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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 NTRS2008

Health and Safety Benefits of Small Pressurized Suitport Rovers as EVA Surface Support Vehicles

Pressurized safe-haven providing SPE protection and decompression sickness (DCS) treatment capabilities within 20 mins at all times. Up to 50% reduction in time spent in EVA suits (vs. Unpressurized Rovers) for equal or greater Boots-on-Surface EVA exploration time. Reduces suit-induced trauma and provides improved options for nutrition, hydration, and waste-management. Time spent inside SPR during long translations may be spent performing resistive and cardiovascular exercise. Multiple shorter EVAs versus single 8 hr EVAs increases DCS safety and decreases prebreathe requirements. SPRs also offer many potential operational, engineering and exploration benefits not addressed here.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Testing of Space Suit Materials for Mars

Human missions to Mars may require radical changes in our approach to EVA suit design. A major challenge is the balance of building a suit robust enough to complete 50 EVAs in the dirt under intense UV exposure without losing mechanical strength or compromising its mobility. We conducted ground testing on both current and new space suit materials to determine performance degradation after exposure to 2500 hours of Mars mission equivalent UV. This testing will help mature the material technologies and provide performance data that can be used by not only the space suit development teams but for all Mars inflatable and soft goods derived structures from airlocks to habitats.

Larson, Kristine↗
NASA NTRS2016

Mars Surface Tunnel Element Concept

How Mars surface crews get into their ascent vehicle has profound implications for Mars surface architecture. To meet planetary protection protocols, the architecture has get Intravehicular Activity (IVA)-suited crew into a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) without having to step outside into the Mars environment. Pushing EVA suit don/doff and EVA operations to an element that remains on the surface also helps to minimize MAV cabin volume, which in turn can reduce MAV cabin mass. Because the MAV will require at least seven kilograms of propellant to ascend each kilogram of cabin mass, minimal MAV mass is desired. For architectures involving more than one surface element-such as an ascent vehicle and a pressurized rover or surface habitat-a retractable tunnel is an attractive solution. Beyond addressing the immediate MAV access issue, a reusable tunnel may be useful for other surface applications once its primary mission is complete. A National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) team is studying the optimal balance between surface tunnel functionality, mass, and stowed volume as part of the Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC). The "Minimum Functional Tunnel" is a conceptual design that performs a single function. Having established this baseline configuration, the next step is to trade design options, evaluate other applications, and explore alternative solutions.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Ultraviolet Testing of Space Suit Materials for Mars

Human missions to Mars may require radical changes in the approach to extra-vehicular (EVA) suit design. A major challenge is the balance of building a suit robust enough to complete multiple EVAs under intense ultraviolet (UV) light exposure without losing mechanical strength or compromising the suit's mobility. To study how the materials degrade on Mars in-situ, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) invited the Advanced Space Suit team at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) to place space suit materials on the Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) instrument's calibration target of the Mars 2020 rover. In order to select materials for the rover and understand the effects from Mars equivalent UV exposure, JSC conducted ground testing on both current and new space suit materials when exposed to 2500 hours of Mars mission equivalent UV. To complete this testing, JSC partnered with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center to utilize their UV vacuum chambers. Materials tested were Orthofabric, polycarbonate, Teflon, Dacron, Vectran, spectra, bladder, nGimat coated Teflon, and nGimat coated Orthofabric. All samples were measured for mass, tensile strength, and chemical composition before and after radiation. Mass loss was insignificant (less than 0.5%) among the materials. Most materials loss tensile strength after radiation and became more brittle with a loss of elongation. Changes in chemical composition were seen in all radiated materials through Spectral Analysis. Results from this testing helped select the materials that will fly on the Mars 2020 rover. In addition, JSC can use this data to create a correlation to the chemical changes after radiation-which is what the rover will send back while on Mars-to the mechanical changes, such as tensile strength.

Larson, Kristine↗
NASA NTRS2017

Ultraviolet Testing of Space Suit Materials for Mars

Human missions to Mars may require radical changes in the approach to extra-vehicular (EVA) suit design. A major challenge is the balance of building a suit robust enough to complete multiple EVAs under intense ultraviolet (UV) light exposure without losing mechanical strength or compromising the suit's mobility. To study how the materials degrade on Mars in-situ, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) invited the Advanced Space Suit team at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) to place space suit materials on the Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman & Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) instrument's calibration target of the Mars 2020 rover. In order to select materials for the rover and understand the effects from Mars equivalent UV exposure, JSC conducted ground testing on both current and new space suit materials when exposed to 2500 hours of Mars mission equivalent UV. To complete this testing, JSC partnered with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center to utilize their UV vacuum chambers. Materials tested were Orthofabric, polycarbonate, Teflon, Dacron, Vectran, spectra, bladder, nGimat coated Teflon, and nGimat coated Orthofabric. All samples were measured for mass, tensile strength, and chemical composition before and after radiation. Mass loss was insignificant (less than 0.5%) among the materials. Most materials loss tensile strength after radiation and became more brittle with a loss of elongation. Changes in chemical composition were seen in all radiated materials through Spectral Analysis. Results from this testing helped select the materials that will fly on the Mars 2020 rover. In addition, JSC can use this data to create a correlation to the chemical changes after radiation-which is what the rover will send back while on Mars-to the mechanical changes, such as tensile strength.

Larson, Kristine↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Tessa Reiber↗
NASA NTRS1991

SSTAC/ARTS review of the draft Integrated Technology Plan (ITP). Volume 5: Human Support

Viewgraphs of briefings from the Space Systems and Technology Advisory Committee (SSTAC)/ARTS review of the draft integrated technology plan (ITP) on human support are included. Topics covered include: human support program; human factors; life support technology; fire safety; medical support technology; advanced refrigeration technology; EVA suit system; advanced PLSS technology; and ARC-EVA systems research program.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2012

EVA Physiology and Medical Considerations Working in the Suit

This "EVA Physiology and Medical Considerations Working in the Suit" presentation covers several topics related to the medical implications and physiological effects of suited operations in space from the perspective of a physician with considerable first-hand Extravehicular Activity (EVA) experience. Key themes include EVA physiology working in a pressure suit in the vacuum of space, basic EVA life support and work support, Thermal Protection System (TPS) inspections and repairs, and discussions of the physical challenges of an EVA. Parazynski covers the common injuries and significant risks during EVAs, as well as physical training required to prepare for EVAs. He also shares overall suit physiological and medical knowledge with the next generation of Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) system designers.

Parazynski, Scott↗
NASA NTRS1989

The use of underwater dynamometry to evaluate two space suits

Four Astronauts were instrumented and donned one of three extravehicular activity (EVA) suits: the currently in use shuttle suit (STS), the Mark III (MK3), and the AX5. The STS was used as the comparison suit because of approved status. Each subject performed ten different exercises in each suit in three different manners (static, dynamic and fatigue) in two different environments, WETF and KC-135 (KC-135 not completed as of this report). Data were recorded from a flight qualified underwater dynamometer (Cybex power head) with a TEAC multichannel recorder/tape and downloaded into the VAX computer system for analysis. Also direct hard copy strip chart recordings were made for backup comparisons. Data were analyzed using the ANOVA procedure and results were graphed and reported without interpretation to the NASA/JSC ABL manager.

Squires, W. G.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Design Considerations for a Crewed Mars Ascent Vehicle

Exploration architecture studies identified the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) as one of the largest "gear ratio" items in a crewed Mars mission. Because every kilogram of mass ascended from the Martian surface requires seven kilograms or more of ascent propellant, it is desirable for the MAV to be as small and lightweight as possible. Analysis identified four key factors that drive MAV sizing: 1) Number of crew: more crew members require more equipment-and a larger cabin diameter to hold that equipment-with direct implications to structural, thermal, propulsion, and power subsystem mass. 2) Which suit is worn during ascent: Extravehicular Activity (EVA) type suits are physically larger and heavier than Intravehicular Activity (IVA) type suits and because they are less flexible, EVA suits require more elbow-room to maneuver in and out of. An empty EVA suit takes up about as much cabin volume as a crew member. 3) How much time crew spends in the MAV: less than about 12 hours and the MAV can be considered a "taxi" with few provisions for crew comfort. However, if the crew spends more than 12 consecutive hours in the MAV, it begins to look like a Habitat requiring more crew comfort items. 4) How crew get into/out of the MAV: ingress/egress method drives structural mass (for example, EVA hatch vs. pressurized tunnel vs. suit port) as well as consumables mass for lost cabin atmosphere, and has profound impacts on surface element architecture. To minimize MAV cabin mass, the following is recommended: Limit MAV usage to 24 consecutive hours or less; discard EVA suits on the surface and ascend wearing IVA suits; Limit MAV functionality to ascent only, rather than dual-use ascent/habitat functions; and ingress/egress the MAV via a detachable tunnel to another pressurized surface asset.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗
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 thesuits are donned through a suitport attached to the airlock bulkhead. A suitport-airlock is access 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 isthen 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↗
NASA NTRS2002

Compression under a mechanical counter pressure space suit glove

Background: Current gas-pressurized space suits are bulky stiff shells severely limiting astronaut function and capability. A mechanical counter pressure (MCP) space suit in the form of a tight elastic garment could dramatically improve extravehicular activity (EVA) dexterity, but also be advantageous in safety, cost, mass and volume. The purpose of this study was to verify that a prototype MCP glove exerts the design compression of 200 mmHg, a pressure similar to the current NASA EVA suit. Methods: Seven male subjects donned a pressure measurement array and MCP glove on the right hand, which was placed into a partial vacuum chamber. Average compression was recorded on the palm, the bottom of the middle finger, the top of the middle finger and the dorsum of the hand at pressures of 760 (ambient), 660 and 580 mmHg. The vacuum chamber was used to simulate the pressure difference between the low breathing pressure of the current NASA space suits (approximately 200 mmHg) and an unprotected hand in space. Results: At ambient conditions, the MCP glove compressed the dorsum of the hand at 203.5 +/- 22.7 mmHg, the bottom of the middle finger at 179.4 +/- 16.0 mmHg, and the top of the middle finger at 183.8 +/- 22.6 mmHg. The palm compression was significantly lower (59.6 +/- 18.8 mmHg, p<0.001). There was no significant change in glove compression with the chamber pressure reductions. Conclusions: The MCP glove compressed the dorsum of the hand and middle finger at the design pressure.

NASA Discipline Life Sciences Technologies↗
NASA NTRS2010

Lessons Learned from Performance Testing of Humans in Spacesuits in Simulated Reduced Gravity

Introduction: The overarching objective of the Integrated Suit Test (IST) series is to evaluate suited human performance using reduced-gravity analogs and learn what aspects of an EVA suit system affect human performance. For this objective to be successfully achieved, the testing methodology should be valid and reproducible, and the partial-gravity simulations must be as accurate and realistic as possible. Objectives: To highlight some of the key lessons learned about partial-gravity analogs and testing methodology, and to suggest considerations for optimizing the effectiveness and quality of results of future tests. Methods: Performance testing of suited and unsuited subjects was undertaken in different reduced-gravity analogs including the Space Vehicle Mockup Facility s Partial Gravity Simulator (POGO), parabolic flight on the C-9 aircraft, underwater environments including NASA s Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) and the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL), and in field analogs including Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS), the Haughton Mars Project (HMP), and the JSC Rock Pile. Subjects performed level walking, incline/decline walking, running, shoveling, picking up and transferring rocks, kneeling/standing, and task boards. Lessons Learned Analogs: No single analog will properly simulate all aspects of the true partial-gravity environment. The POGO is an ideal environment from the standpoint that there are no time limits or significant volumetric constraints, but it does have several limitations. It allows only 2 translational degrees of freedom (DOF) and applies true partial-gravity offload only through the subject s center of gravity (CG). Also, when a subject is doing non-stationary tasks, significant overhead inertia from the lift column seems to have a negative impact on performance. Parabolic flight allows full translational and rotational DOF and applies offload to all parts of the body, but the simulation lasts less than 30 seconds. When this is coupled with the volumetric constraints of the plane, both task selection and data collection options are significantly limited. The underwater environments also allow all 6 DOF and allow off-loading to be applied throughout the body, but the data collection capabilities are limited to little more than subjective ratings. In addition, water drag negatively affects performance of tasks requiring dynamic motion. Field analogs provide the ability to simulate lunar terrain and more realistic mission-like objectives, but all of them operate at 1-g, so suited human performance testing generally must utilize a reduced-mass or "mockup" suit, depending on study objectives. In general, the ground-based overhead-suspension partial-gravity analogs like POGO allow the most diverse data collection methods possible while still simulating partial gravity. However, as currently designed, the POGO has significant limitations. Design of the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) has begun and is focusing on adding full x,y,z translational DOF, improved offload accuracy, increased lift capacity, and active control of the x and y axes to minimize offload system inertia. Additionally, a new gimbal is being designed to reduce mass and inertia and to be able to work with different suits, as the current gimbal only supports suited testing with the Mark III Technology Demonstrator Suit (MKIII).

Norcross, Jason R.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new extravehicular (EVA) suit is being developed for National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) upcoming lunar missions that will be designed to operate in both the lunar surface and in microgravity. This suit will allow for increased range of motion compared to the current Extravehicular Mobility Unity (EMU) and Apollo era suits and have additional features (e.g. ability to increase pressure in the field) that will enhance the health and safety of exploration astronaut.

Teresa M Reiber↗