Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Apollo Crew Module”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1997

Comparative Soot Diagnostics: Preliminary Results

The motivation for the Comparative Soot Diagnostics (CSD) experiment lies in the broad practical importance of understanding combustion generated particulate. Depending upon the circumstances, particulate matter can affect the durability and performance of combustion equipment, can be a pollutant, can be used to detect fires and, in the form of soot, can be the dominant source of radiant energy from flames. The nonbuoyant structure of most flames of practical interest makes understanding of soot processes in low gravity flames important to our ability to predict fire behavior on earth. These studies also have direct applications to fire safety in human-crew spacecraft, since smoke is the indicator used for automated detection in current spacecraft. In the earliest missions (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo), the crew quarters were so cramped that it was considered reasonable that the astronauts would rapidly detect any fire. The Skylab module, however, included approximately 20 UV-sensing fire detectors. The Space Shuttle has 9 particle-ionization smoke detectors in the mid-deck and flight deck and Spacelab has six additional particle-ionization smoke detectors. The designated detectors for the ISS are laser-diode, forward-scattering, smoke or particulate detectors. Current plans for the ISS call for two detectors in the open area of the module, and detectors in racks that have both cooling air flow and electrical power. Due to the complete absence of data concerning the nature of particulate and radiant emission from incipient and fully developed low-g fires, all three of these detector systems were designed based upon l-g test data and experience. As planned mission durations and complexity increase and the volume of spacecraft increases, the need for and importance of effective, crew-independent, fire detection grows significantly. To provide this level of protection, more knowledge is needed concerning low-gravity fire phenomena and, in particular, how they might be detected and suppressed. Prior to CSD, no combustion-generated particulate samples had been collected near the flame zone for well-developed microgravity flames. All of the extant data either came from drop tower tests and therefore only corresponded to the early stages of a fire or were collected far from the flame zone. The fuel sources in the drop tower tests were restricted to laminar gas-jet diffusion flames and very rapidly overheated wire insulation. The gas-jet tests indicated, through thermophoretic sampling, (2) that soot primaries and aggregates (groups of primary particles) in low-gravity may be significantly larger than those in normal gravity (1-g). This raises new scientific questions about soot processes as well as practical issues for particulate size sensitivity and detection alarm threshold levels used in on-orbit smoke detectors. Preliminary tests in the 2.2 second drop tower suggest that particulate generated by overheated wire insulation may be larger in low-g than in 1-g. Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) grids downstream of the fire region in the Wire Insulation Flammability experiment as well as visual observation of long string-like aggregates, further confirm this suggestion. The combined impact of these limited results and theoretical predictions is that, as opposed to extrapolation from l-g data, direct knowledge of low-g combustion particulate is needed for more confident design of smoke detectors for spacecraft. This paper describes the operation and preliminary results of the CSD, a project conceived and developed at NASA Lewis Research Center. The CSD flight experiment was conducted in the Middeck Glovebox Facility (MGBX) on USMP-3. The project is support by NASA Headquarters Microgravity Science and Applications Division and Code Q. The results presented here are from the microgravity portion of the experiment, including the temporal response of the detectors and average sizes of the primary and aggregate particles captured on the thermophoretic probes.

Urban, David L.↗
NASA NTRS2001

SMOKE: Characterization of Smoke Particulate for Spacecraft Fire Detection

'Smoke' is a flight definition investigation whose purpose is to characterize the smoke particulate from microgravity smoke sources to enable improved design of future space-craft smoke detectors. In the earliest missions (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo), the crew quarters were so cramped that it was considered reasonable that the astronauts would rapidly detect any fire. The Skylab module, however, included approximately 30 UV-sensing fire detectors. The Space Shuttle Orbiter has nine particle-ionization smoke detectors in the mid-deck and flight deck. The detectors for the US segments of the International Space Station (ISS) are laser-diode, forward-scattering, smoke detectors. Current plans for the ISS call for two detectors in the open area of the module, and detectors in racks that have cooling air-flow. Due to the complete absence of microgravity data, all three of these detector systems were designed based upon 1-g test data and experience. As planned mission durations and complexity increase and the volume of spacecraft increases, the need for and importance of effective, crew-independent, fire detection will grow significantly, necessitating more research into microgravity fire phenomena. In 1997 the Comparative Soot Diagnostics Experiment (CSD) flew in the Orbiter Middeck as a Glovebox payload. The CSD experiment was designed to produce small quantities of smoke from several sources to obtain particulate samples and to determine the response of the ISS and Orbiter smoke detectors to these sources. Marked differences in the performance of the detectors compared to their behavior in 1-g were observed. In extreme cases, the detector used in the orbiter was completely blind to easily visible smoke from sources that were readily detected in 1-g. It is hypothesized but as yet unverified that this performance difference was due to enhanced growth of liquid smoke droplets in low-g. These CSD results clearly demonstrate that spacecraft smoke detector design cannot be based on 1-g experience.

Urban, D. L.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Apollo 13 Case Study Part 1 and 2

Objectives: a) Describe the Service Module Electrical Power System hardware; b) Describe the circumstances which led to the Apollo 13 accident c) Summarize the Mission Control and crew reaction.

Interbartolo, Michael↗
NASA NTRS1975

Apollo experience report: Crew station integration. Volume 2: Crew station displays and controls

The functional requirements for the Apollo displays and controls system are presented. The configuration of the displays, controls, and panels for both the command module and the lunar module are described, and the design development and operational experience of the displays and controls system are discussed. Pertinent recommendations for future displays and controls system design efforts are made.

Langdoc, W. A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Assured crew return vehicle post landing configuration design and test

The 1991-1992 senior Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Design class continued work on the post landing configurations for the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) and the Emergency Egress Couch (EEC). The ACRV will be permanently docked to Space Station Freedom fulfilling NASA's commitment of Assured Crew Return Capability in the event of an accident or illness aboard Space Station Freedom. The EEC provides medical support and a transportation surface for an incapacitated crew member. The objective of the projects was to give the ACRV Project Office data to feed into their feasibility studies. Four design teams were given the task of developing models with dynamically and geometrically scaled characteristics. Groups one and two combined efforts to design a one-fifth scale model for the Apollo Command Module derivative, an on-board flotation system, and a lift attachment point system. This model was designed to test the feasibility of a rigid flotation and stabilization system and to determine the dynamics associated with lifting the vehicle during retrieval. However, due to priorities, it was not built. Group three designed a one-fifth scale model of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) benchmark configuration, the Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) with a lift attachment point system. This model helped to determine the flotation and lifting characteristics of the SCRAM configuration. Group four designed a full scale EEC with changeable geometric and geometric and dynamic characteristics. This model provided data on the geometric characteristics of the EEC and on the placement of the CG and moment of inertia. It also gave the helicopter rescue personnel direct input to the feasibility study. Section 1 describes in detail the design of a one-fifth scale model of the Apollo Command Module Derivative (ACMD) ACRV. The objective of the ACMD Configuration Model Team was to use geometric and dynamic constraints to design a one-fifth scale working model of the Apollo Command Module Derivative (ACMD) configuration with a Lift Attachment Point (LAP) System. This model was required to incorporate a rigidly mounted flotation system and the egress system designed the previous academic year. The LAP system was to be used to determine the dynamic effects of locating the lifting points at different locations on the vehicle. The team was then to build and test the model; however, due to priorities, this did not occur. To better simulate the ACMD after a water landing, the nose cone section was removed and the deck area exposed. The areas researched during the design process were construction, center of gravity and moment of inertia, and lift attachment points.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2010

Assessment of Prone Positioning of Restrained, Seated Crewmembers in a Post Landing Stable 2 Orion Configuration

During the Orion landing and recovery subsystem design review, June 2009, it was noted that the human system and various vehicle systems, the environmental control and life support (ECLSS) and guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) systems for example, are negatively affected by Orion assuming a stable 2 (upside down; Figure A) configuration post landing. The stable 2 configuration is predicted to occur about 50% of the time based on Apollo landing data and modeling of the current capsule. The stable 2 configuration will be countered by an active up-righting system (crew module up-righting system; CMUS). Post landing balloons will deploy and inflate causing the vehicle to assume or maintain the stable 1 (up-right; Figure B) configuration. During the design review it was proposed that the up-righting system could be capable of righting the vehicle within 60 seconds. However, this time limit posed a series of constraints on the design which made it less robust than desired. The landing and recovery subsystem team requested an analysis of Orion vehicle systems as well as the human system with regard to the effect of stable 2 in order to determine if an up-righting response time greater than 60 seconds could be tolerated. The following report focuses on the assessment of the human system in the posture assumed when Orion is in the stable 2 configuration. Stable 2 will place suited, seated, and restrained crewmembers in a prone (facedown), head-up position for a period of time dependent on the functionality of the up-righting systems, ability of the crew to release themselves from the seat and restraints, and/or time to arrival of rescue forces. Given that the Orion seat and restraint system design is not complete and therefore, not available for evaluation, Space Medicine assessed how long a healthy but deconditioned crewmember could stay in this prone, restrained position and the physiological consequences of this posture by researching terrestrial analogs and considered the known physiological alterations and deconditioning experienced by long duration crewmembers.

Barr, Yael↗
NASA NTRS2013

Damping Effects of Drogue Parachutes on Orion Crew Module Dynamics

Currently, simulation predictions of the Orion Crew Module (CM) dynamics with drogue parachutes deployed are under-predicting the amount of damping as seen in free-flight tests. The Apollo Legacy Chute Damping model has been resurrected and applied to the Orion system. The legacy model has been applied to predict CM damping under drogue parachutes for both Vertical Spin Tunnel free flights and the Pad Abort-1 flight test. Comparisons between the legacy Apollo prediction method and test data are favorable. A key hypothesis in the Apollo legacy drogue damping analysis is that the drogue parachutes' net load vector aligns with the CM drogue attachment point velocity vector. This assumption seems reasonable and produces good results, but has never been quantitatively proven. The wake of the CM influences the drogue parachutes, which makes performance predictions of the parachutes difficult. Many of these effects are not currently modeled in the simulations. A forced oscillation test of the CM with parachutes was conducted in the NASA LaRC 20-Ft Vertical Spin Tunnel (VST) to gather additional data to validate and refine the Apollo legacy drogue model. A second loads balance was added to the original Orion VST model to measure the drogue parachute loads independently of the CM. The objective of the test was to identify the contribution of the drogues to CM damping and provide additional information to quantify wake effects and the interactions between the CM and parachutes. The drogue parachute force vector was shown to be highly dependent on the CM wake characteristics. Based on these wind tunnel test data, the Apollo Legacy Chute Damping model was determined to be a sufficient approximation of the parachute dynamics in relationship to the CM dynamics for preliminary entry vehicle system design. More wake effects should be included to better model the system. These results are being used to improve simulation model fidelity of CM flight with drogues deployed, which has been identified by the project as key to a successful Orion Critical Design Review.

Aubuchon, Vanessa V.↗
NASA NTRS1975

Microbiological investigations

The crew microbiology program was conducted to evaluate lunar contamination, to detect potentially pathogenic microoganisms, to identify medically important microorganisms recovered from ill crewmen, to aid in diagnosis and treatment, and to collect microbiological data that would aid in elucidating the response of the crew microbial autoflora to the space flight environment and in evaluating the resultant effect on the crewmember. Microbiological sampling of selected sites in the command module was initiated in support of the quarantine program. During lunar quarantine missions, microbial screening was accomplished for all support personnel to be isolated with the returning crewman. Virology support for the Apollo project consisted of characterization of the viral and mycoplasma flora of the crewmembers and performance of viral serology for crewmembers, crew contacts, and key mission personnel. Procedures and results are discussed in detail.

James K. Ferguson↗
NASA NTRS2011

Challenges of CPAS Flight Testing

The Crew Exploration Vehicle Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) is being designed to land the Orion Crew Module (CM) at a safe rate of descent at splashdown via a series of Drogue, Pilot, and Main parachutes. Because Orion is considerably larger and heavier than Apollo, many of the flight test techniques developed during the Apollo program must be modified. The Apollo program had a dedicated C-133 aircraft, which was modified to allow a simple airdrop of "boilerplate" flight test vehicles. However, the CPAS program must use either commercial or military assets with minimal modifications to airframes or procedures. Conceptual envelopes from 2-Degree Of Freedom trajectories are presented for several existing and novel architectures. Ideally, the technique would deliver a representative capsule shape to the desired altitude and dynamic pressure at test initiation. However, compromises must be made on the characteristics of trajectories or the fidelity of test articles to production hardware. Most of the tests to date have used traditional pallet and weight tub or missile-shaped test vehicles. New test vehicles are being designed to better incorporate Orion structural components and deploy parachutes in a more representative fashion. The first attempt to test a capsule-shaped vehicle failed due to unexpected events while setting up the test condition through a series of complex procedures. In order to avoid the loss of another expensive test article which will delay the program, simpler deployment methods are being examined and more positive control of the vehicle will be maintained. Existing challenges include interfacing with parent aircraft, separating test vehicles, achieving test conditions, and landing within limited test ranges. All these challenges must be met within cost and schedule limits.

Ray, Eric S.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Post-Flight Assessment of Avcoat Thermal Protection System for the Exploration Flight Test-1

On December 5, 2014 NASA conducted the first flight test of its next generation human-class Orion spacecraft. The flight was called the Exploration Flight Test -1 (EFT-1) which lasted for 4 hours and culminated into a re-entry trajectory at 9 km/s. This flight test of the 5-meter Orion Crew Module demonstrated various sub-systems including the Avcoat ablative thermal protection system (TPS) on the heat shield. The Avcoat TPS had been developed from the Apollo-era recipe with a few key modifications. The engineering for thermal sizing was supported by modeling, analysis, and ground tests in arc jet facilities. This paper will describe a postlfight analysis plan and present results from post-recovery inspections, data analysis from embedded sensors, TPS sample extraction and characterization in the laboratory. After the recovery of the vehicle, a full photographic survey and surface scans of the TPS were performed. The recovered vehicle showed physical evidence of flow disturbances, varying degrees of surface roughness, and excessive recession downstream of compression pads. The TPS recession was measured at more than 200 locations of interest on the Avcoat surface. The heat shield was then processed for sample extraction prior to TPS removal using the 7-Axis Milling machine at Marshall Space Flight Center. Around 182 rectangular TPS samples were extracted for subsequent analysis and investigation. The final paper will also present results of sample analysis. The planned investigation includes sidewall imaging, followed by image analysis to characterize TPS response by quantifying different layers in the char and pyrolysis zones. A full postmortem of the instrumentation and sensor ports will also be performed to confirm no adverse effects due to the sensors themselves. A subset of the samples will undergo structural testing and perform detailed characterization of any cracks and integrity of gore seams. Finally, the material will be characterized with layer-by-layer density measurements and SEM investigations to evaluate material morphology at microstructural level including identification of elements and compounds.

Aerothermodynamics↗
NASA NTRS2008

Using Pressure- and Temperature-Sensitive Paint for Global Surface Pressure and Temperature Measurements on the Aft-Body of a Capsule Reentry Vehicle

Pressure Sensitive Paint (PSP) and Temperature Sensitive Paint (TSP) were used to visualize and quantify the surface interactions of reaction control system (RCS) jets on the aft body of capsule reentry vehicle shapes. The first model tested was an Apollo-like configuration and was used to focus primarily on the effects of the forward facing roll and yaw jets. The second model tested was an early Orion Crew Module configuration blowing only out of its forward-most yaw jet, which was expected to have the most intense aerodynamic heating augmentation on the model surface. This paper will present the results from the experiments, which show that with proper system design, both PSP and TSP are effective tools for studying these types of interaction in hypersonic testing environments.

Watkins, A. Neal↗
NASA NTRS1972

Safety in earth orbit study. Volume 3: Analysis of tumbling spacecraft, escape and rescue

Detailed and supporting analyses of the hazards of a disabled spacecraft in a tumbling mode and of crew escape, rescue, and survivability are presented for earth orbital operations of the space shuttle program. Tumbling conditions, arresting tumbling by external means, and escape from a tumbling vehicle are discussed. Details on design concepts for the modular space station, integral tank orbiter, drop tank orbiter, and a small space vehicle are included. Results of the crew safety study indicate that the shuttle orbiter should be the primary vehicle for dealing with emergencies and one vehicle should be available for rapid emergency rescue. An Apollo command module should be carried in the orbiter cargo bay in case an orbiter is not available. Approaches for a quicker escape or rescue capability are also recommended.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2014

Chronic Lunar Dust Exposure on Rat Cornea: Evaluation by Gene Expression Profiling

Lunar dust is capable of entering habitats and vehicle compartments by sticking to spacesuits or other objects that are transferred into the spacecraft from the lunar surface and has been reported to cause irritation upon exposure. During the Apollo missions, crewmembers reported irritation specifically to the skin and eyes after contamination of the lunar and service modules. It has since been hypothesized that ocular irritation and abrasion might occur as a result of such exposure, impairing crew vision. Recent work has shown that both ultrafine and unground lunar dust exhibited minimal irritancy of the ocular surface (i.e., cornea); however, the assessment of the severity of ocular damage resulting from contact of lunar dust particles to the cornea has focused only on macroscopic signs of mechanical irritancy and cytotoxicity. Given the chemical reactive properties of lunar dust, exposure of the cornea may contribute to detrimental effects at the molecular level including but not limited to oxidative damage. Additionally, low level chronic exposures may confound any results obtained in previous acute studies. We report here preliminary results from a tissue sharing effort using 10‐week‐old Fischer 344 male rats chronically exposed to filtered air or jet milled lunar dust collected during Apollo 14 using a Jaeger‐NYU nose‐only chamber for a total of 120 hours (6 hours daily, 5 days a week) over a 4‐week period. RNA was isolated from corneas collected from rats at 1 day and 7 days after being exposed to concentrations of 0, 20, and 60 mg/m3 of lunar dust. Microarray analysis was performed using the Affymetrix GeneChip Rat Genome 230 2.0 Array with Affymetrix Expression Console and Transcriptome Analysis Console used for normalization and secondary analysis. An Ingenuity iReport"TM" was then generated for canonical pathway identification. The number of differentially expressed genes identified increases with dose compared to controls suggesting a more severe response to the lunar dust insult at higher levels. Pathways of interests that have been identified in all exposed samples include oxidative stress response, mitochondrial dysfunction, fibrosis, epithelial healing, TGF-Beta signaling, and extracellular matrix remodeling. Several biological processes related to cell migration, cellular proliferation, and eye development were also identified to be altered by exposure to lunar dust. Our preliminary results suggest that even a chronic insult of lunar dust as low as 20 mg/m(exp 3) elicits a molecular response in cornea tissue. Lunar dust on the surface of the moon would have the added properties of ionization and activation potentially leading to further damage to the cornea and greater sensitivity to any other environmental insult such as exposure to radiation. Additional studies are required to fully assess the risk of vision impairment and the mechanistic responses initiated in cornea exposed to lunar dust as well as the potential for long‐term effects to astronaut health

Theriot, C. A.↗
NASA NTRS2017

One Giant Leap to Protect All Mankind: An Overview of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory

Motivation. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy charged the nation "to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth." Eight years later, the Apollo 11 astronauts splashed down in the Pacific Ocean after this first 8-day journey to the moon. As humans had never ventured to another extraterrestrial body, the U.S. government noted the great uncertainty associated with the unknown exposures related to this historic mission. Overview. With this uncertainty in mind, a newly formed Interagency Committee on Back Contamination (ICBC) was established to review the potential for lunar contaminants and establish the prevention of their escape into the biosphere during crew and sample recovery operations from the floating command module to the mobile quarantine facility on the recovery ship and return to the Johnson Space Center. Significance. As a result of the ICBC recommendations, in 1966 NASA planned and built the Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The LRL served a great role in service of human space exploration to quarantine Apollo crewmembers, their space vehicles, and the lunar samples collected. Almost an afterthought in the space race to the Moon, the 83,000-square-foot LRL was designed and completed in 1967 for $7.8 million. The core purpose of the LRL was "to protect the public's health, agriculture, and other living resources; to provide lunar sample distribution to approved scientific investigators; and to preserve the scientific integrity of the lunar samples at all times." Its layout was comprised of three major zones: a quarantined Crew Area, a separate but also quarantined Sample Operations Area, and a Support and Administration Area outside the controlled biological barrier. This facility required trained personnel to live and perform within it for several weeks post-flight, to include astronaut crewmembers, flight surgeons, scientists, and vehicle recovery engineers. The LRL holds memories of these historic events but has since been repurposed for NASA's medical and environmental sciences activities, in what is now known as Building 37. As we approach its 50th anniversary, the LRL story will end in demolition as NASA advances its facilities for the next steps in human exploration of space. Learning Objectives: 1. To capture the historical relevance of the NASA Lunar Receiving Laboratory 2. To understand the requirements of receiving crew and samples from the moon for the first time 3. To describe the facility capabilities in protection of public health.

Hayes, Judith↗
NASA NTRS1976

Mission description

The Apollo Soyuz mission was the first manned space flight conducted jointly by two nations. The United States and the U.S.S.R. achieved a substantial degree of success in: (1) obtaining flight experience for rendezvous and docking of manned spacecraft and developing a docking system that would be suitable for use as a standard international system, (2) demonstrating in-flight intervehicular crew transfer, and (3) conducting a series of science and applications experiments. The Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft, with minor exceptions, were similar to those flown on previous missions, but a new Apollo module, the docking module, was built specifically for this mission. The mission started with the Soyuz launch on July 15, 1975, followed by the Apollo launch on the same day. Docking of the two spacecraft occurred on July 17, and joint operations were conducted for 2 days. Both spacecraft landed safely and on schedule; the Soyuz landing in the U.S.S.R. occurred on July 21, and the Apollo landing near Hawaii occurred on July 24. Twenty-eight science experiments were performed during the mission.

Hardee, S. N.↗
NASA NTRS2001

Apollo 13 Facts

Footage is seen of the Earth from the Apollo 13 spacecraft as it travels towards the Moon. The crew, James Lovell, Jr., John Swigert, Jr., and Fred Haise, Jr., are shown performing various on-orbit activities. The Lunar Module rendezvous and docking, tunnel repressurization, and S4-B separation are also seen.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1970

The Apollo Docking System

The Apollo docking system is the means by which the Apollo command and service modules and the lunar module are connected and disconnected during a lunar-landing mission. The system incorporates a CSM probe assembly that mates with a drogue assembly on the LM. Twelve automatic latches mounted on the CSM docking ring provide for structural integrity between the vehicles and for tunnel sealing during crew transfer. A functional description of the flight hardware and the alternate concepts that were evaluated to determine the system best suited to Apollo requirements are presented.

Kenneth A Bloom↗
NASA NTRS2003

To Create Space on Earth: The Space Environment Simulation Laboratory and Project Apollo

Few undertakings in the history of humanity can compare to the great technological achievement known as Project Apollo. Among those who witnessed Armstrong#s flickering television image were thousands of people who had directly contributed to this historic moment. Amongst those in this vast anonymous cadre were the personnel of the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory (SESL) at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston, Texas. SESL houses two large thermal-vacuum chambers with solar simulation capabilities. At a time when NASA engineers had a limited understanding of the effects of extremes of space on hardware and crews, SESL was designed to literally create the conditions of space on Earth. With interior dimensions of 90 feet in height and a 55-foot diameter, Chamber A dwarfed the Apollo command/service module (CSM) it was constructed to test. The chamber#s vacuum pumping capacity of 1 x 10(exp -6) torr can simulate an altitude greater than 130 miles above the Earth. A "lunar plane" capable of rotating a 150,000-pound test vehicle 180 deg replicates the revolution of a craft in space. To reproduce the temperature extremes of space, interior chamber walls cool to -280F as two banks of carbon arc modules simulate the unfiltered solar light/heat of the Sun. With capabilities similar to that of Chamber A, early Chamber B tests included the Gemini modular maneuvering unit, Apollo EVA mobility unit and the lunar module. Since Gemini astronaut Charles Bassett first ventured into the chamber in 1966, Chamber B has assisted astronauts in testing hardware and preparing them for work in the harsh extremes of space.

Walters, Lori C.↗