Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EVA training”

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 NTRS2011

Shoulder Injuries in US Astronauts Related to EVA Suit Design

Introduction: For every one hour spent performing extravehicular activity (EVA) in space, astronauts in the US space program spend approximately six to ten hours training in the EVA spacesuit at NASA-Johnson Space Center's Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL). In 1997, NASA introduced the planar hard upper torso (HUT) EVA spacesuit which subsequently replaced the existing pivoted HUT. An extra joint in the pivoted shoulder allows increased mobility but also increased complexity. Over the next decade a number of astronauts developed shoulder problems requiring surgical intervention, many of whom performed EVA training in the NBL. This study investigated whether changing HUT designs led to shoulder injuries requiring surgical repair. Methods: US astronaut EVA training data and spacesuit design employed were analyzed from the NBL data. Shoulder surgery data was acquired from the medical record database, and causal mechanisms were obtained from personal interviews Analysis of the individual HUT designs was performed as it related to normal shoulder biomechanics. Results: To date, 23 US astronauts have required 25 shoulder surgeries. Approximately 48% (11/23) directly attributed their injury to training in the planar HUT, whereas none attributed their injury to training in the pivoted HUT. The planar HUT design limits shoulder abduction to 90 degrees compared to approximately 120 degrees in the pivoted HUT. The planar HUT also forces the shoulder into a forward flexed position requiring active retraction and extension to increase abduction beyond 90 degrees. Discussion: Multiple factors are associated with mechanisms leading to shoulder injury requiring surgical repair. Limitations to normal shoulder mechanics, suit fit, donning/doffing, body position, pre-existing injury, tool weight and configuration, age, in-suit activity, and HUT design have all been identified as potential sources of injury. Conclusion: Crewmembers with pre-existing or current shoulder injuries or certain anthropometric body types should conduct NBL EVA training in the pivoted HUT.

Scheuring, R. A.↗
NASA NTRS2016

NEEMO 21: Tools, Techniques, Technologies & Training for Science Exploration EVA

The 21st mission of the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) was a highly integrated operational test and evaluation of tools, techniques, technologies, and training for science driven exploration during Extravehicular Activity (EVA).The 16-day mission was conducted from the Aquarius habitat, an underwater laboratory, off the coast of Key Largo, FL. The unique facility, authentic science objectives, and diverse skill-sets of the crew/team facilitate the planning and design for future space exploration.

Graff, Trevor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure

Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.

Lauren Cox↗
NASA NTRS2013

From "Below Dignity" to "Above It All": Origins and Early History of Underwater Neutral Buoyancy Simulation of Weightlessness for EVA Procedures Development and Training

An attempt to clarify some vague memories of underwater studies of astronaut capabilities in space led Dr. John Charles to become acquainted with Sam Mattingly, one of the pioneers in the field, and to greater insights into Mattingly's work simulating Gemini EVAs in the mid-1960s. Charles recounted major accomplishments by Environmental Research Associates (ERA), Mattingly's company for contracting with NASA Langley on several early studies. ERA's work was considered within the context of contemporary efforts to simulate weightlessness and the widespread development of neutral buoyancy facilities after ERA's successful demonstration for Gemini 12.

Charles, John B.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Origins and Early History of Underwater Neutral Buoyancy Simulation of Weightlessness for EVA Procedures Development and Training: Winnowing and Regrowth - Part 2

The technique of neutral buoyancy during water immersion was applied to a variety of questions pertaining to human performance factors in the early years of the space age. It was independently initiated by numerous aerospace contractors at nearly the same time, but specific applications depended on the problems that the developers were trying to solve. Those problems dealt primarily with human restraint and maneuverability and were often generic across extravehicular activity (EVA) and intravehicular activity (IVA) worksites. The same groups often also considered fractional gravity as well as weightless settings and experimented with ballasting to achieve lunar and Mars-equivalent loads as part of their on-going research and development. Dr. John Charles reviewed the association of those tasks with contemporary perceptions of the direction of NASA's future space exploration activities and with Air Force assessments of the military value of man in space.

Charles, John B.↗
NASA NTRS1974

The role of manned extravehicular activity in reducing the cost of space payloads

Substantial cost savings and performance improvement will result by the use of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) to supplement or replace automation. Taking an all-pallet version of Langley Research Center's Advanced Technology Laboratory payload as an example, $54.5 million should be saved by EVA over automation, considering deployment and stowing only. Additional savings should accrue when reduced-reliability equipment (where permitted) is substituted for high reliability equipment and EVA is used for repairs. More comprehensively, launch and operation costs could also be reduced by elimination of the need to return to the ground for repairs; and production spending might be reduced when an entire vehicle was saved by manned EVA repair not feasible via automation. Potential disadvantages include increased cost due to development and manufacture of EVA equipment, payload provisions to enable EVA interfaces, training, orbiter modification, and prevention of EVA-caused contamination. Possible applications to the Space Shuttle missions are discussed.

Alton, L. R.↗
NASA NTRS2026

Overview of Past and Future EVA Suit Testing and Training in Chamber B at NASA JSC

The Crew and Thermal System Division’s Chamber B has received an increase in demand for next generation suit testing. Chamber B is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center’s only human-rated thermal vacuum (TVAC) chamber. Historically it was used in Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS) suit tests. Recently, the chamber has been returned to service with new capabilities for suit testing. In 2023, The Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) underwent a 5-day, extensive thermal vacuum test that included both a full-bodied Exploration Pressure Garment Suit (xPGS) as well as a high fidelity Short xEMU. SpaceX has also used the chamber for human-in-the-loop (HITL) qualification and acceptance testing on their flight Polaris Dawn suits for the first-ever commercial extravehicular activity (EVA). Current chamber Manlock B2 upgrades include the support of two test subjects at the same time with updated chamber interface and support systems for the next generation of suits. This paper will discuss the history of spacesuit testing in the chamber, the recent testing for commercial and NASA suits, and upgrades to accommodate new test requirements.

Polaris Dawn↗
NASA NTRS2026

Overview of Past and Future EVA Suit Testing and Training in Chamber B at NASA JSC

The Crew and Thermal System Division’s Chamber B has received an increase in demand for next generation suit testing. Chamber B is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center’s only human-rated thermal vacuum (TVAC) chamber. Historically it was used in Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS) suit tests. Recently, the chamber has been returned to service with new capabilities for suit testing. In 2023, The Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) underwent a 5-day, extensive thermal vacuum test that included both a full-bodied Exploration Pressure Garment Suit (xPGS) as well as a high fidelity Short xEMU. SpaceX has also used the chamber for human-in-the-loop (HITL) qualification and acceptance testing on their flight Polaris Dawn suits for the first-ever commercial extravehicular activity (EVA). Current chamber Manlock B2 upgrades include the support of two test subjects at the same time with updated chamber interface and support systems for the next generation of suits. This paper will discuss the history of spacesuit testing in the chamber, the recent testing for commercial and NASA suits, and upgrades to accommodate new test requirements.

Human-in-the-loop↗
NASA NTRS1990

STS-31 Crew Training: Firefighting, Food Tasting, EVA Prep and Post

The Space Shuttle crew is shown lighting a pond of gasoline and then performing firefighting tasks. The crew is also shown tasting food including lemonade, chicken casserole, and tortillas, and performing extravehicular activity (EVA) equipment checkouts in the CCT middeck and airlock.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2014

Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Hardware & Operations Overview

The objectives of this presentation are to: Define Extravehicular Activity (EVA), identify the reasons for conducting an EVA, and review the role that EVA has played in the space program; Identify the types of EVAs that may be performed; Describe some of the U.S. Space Station equipment and tools that are used during an EVA, such as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), the Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue (SAFER), the International Space Station (ISS) Joint Airlock and Russian Docking Compartment 1 (DC-1), and EVA Tools & Equipment; Outline the methods and procedures of EVA Preparation, EVA, and Post-EVA operations; Describe the Russian spacesuit used to perform an EVA; Provide a comparison between U.S. and Russian spacesuit hardware and EVA support; and Define the roles that different training facilities play in EVA training.

Moore, Sandra↗
NASA NTRS2015

High Performance EVA Glove Collaboration: Glove Injury Data Mining Effort

Human hands play a significant role during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) missions and Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) training events, as they are needed for translating and performing tasks in the weightless environment. Because of this high frequency usage, hand and arm related injuries are known to occur during EVA and EVA training in the NBL. The primary objectives of this investigation were to: 1) document all known EVA glove related injuries and circumstances of these incidents, 2) determine likely risk factors, and 3) recommend interventions where possible that could be implemented in the current and future glove designs. METHODS: The investigation focused on the discomforts and injuries of U.S. crewmembers who had worn the pressurized Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit and experienced 4000 Series or Phase VI glove related incidents during 1981 to 2010 for either EVA ground training or in-orbit flight. We conducted an observational retrospective case-control investigation using 1) a literature review of known injuries, 2) data mining of crew injury, glove sizing, and hand anthropometry databases, 3) descriptive statistical analyses, and finally 4) statistical risk correlation and predictor analyses to better understand injury prevalence and potential causation. Specific predictor statistical analyses included use of principal component analyses (PCA), multiple logistic regression, and survival analyses (Cox proportional hazards regression). Results of these analyses were computed risk variables in the forms of odds ratios (likelihood of an injury occurring given the magnitude of a risk variable) and hazard ratios (likelihood of time to injury occurrence). Due to the exploratory nature of this investigation, we selected predictor variables significant at p≤0.15. RESULTS: Through 2010, there have been a total of 330 NASA crewmembers, from which 96 crewmembers performed 322 EVAs during 1981-2010, resulting in 50 crewmembers being injured inflight and 44 injured during 11,704 ground EVA training events. Of the 196 glove related injury incidents, 106 related to EVA and 90 to EVA training. Over these 196 incidents, 277 total injuries (126 flight; 151 training) were reported and were then grouped into 23 types of injuries. Of EVA flight injuries, 65% were commonly reported to the hand (in general), metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, and finger (not including thumb) with fatigue, abrasion, and paresthesia being the most common injury types (44% of total flight injuries). Training injuries totaled to more than 70% being distributed to the fingernail, MCP joint, and finger crotch with 88% of the specific injuries listed as pain, erythema, and onycholysis. Of these training injuries, when reporting pain or erythema, the most common location was the index finger, but when reporting onycholysis, it was the middle finger. Predictor variables specific to increased risk of onycholysis included: female sex (OR=2.622), older age (OR=1.065), increased duration in hours of the flight or training event (OR=1.570), middle finger length differences in inches between the finger and the EVA glove (OR=7.709), and use of the Phase VI glove (OR=8.535). Differentiation between training and flight and injury reporting during 2002-2004 were significant control variables. For likelihood of time to first onycholysis injury, there was a 24% reduction in rate of reporting for each year increase in age. Also, more experienced crewmembers, based on number of EVA flight or training events completed, were less likely to report an onycholysis injury (3% less for every event). Longer duration events also found reporting rates to occur 2.37 times faster for every hour of length. Crewmembers with larger hand size reported onycholysis 23% faster than those with smaller hand size. Finally, for every 1/10th of an inch increase in difference between the middle finger length and the glove, the rate of reporting increased by 60%. DISCUSSION: One key finding was that the Series 4000 glove had a lower injury risk than the Phase VI, which provides a platform for further evaluation. General interventions that reduce hand overexertion and repetitive use exposure through tool development, procedural changes and shorter exposures may be one mitigation path, but due to the way the training event times were reported, we cannot provide a guideline for a specific event duration change. When the finger length was different from the glove length, the risk of injury increased indicating that the use of larger finger take-ups could be contributing to injury and therefore may not be recommended. Prior to this investigation, there was one previous investigation indicating hand anthropometry may be related to onycholysis. We found different hand anthropometry variables indicated by this investigation as compared to the prior, specifically differences in middle finger length compared to glove finger length, which point more towards a sizing issue than a specific anthropometry issue. Additionally, although this investigation has identified sizing as an issue, the force and environmental-related variables of the EVA glove that could also cause injury were not accounted for.

Reid, C. R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Potential of Wearable Sensor Technology for EVA Glove Ergonomic Evaluation

Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). Many of these injuries refer to the gloves worn during EVA as the root cause. While pressurized, the bladder and outer material of these gloves restrict movement and create pressure points while performing tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally a more severe injury, onycholysis (fingernail delamination). The most common injury causes are glove contact (pressure point/rubbing), ill-fitting gloves, and/or performing EVA tasks in pressurized gloves. A brief review of the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health's injury database reveals over 57% of the total injuries to the upper extremities during EVA training occurred either to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, fingernail, or the fingertip. Twenty-five of these injuries resulted in a diagnosis of onycholysis.

Reid, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Potential of Wearable Sensor Technology for EVA Glove Ergonomic Evaluation

Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). Many of these injuries refer to the gloves worn during EVA as the root cause. While pressurized, the bladder and outer material of these gloves restrict movement and create pressure points while performing tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally a more severe injury, onycholysis (fingernail delamination). The most common injury causes are glove contact (pressure point/rubbing), ill-fitting gloves, and/or performing EVA tasks in pressurized gloves. A brief review of the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health's injury database reveals over 57% of the total injuries to the upper extremities during EVA training occurred either to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, fingernail, or the fingertip. Twenty-five of these injuries resulted in a diagnosis of onycholysis

Reid, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS2001

STS-108 Crew Training Clip

This video shows the crew of STS-108, Commander Dominic Gorie, Pilot Mark Kelly, and Mission Specialists Linda Godwin and Daniel Tani, during various parts of their training, including T-38 operations at Ellington, bail-out training (with the Expedition 4 crew: Commander Yuri Onufrienko and Flight Engineers Carl Walz and Daniel Bursch) in CCT2, extravehicular activity (EVA) preparations, Space Station Mockup and Test/Training Facility (SSMTF) transfer and hands-on familiarization (also with E4), Remote Manipulator System training, EVA training in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, and in a payload training class.

Source record↗
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 NTRS1993

Extravehicular Activity training and hardware design considerations

Designing hardware that can be successfully operated by EVA astronauts for EVA tasks required to assemble and maintain Space Station Freedom requires a thorough understanding of human factors and of the capabilities and limitations of the space-suited astronaut, as well as of the effect of microgravity environment on the crew member's capabilities and on the overhead associated with EVA. This paper describes various training methods and facilities that are being designed for training EVA astronauts for Space Station assembly and maintenance, taking into account the above discussed factors. Particular attention is given to the user-friendly hardware design for EVA and to recent EVA flight experience.

Thuot, Pierre J.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Injury Surveillance Among NASA Astronauts Using the Barell Injury Diagnosis Matrix

Astronauts perform physically demanding tasks and risk incurring musculoskeletal injuries during both groundbased training and missions. Increased injury rates throughout the history of the U.S. space program have been attributed to numerous factors, including an aging astronaut corps, increased Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF) and Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) training to construct the International Space Station, and improved clinical operations that promote injury prevention and reporting. With NASA program changes through the years (including retirement of the Shuttle program) and an improved training environment (including a new astronaut gym), there is no surveillance program to systematically track injury rates. A limited number of research projects have been conducted over the past 20 years to evaluate musculoskeletal injuries: (1) to evaluate orthopedic injuries from 1987 to 1995, (2) to describe upper extremity injuries, (3) to evaluate EVA spacesuit training related injuries, and (4) to evaluate in-flight musculoskeletal injuries. Nevertheless, there has been no consistently performed comprehensive assessment of musculoskeletal injuries among astronauts. The Barell Injury Diagnosis Matrix was introduced at the 2001 meeting of the International Collaborative Effort (ICE) on Injury Statistics. The Matrix proposes a standardized method of classifying body region by nature of injury. Diagnoses are coded using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) coding system. The purpose of this study is to assess the usefulness and complexity of the Barell Injury Diagnosis Matrix to classify and track musculoskeletal injuries among NASA astronauts.

Murray, J. D.↗