virtual reality simulator, interspersed with footage of Magnus, and Wolf with Melroy, at monitors. There is a 'Crew Photo Session', and 'Pam Melroy and Sandy Magnus at the SES Dome' also features a virtual reality simulator. The final two segments of the video involve hands-on training. 'Post Landing Egress at the FFT' shows the crew suiting up into their flight suits, and being raised on a harness, to practice rapelling from the cockpit hatch. 'EVA Prep and Post at the ISS Airlock' shows the crew assembling an empty EVA suit onboard a model of a module. The crew tests oxygen masks, and Sellers is shown on an exercise bicycle with an oxygen mask, with his heart rate monitored (not shown).

Source record↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating Extravehicular Activity Access Options for a Lunar Surface Habitat

NASA’s upcoming return to the moon includes a plan for longer duration lunar missions that prioritize science and surface exploration. The current Artemis Base Camp reference proposes a Surface Habitat (SH) that will support 2 to 4 crewmembers with adequate capability for living and working for 30 days or more. An important aspect of the SH’s design will be its ability to support a high frequency of Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for scientific purposes. There are multiple airlock designs that can support EVA access from inside the SH out to the lunar surface. This paper explores three unique options for EVA access: a traditional airlock, a suitlock, and a suitport-airlock. A traditional airlock is accessed by use of a hatch, crewmembers don and doff their EVA suits inside the airlock, and it must be depressurized and repressurized for every EVA. A suitlock is also depressurized and repressurized for every EVA but the suits are donned through a suitport attached to the airlock bulkhead. A suitport-airlock is accessed through suitports that are attached to the airlock bulkhead as well, but the suitport-airlock stays in vacuum, and it does not have to be depressurized and repressurized for each EVA. This study also evaluated the use of an Airlock Airsave System in the cases of a traditional airlock and suitlock. This system captures a fraction of the airlock gas instead of venting all of the gas pre-EVA. The captured gas is then used to partially repressurize the airlock post-EVA. In this study, each option is evaluated based on seven different areas of analysis. The metrics include overhead time for EVAs, dust mitigation, consumables for resupply mass, systems mass, system power, safety and mission assurances, and programmatic considerations. The EVA access options are evaluated and compared under each area of analysis. While the baseline case assumes the SH is at 8.2 psia, the authors also investigate the impact of a 10.2 psia habitat as an alternative in this analysis. Following the conclusion of the analysis, the authors recommend the usage of a Suitport-Airlock for Lunar SH missions and detail the reasoning behind the recommendation.

EVA↗