An Overview of EXPRESS Rack, Microgravity Science Glovebox, and Sub-rack Facilities for Materials Science Research
No abstract available
Thompson, Sean W.↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “GLOVEBOXES”
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.
Overview of the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) Facility and the Research Performed in the MSG
No abstract available
Spivey, Reggie A.↗
Results from On-Board CSA-CP and CDM Sensor Readings During the Burning and Suppression of Solids II (BASS-II) Experiment in the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG)
For the first time on ISS, BASS-II utilized MSG working volume dilution with gaseous nitrogen (N2). We developed a perfectly stirred reactor model to determine the N2 flow time and flow rate to obtain the desired reduced oxygen concentration in the working volume for each test. We calibrated the model with CSA-CP oxygen readings offset using the Mass Constituents Analyzer reading of the ISS ambient atmosphere data for that day. This worked out extremely well for operations, and added a new vital variable, ambient oxygen level, to our test matrices. The main variables tested in BASS-II were ambient oxygen concentration, ventilation flow velocity, and fuel type, thickness, and geometry. BASS-II also utilized the on-board CSA-CP for oxygen and carbon monoxide readings, and the CDM for carbon dioxide readings before and after each test. Readings from these sensors allow us to evaluate the completeness of the combustion. The oxygen and carbon dioxide readings before and after each test were analyzed and compared very well to stoichiometric ratios for a one step gas-phase reaction. The CO versus CO2 followed a linear trend for some datasets, but not for all the different geometries of fuel and flow tested. Lastly, we calculated the heat release rates during each test from the oxygen consumption and burn times, using the constant 13.1 kJ of heat released per gram of oxygen consumed. The results showed that the majority of the tests had heat release rates well below 100 Watts.
combustion products↗
Cleaning the ANGSA Cold Curation Apollo-Era Glovebox - Training the Next Generation
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cecilia L Amick↗
Small Particle Glovebox Experiments - Preliminary Results
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Christopher J Snead↗
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↗
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 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), Infrared (IR) lamps, and heater plates. 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.
Extravehicular Activity (EVA) suits↗
Glovebox Design Considerations for the Curation of Extraterrestrial Samples
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Christopher Snead↗
Geolab 2010: Desert Rats Field Demonstration
In 2010, Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS), NASA's annual field exercise designed to test spacesuit and rover technologies, will include a first generation lunar habitat facility, the Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU). The habitat will participate in joint operations in northern Arizona with the Lunar Electric Rover (LER) and will be used as a multi-use laboratory and working space. A Geology Laboratory or GeoLab is included in the HDU design. Historically, science participation in Desert RATS exercises has supported the technology demonstrations with geological traverse activities that are consistent with preliminary concepts for lunar surface science Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). Next year s HDU demonstration is a starting point to guide the development of requirements for the Lunar Surface Systems Program and test initial operational concepts for an early lunar excursion habitat that would follow geological traverses along with the LER. For the GeoLab, these objectives are specifically applied to support future geological surface science activities. The goal of our GeoLab is to enhance geological science returns with the infrastructure that supports preliminary examination, early analytical characterization of key samples, and high-grading lunar samples for return to Earth [1, 2] . Figure 1: Inside view schematic of the GeoLab a 1/8 section of the HDU, including a glovebox for handling and examining geological samples. Other outfitting facilities are not depicted in this figure. GeoLab Description: The centerpiece of the GeoLab is a glovebox, allowing for samples to be brought into the habitat in a protected environment for preliminary examination (see Fig. 1). The glovebox will be attached to the habitat bulkhead and contain three sample pass-through antechambers that would allow direct transfer of samples from outside the HDU to inside the glovebox. We will evaluate the need for redundant chambers, and other uses for the glovebox antechambers, such as a staging area for additional tools or samples. The sides of the glovebox are designed with instrument ports and additional smaller ports for cable pass-through, imagery feeds and environmental monitoring. This first glovebox version will be equipped with basic tools for manipulating, viewing, and early analysis of samples. The GeoLab was also designed for testing additional analytical instruments in a field setting.
Evans, Cindy A.↗
Reducing Organic Contamination in NASA JSC Astromaterial Curation Facility
Future robotic and human spaceflight missions to the Moon, Mars, asteroids and comets will require handling and storing astromaterial samples with minimal inorganic and organic contamination to preserve the scientific integrity of each sample. Much was learned from the rigorous attempts to minimize and monitor organic contamination during Apollo, but it was not adequate for current analytical requirements; thus [1]. OSIRIS-REx, Hayabusa-2, and future Mars sample return will require better protocols for reducing organic contamination. Future isolation con-tainment systems for astromaterials, possibly nitrogen enriched gloveboxes, must be able to reduce organic and inorganic cross-contamination. In 2012, a baseline study established the current state of organic cleanliness in gloveboxes used by NASA JSC astromaterials curation labs that could be used as a benchmark for future mission designs [2, 3]. After standard ultra-pure water (UPW) cleaning, the majority of organic contaminates found were hydrocarbons, plasticizers, silicones, and solvents. Hydro-carbons loads (> C7) ranged from 1.9 to 11.8 ng/cm2 for TD-GC-MS wafer exposure analyses and 5.0 to 19.5 ng/L for TD-GC-MS adsorbent tube exposure. Plasticizers included < 0.6 ng/cm2 of DBP, DEP, TXIB, and DIBP. Silicones included < 0.5 ng/cm2 of cyclo(Me2SiO)x (x = 6, 8, 9, 10) and siloxane. Solvents included < 1.0 ng/cm2 of 2-cyclohexen-1-one, 3,5,5-trimethyl- (Isopho-rone), N-formylpiperidine, and 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol. In addition, DBF, rubber/polymer additive was found at < 0.2 ng/cm2 and caprolactam, nylon-6 at < 0.6 ng/cm2. Reducing Organics: The Apollo program was the last sam-ple return mission to place high-level organic requirements and biological containment protocols on a curation facility. The high vacuum complex F-201 glovebox in the Lunar Receiving Labora-tory used ethyl alcohol (190 proof), 3:1 benzene/methanol (nano grade solution), and heat sterilization at 130degC for 48 hours to reduce organic contamination. In addition, both heat sterilization and peracetic acid sterilization were used in the atmospheric de-contamination (R) cabinets. Later, Lunar curation gloveboxes were degreased with a pressurized Freon 113 wash. Today, UPW has replaced Freon as the standard cleaning procedure, but does not have the degreasing solvency power of Freon. Future Cleaning Studies: Cleaning experiments are cur-rently being orchestrated to study how to degrease and reduce organics in a JSC curation glovebox lower than the established baseline. Several new chemicals in the industry have replaced traditional degreasing solvents such as Freon and others that are now federally restricted. However, these new suites of chemicals remain untested for lowering organics in curation gloveboxes. 3M's HFE-7100DL and DuPont's Vertrel XF are currently being tested as a replacement for Freon 113 as a degreaser at JSC cura-tion facilities. In addition, the use of UPW as a final rinse is be-ing tested, which presumably can maintain a lower total organic carbon load than the filtered purity of chemical solutions. References: [1] Allton J.H. et al. (2012) LPS XLIII, 2439; [2] Calaway M.
Calaway, M. J.↗
GeoLab in NASA's Pressurized Excursion Module: First Results from the 2010 Field Trials
Before humans explore other planets, NASA must develop advanced techniques for collection, preservation and return of unique extraterrestrial samples. To help evaluate hardware requirements and operational concepts for future sample-return missions, we designed and built GeoLab our first generation lab for geological samples into NASA s Habitat Demonstration Unit in the Pressurized Excursion Module (HDU1-PEM). The center of GeoLab is a glovebox for the examination of samples in a shirt-sleeve environment. As part of a deployable habitat, GeoLab can participate in NASA s analog missions that simulate planetary exploration activities and support the testing of relevant technologies for collecting and handling geological samples. Over time, these tests will evaluate sample handling environments (field and lab), sampling tools and analytical instruments, and different scenarios involving both robotic and human procedures. The GeoLab design supports evolving tests and configurations. The glovebox is mounted on the habitat bulkhead, with three sample pass-though chambers that allow for direct sample transfer into the glovebox from the outside. The glovebox design and construction (low-particle shedding, minimally off-gassing materials) provides a clean environment to reduce sample contamination; in the future, we will integrate a positive pressure, enriched nitrogen atmosphere. The glovebox is equipped with configurable instrument ports. The 2010 test included a mass balance, a stereomicroscope with a HD camera for detailed imaging of samples, and a handheld XRF analyzer for preliminary geochemical characterization of samples. Network cameras provided context imagery and sample handling activities. We present early results from the initial field trial of GeoLab during the 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) planetary analog test near Flagstaff AZ. The 2010 D-RATS mission involved two rovers, the habitat with GeoLab, four crew members, and a team of scientists and flight controllers. The crewed rovers conducted geological traverses and collected samples on the planetary surface. Selected samples were transferred into GeoLab for detailed examination and initial analysis, providing critical data to the science team for evaluation and prioritization of samples.
Evans, Cynthia A.↗
GeoLab: A Geological Workstation for Future Missions
The GeoLab glovebox was, until November 2012, fully integrated into NASA's Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Analog Testbed. The conceptual design for GeoLab came from several sources, including current research instruments (Microgravity Science Glovebox) used on the International Space Station, existing Astromaterials Curation Laboratory hardware and clean room procedures, and mission scenarios developed for earlier programs. GeoLab allowed NASA scientists to test science operations related to contained sample examination during simulated exploration missions. The team demonstrated science operations that enhance theThe GeoLab glovebox was, until November 2012, fully integrated into NASA's Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Analog Testbed. The conceptual design for GeoLab came from several sources, including current research instruments (Microgravity Science Glovebox) used on the International Space Station, existing Astromaterials Curation Laboratory hardware and clean room procedures, and mission scenarios developed for earlier programs. GeoLab allowed NASA scientists to test science operations related to contained sample examination during simulated exploration missions. The team demonstrated science operations that enhance the early scientific returns from future missions and ensure that the best samples are selected for Earth return. The facility was also designed to foster the development of instrument technology. Since 2009, when GeoLab design and construction began, the GeoLab team [a group of scientists from the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office within the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) Directorate at JSC] has progressively developed and reconfigured the GeoLab hardware and software interfaces and developed test objectives, which were to 1) determine requirements and strategies for sample handling and prioritization for geological operations on other planetary surfaces, 2) assess the scientific contribution of selective in-situ sample characterization for mission planning, operations, and sample prioritization, 3) evaluate analytical instruments and tools for providing efficient and meaningful data in advance of sample return and 4) identify science operations that leverage human presence with robotic tools. In the first year of tests (2010), GeoLab examined basic glovebox operations performed by one and two crewmembers and science operations performed by a remote science team. The 2010 tests also examined the efficacy of basic sample characterization [descriptions, microscopic imagery, X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyses] and feedback to the science team. In year 2 (2011), the GeoLab team tested enhanced software and interfaces for the crew and science team (including Web-based and mobile device displays) and demonstrated laboratory configurability with a new diagnostic instrument (the Multispectral Microscopic Imager from the JPL and Arizona State University). In year 3 (2012), the GeoLab team installed and tested a robotic sample manipulator and evaluated robotic-human interfaces for science operations.
Evans, Cynthia↗
Presentation to International Space University Students on g-LIMIT and STABLE-ATD Projects and Related Microgravity Vibration Isolation Topics
Vibration isolation is a necessity in the development of science in space and especially those experiments destined for operation on the International Space Station (ISS). The premise of microgravity scientific research is that in space, disturbances are minimized and experiments can be conducted in the absence of gravity. Although microgravity conditions exist in space, disturbances are still present in various forms and can be detrimental to the success of a microgravity experiment. Due to the plethora of disturbances and the various types that will occur on the space station, the microgravity community has elected to incorporate various means of isolating scientific payloads from these unwanted vibrations. Designing these vibration isolators is a crucial task to achieve true microgravity science. Since conventional methods of isolating payloads can achieve only limited isolation, new technologies are being developed to achieve the goal of designing a generic vibration isolation system. One such system being developed for the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) is called g-LIMIT which stands for Glovebox Integrated Microgravity Isolation Technology. The g-LIMIT system is a miniaturized active vibration isolator for glovebox experiments. Although the system is initially developed for glovebox experiments, the g-LIMIT technology is designed to be upwardly scaleable to provide isolation for a broad range of users. The g-LIMIT system is scheduled to be flown on the UF-2 mission in August of the year 2000 and will be tested shortly thereafter. Once the system has been fully qualified, the hardware will become available for other researchers and will provide a platform upon which the goal of microgravity science can be achieved.
Alhorn, Dean↗
International Space Station Crew Restraint Design
With permanent human presence onboard the International Space Station (ISS), crews will be living and working in microgravity, dealing with the challenges of a weightless environment. In addition, the confined nature of the spacecraft environment results in ergonomic challenges such as limited visibility and access to the activity areas, as well as prolonged periods of unnatural postures. Without optimum restraints, crewmembers may be handicapped for performing some of the on-orbit tasks. Currently, many of the tasks on ISS are performed with the crew restrained merely by hooking their arms or toes around handrails to steady themselves. This is adequate for some tasks, but not all. There have been some reports of discomfort/calluses on the top of the toes. In addition, this type of restraint is simply insufficient for tasks that require a large degree of stability. Glovebox design is a good example of a confined workstation concept requiring stability for successful use. They are widely used in industry, university, and government laboratories, as well as in the space environment, and are known to cause postural limitations and visual restrictions. Although there are numerous guidelines pertaining to ventilation, seals, and glove attachment, most of the data have been gathered in a 1-g environment, or are from studies that were conducted prior to the early 1980 s. Little is known about how best to restrain a crewmember using a glovebox in microgravity. In 2004, The Usability Testing and Analysis Facility (UTAF) at the NASA Johnson Space Center completed development/evaluation of several design concepts for crew restraints to meet the various needs outlined above. Restraints were designed for general purpose use, for teleoperation (Robonaut) and for use with the Life Sciences Glovebox. All design efforts followed a human factors engineering design lifecycle, beginning with identification of requirements followed by an iterative prototype/test cycle. Anthropometric modeling was completed for the 5th percentile Asian female and the 95th percentile American male for all restraints. A series of three evaluations was performed onboard NASA's reduced gravity aircraft (KC-135). For all evaluations, participants performed representative tasks while being videotaped, and then completed a questionnaire following each flight day. The questionnaire included ratings scales and free format questions to assess topics such as comfort, stability provided, flexibility provided, etc. Results from the three flight evaluations are being used to develop the human factors design requirements for crew restraint concepts for 1) general purpose restraints, 2) teleoperation restraints and 3) glovebox restraints. The poster presentation will describe the detailed methodology used, results from each of the three evaluations, and the resulting human factors recommendations for the design of these restraints.
Whitmore, M.↗
A METHOD TO REDUCE BIOBURDEN IN ASTROMATERIALS CURATION FACILITIES WITHOUT INTRODUCING UNWANTED CONTAMINATION
Introduction: NASA curates its Astromaterials collections in cleanrooms that are carefully monitored for particulate, inorganic and trace metal contamination. Current sample collections are not particularly susceptible to organic contamination or biological alteration. However, new collections like those from the OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa2 missions will have organic contamination requirements and are susceptible to biodegradation. It will be necessary sterilize or at least disinfect curation labs, as well as tools and equipment in a manner that does not introduce additional contamination and does not affect the samples 1. Current curation cleaning procedures utilize isopropyl alcohol which offers some bioburden reduction, but is not effective against spore-forming bacteria or fungal spores 2. We present a modified disinfection method that uses ultrapure hydrogen peroxide to reduce bioburden inside curation labs and glove boxes without introducing contamination or damaging curation equipment. We tested this method in the meteorite processing lab as well as on a glovebox being cleaned for use in processing ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis) samples and present the results of those tests. We discuss the limitations of this method and describe potential situations in which it will not be applicable. The CDC guidelines for disinfection andsterilization in healthcare facilities discusses over 15different methods for reducing bioburden in hospitalsettings 3. The most common method, steamsterilization, is well suited to sterilizing curationprocessing tools but cannot easily be used to sterilizecleanroom surfaces or large equipment likegloveboxes. Chemical sterilization with bleach(NaOCl) is also a common strategy in healthcare andpharmaceutical settings that presents materialcompatibility issues as well as serious inorganiccontamination concerns for curation facilities.Introducing a new source of Na and Cl into curationlabs is not acceptable. Other chemical methods likeethylene oxide, formaldehyde, iodophors andquaternary ammonium compounds could introduceorganic and inorganic contamination. We chose tofocus on hydrogen peroxide because it is generallycompatible with commonly used curation materialslike stainless steel, aluminum and Teflon and becauseit decomposes to oxygen and water. The CDCguidelines for hydrogen peroxide specify using a 7.5wt% solution at 25 ̊C with a contact time of 30 minutesfor high level disinfection and 6 hours for sterilization.High level disinfection is defined as a technique thatwill kill all microorganisms except large numbers ofbacterial spores 3. Methods: We prepared a solution of 7.5 wt%hydrogen peroxide from a stock solution of ultrapure30 wt% peroxide (JT Baker) and curation gradeultrapure water. This ultrapure water is already used incuration cleaning procedures and thus is not consideredand additional source of contamination. We conducteda materials compatibility test by exposing unanodizedand anodized 6061 T6 Al alloy to the peroxide solutionfor up to six hours and periodically inspecting thesurfaces for visible defects. We used this peroxide todisinfect the floor of the meteorite processing lab andthe interior of a curation glovebox by exposing thesesurfaces to the peroxide solution for 30 min. Thesurfaces were swabbed with a dry macrofoam swabbefore (Puritan Brand 2518051PFRNDFD) and afterperoxide treatment to collect microbes present on thesurfaces. Microbes were extracted by sonication fromthe swab into 15 ml of PBS (phosphate buffered saline)and inoculated onto the following media: TSA (trypticsoy agar) BA (blood agar), R2A (Reasoners 2 agar),Potato Dextrose Agar, Saboraud Dextrose Agar andSaboraud Dextrose Agar with 0.1 mg/ mlchloramphenicol. Four TSA plates and two BA plateswere inoculated with 0.1 ml of PBS each andincubated at 35 and 37 for 48 hours. Two R2A°C°Cplates (0.1 ml of PBS each) were incubated at 25 .°CThe remaining plates were inoculated with 0.2ml ofPBS and incubated at 30 ̊C for seven days. Afterincubation bacterial and fungal isolates were countedand transferred to new plates for identification usingthe VITEK24 automated system or by sequencing aportion of the barcode gene (16S rRNA for bacteria,small subunit gene for fungi) on an ABI 3500 Sangersequencer. Negative controls consisted of swabs thatwere opened in the sampling environment andanalyzed alongside the experimental samples.Results: A 6 hour exposure to hydrogen peroxideresulted in visible pitting on un-anodized 6061 Al, butnot on anodized surfaces. No visible pitting occurredafter a 30 minute exposure. Therefore, we decided tolimit our experimental tests to 30 min. exposures. 17bacterial CFU (colony forming units) representing 4distinct organisms were isolated from the meteorite processing lab floor prior to hydrogen peroxidetreatment. We were unable culture any organisms afterperoxide treatment. In the glovebox we were able toculture three bacterial CFU representing three distinctspecies, including a spore forming bacterium prior todisinfection with peroxide. After the peroxidetreatment we were unable to culture any organisms.Routine monitoring of the meteorite processing lab andthe glovebox did not indicate any increase in unwantedinorganic contamination after these peroxidetreatments. Discussion: A 30 minute treatment with 7.5 wt%peroxide appears to be an effective method forreducing bioburden on typical cleanroom surfaces. Themethod does not introduce unwanted organic orinorganic contamination and is compatible withcommonly used curation materials like stainless steel,Teflon and anodized aluminum alloys. Special careshould be taken with un-anodized aluminum.Prolonged exposure to hydrogen peroxide can causepitting on this material. We recommend using thismethod to disinfect curation labs and equipment whenbiological alteration is a concern. This method iseffective at room temperature and cannot be used todisinfect labs and equipment where the ambienttemperature is < 0 ̊C. Astromaterials samples shouldbe removed from the area where disinfection is tooccur. Hydrogen peroxide is a powerful oxidizingagent and will react with any organic carbon present inthe sample. References: [1.] Mccubbin, F. M. et al.Sp. Sci Rev(2019) doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0615-9. [2.] Mogul, R.et al.Astrobiology 18, ast.2017.1814 (2018). [3.]Rutala, W. A. & Weber, D. J. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. [4.] Pincus, D. H. in Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods (2005).
A. B. Regberg↗
MIL-C-38999 electrical connector applicability tests for on-orbit EVA satellite servicing
MIL-C-38999 electrical connectors were tested for their applicability to the on-orbit EVA satellite servicing environment. The investigation provided a methodical approach to the evaluation of the human-machine interface of these connectors. The physical characteristics of thirty-five MIL-C-38999 connectors were tested in two simulated space environments, the NASA Johnson Space Center Weightless Environment Training Facility and an evacuated glovebox which incorporated the Extravehicular Maneuvering Unit series 3000 gloves. Physical characteristics of the connectors were documented, including operating torque and work profiles. STS crewmembers tested a select group of connectors in two WETF test and subjectively ranked the G&H PMM Wing-Tab connectors as most applicable to the on-orbit servicing environment. WETF performance times indicated that the G&H PMM Wing-Tab connector had the fastest operating time. The evacuated glovebox participants ranked the G&H 64600 Wing-Tab and the G&H PMM Wing-Tab connectors as those most applicable to the on-orbit servicing environment. During the evacuated glovebox tests, the G&H 64600 Wing-Tab connector had the fastest operating time.
Griffin, Thomas J.↗
Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluations
Confined workstations, where the operator has limited visibility and physical access to the work area, may cause prolonged periods of unnatural posture. Impacts on performance, in terms of fatigue and posture, may occur especially if the task is tedious and repetitive or requires static muscle loading. The glovebox design is a good example of the confined workstation concept. Within the scope of the 'Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluation' project, funded by the NASA Headquarters Life Sciences Division, it was proposed to conduct a series of evaluations in ground, KC-135 and Shuttle environments to investigate the human factors issues concerning confined/unique workstations, such as gloveboxes, and also including crew restraint requirements. As part of the proposed integrated evaluations, two Shuttle Detailed Supplementary Objectives (DSOs) were manifested; one on Space Transportation System (STS)-90 and one on STS-88. The DSO on STS-90 evaluated use of the General Purpose Workstation (GPWS). The STS-88 mission was planned to evaluate a restraint system at the Remote Manipulator System (RMS). In addition, KC- 1 35 flights were conducted to investigate user/workstation/restraint integration for long-duration microgravity use. The scope of these evaluations included workstations and restraints to be utilized in the ISS environment, but also incorporated other workstations/ restraints in an attempt to provide findings/requirements with broader applications across multiple programs (e.g., Shuttle, ISS, and future Lunar-Mars programs). In addition, a comprehensive electronic questionnaire has been prepared and is under review by the Astronaut Office which will compile crewmembers' lessons learned information concerning glovebox and restraint use following their missions. These evaluations were intended to be complementary and were coordinated with hardware developers, users (crewmembers), and researchers. This report is intended to provide a summary of the findings from each of the evaluations.
Chmielewski, C.↗