Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PRESSURIZED 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

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↗

Ergonomic Evaluation of Space Shuttle Light-Weight Seat Lever Position and Operation

During a Shuttle flight in the early part of 1999, one of the crewmembers was unable to operate the backrest lever for the light-weight seat in microgravity. It is essential that the crewmembers are able to adjust this back-rest lever, which is titled forward 2 degrees from vertical during launch and then moved backwards to 10 degrees aft of vertical upon reaching orbit. This adjustment is needed to cushion the crewmembers during an inadvertent crash landing situation. The original Shuttle seats, which had seat controls located on the front left and right sides of the seat, were replaced recently with the new light-weight seats. The controls for these new, seats were moved to the night side with one control at the front and the other at the back. While it was uncertain whether the problem encountered was unique to that crewmember or not it was clear to the personnel responsible for maintaining the Shuttle seats that not knowing the cause of the problem posed a safety concern for NASA. Hence the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) of the Johnson Space Center was requested to perform an evaluation of the seat controls and provide NASA with appropriate recommendations on whether the seat lever positions and operations should be modified. The ABF designed an experiment to investigate the amount of pull force exerted by subjects, wearing an unpressurized or pressurized crew launch escape suit, when controls were placed in the front and back (on the right side) of the light-weight seat. Single-axis load cells were attached to the seat levers, which measured the maximum static pull forces that were exerted by the subjects. Twelve subjects, six male and six female, participated in this study. Each subject was asked to perform the pull test at least three times for each combination of lever position and suit pressure conditions. The results from this study showed that as a whole (or in general), the subjects were able to pull on the lever at the back position with only about half the amount of force that they were able to exert on the lever at the front position. In addition, the results also showed that subjects wearing the pressurized suit were unable to reach the seat lever when it was located at the back. Furthermore, the pull forces on the front lever diminished about 50 % when subjects wore the pressurized suits. Based on these results from this study, it was recommended to NASA that the levers should not be located in the back position. In addition, further investigation is needed on whether the levers at the front of the seat could be modified or adjusted to increase the leverage for crew members wearing pressurized launch/escape suits.

Maida, J.↗

Durable Suit Bladder with Improved Water Permeability for Pressure and Environment Suits

Water vapor permeability is shown to be useful in rejecting heat and managing moisture accumulation in launch-and-entry pressure suits. Currently this is accomplished through a porous Gortex layer in the Advanced Crew and Escape Suit (ACES) and in the baseline design of the Constellation Suit System Element (CSSE) Suit 1. Non-porous dense monolithic membranes (DMM) that are available offer potential improvements for water vapor permeability with reduced gas leak. Accordingly, three different pressure bladder materials were investigated for water vapor permeability and oxygen leak: ElasthaneTM 80A (thermoplastic polyether urethane) provided from stock polymer material and two custom thermoplastic polyether urethanes. Water vapor, carbon dioxide and oxygen permeability of the DMM's was measured in a 0.13 mm thick stand-alone layer, a 0.08 mm and 0.05 mm thick layer each bonded to two different nylon and polyester woven reinforcing materials. Additional water vapor permeability and mechanical compression measurements were made with the reinforced 0.05 mm thick layers, further bonded with a polyester wicking and overlaid with moistened polyester fleece thermal underwear .This simulated the pressure from a supine crew person. The 0.05 mm thick nylon reinforced sample with polyester wicking layer was further mechanically tested for wear and abrasion. Concepts for incorporating these materials in launch/entry and Extravehicular Activity pressure suits are presented.

Bue, Grant C.↗

The Orion Atmosphere Revitalization Technology in Manned Ambient Pressure Space Suit Testing

An amine-based carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor sorbent in pressure-swing regenerable beds has been developed by Hamilton Sundstrand and baselined for the Atmosphere Revitalization System (ARS) for moderate duration missions of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle. The Orion ARS is designed to support not only open-cabin operations, tests of which have been reported in previous years at this conference, but also closed space suit-loop operations. A previous low-pressure suit loop test was performed with a human metabolic simulator, and humans wearing emergency masks were tested in a closed-loop configuration before that. In late 2011, simple tests were performed in a suit-loop configuration with human test subjects in prototype space suits with prototype umbilicals at ambient and two slightly above-ambient pressures. Trace contaminant filters and a prototype blower were also incorporated into the test rig. This paper discusses the performance of the ARS technology in that 2011 test configuration.

Button, Amy↗

Mechanical Counter-Pressure EVA Suits: NASA Outlook and Development Strategy

Since the 1950s, mechanical counter-pressure (MCP) has been investigated as a possible alternative architecture to traditional extra-vehicular activity (EVA) suits. While traditional gas-pressurized EVA suits provide physiological protection against the ambient vacuum environment by means of pressurized oxygen to at least 3.1 psid, MCP provides protection by direct application of pressure on the skin by a fabric. In reviewing the concept, MCP offers distinct potential advantages to traditional EVA suits: lower mass, reduced consumables, increased mobility, increased comfort, less complexity, and improved failure modes. In addition, as basic feasibility was established in the 1960s with the successful testing of the Space Activity Suit, MCP seems poised to inevitably supplant traditional EVA architectures with a modest degree of concentrated development. However, as they say, "The devil is in the details". This paper serves as a comprehensive summary of the technical work that has been completed related to MCP from 1960 to 2019, the technical gaps that need to be closed to facilitate a flight-capable design, and outlines an overall development strategy that NASA feels would best address these gaps moving forward.

mechanical counter-pressure↗

Metabolic and Subjective Results Review of the Integrated Suit Test Series

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

Norcross, J.R.↗

Development of ARGOS Offloading Assessments and Methodology for Lunar EVA Simulations

The Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is an analog environment that can offload pressurized suited subjects at various gravity levels. The suit is suspended from a robotic overhead crane by a cable connected to the suit via a gimbal with an adjustable pivot point. There has been increased interest in providing lunar pressurized suited training at ARGOS in preparation for lunar missions. Determination of the appropriate gimbal pivot point location for a given subject is vital for a high-fidelity and functional lunar simulation. Interactions between the pivot point location and center of gravity (CG) can result in righting moments that may lead to artificially stable or unrealistically challenging configurations. Changing the pivot point location is time consuming and repeated adjustment can result in significant loss of valuable pressurized suited time. This paper aims to share the knowledge obtained from the offloading characterization efforts during pressurized suited testing at ARGOS and document the ongoing process to define an appropriate pivot point location through iterative quantitative and qualitative assessments. The human-spacesuit CG locations for the ARGOS lunar simulation were estimated using a 3D body scan and density model combined with spacesuit hardware CAD and specifications. Early pilot testing of the gimbal revealed that setting the pivot point coincident with the modeled CG location was not always possible due to the current gimbal design, and small shifts forward and aft had noticeable effects on subject stability. Fifteen subjects performed a series of CG-related tasks in the xEMU spacesuit to assess simulation acceptability. Through iterative testing, this task list evolved to streamline the process needed to efficiently identify a suitable pivot point for a given subject. The developed methodology will be critical to determine pivot point selection for astronaut training in the xEMU ARGOS environment.

Sarah L. Jarvis↗

Crew Survivability After a Rapid Cabin Depressurization Event

Anecdotal evidence acquired through historic failure investigations involving rapid cabin decompression (e.g. Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 11) show that full evacuation of the cabin atmosphere may occur within seconds. During such an event, the delta-pressure between the sealed suit ventilation system and the cabin will rise at the rate of the cabin depressurization; potentially at a rate exceeding the capability of the suit relief valve. It is possible that permanent damage to the suit pressure enclosure and ventilation loop components may occur as the integrated system may be subjected to delta pressures in excess of the design to pressures. Additionally, as the total pressure of the suit ventilation system decreases, so does the oxygen available to the crew. The crew may be subjected to a temporary incapacitating, but non-lethal, hypoxic environment. It is expected that the suit will maintain a survivable atmosphere on the crew until the vehicle pressure control system recovers or the cabin has otherwise attained a habitable environment. A common finding from the aforementioned reports indicates that the crew would have had a better chance at surviving the event had they been in a protective configuration, that is, in a survival suit. Making use of these lessons learned, the Constellation Program implemented a suit loop in the spacecraft design and required that the crew be in a protective configuration, that is suited with gloves on and visors down, during dynamic phases of flight that pose the greatest risk for a rapid and uncontrolled cabin depressurization event: ascent, entry, and docking. This paper details the evaluation performed to derive suit pressure garment and ventilation system performance parameters that would lead to the highest probability of crew survivability after an uncontrolled crew cabin depressurization event while remaining in the realm of practicality for suit design. This evaluation involved: (1) assessment of stakeholder expectations to validate the functionality being imposed; (2) review/refinement of concept of operations to establish the potential triggers for such an event and define the response of the spacecraft and suit ventilation loop pressure control systems; and (3) assessment of system capabilities with respect to structural capability and pressure control. 1 Crew and Thermal Systems Division, NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code: AES29, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston,

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗

Crew Survivability After a Rapid Cabin Depressurization Event

Anecdotal evidence acquired through historic failure investigations involving rapid cabin decompression (e.g. Challenger, Columbia and Soyuz 11) show that full evacuation of the cabin atmosphere may occur within seconds. During such an event, the delta-pressure between the sealed suit ventilation system and the cabin will rise at the rate of the cabin depressurization; potentially at a rate exceeding the capability of the suit relief valve. It is possible that permanent damage to the suit pressure enclosure and ventilation loop components may occur as the integrated system may be subjected to delta pressures in excess of the design-to pressures. Additionally, as the total pressure of the suit ventilation system decreases, so does the oxygen available to the crew. The crew may be subjected to a temporarily incapacitating, but non-lethal, hypoxic environment. It is expected that the suit will maintain a survivable atmosphere on the crew until the vehicle pressure control system recovers or the cabin has otherwise attained a habitable environment. A common finding from the aforementioned reports indicates that the crew would have had a better chance at surviving the event had they been in a protective configuration, that is, in a survival suit. Making use of these lessons learned, the Constellation Program implemented a suit loop in the spacecraft design and required that the crew be in a protective configuration, that is suited with gloves on and visors down, during dynamic phases of flight that pose the greatest risk for a rapid and uncontrolled cabin depressurization event: ascent, entry, and docking. This paper details the evaluation performed to derive suit pressure garment and ventilation system performance parameters that would lead to the highest probability of crew survivability after an uncontrolled crew cabin depressurization event while remaining in the realm of practicality for suit design. This evaluation involved: (1) assessment of stakeholder expectations to validate the functionality being imposed; (2) review/refinement of concept of operations to establish the potential triggers for such an event and define the response of the spacecraft and suit ventilation loop pressure control systems; and (3) assessment of system capabilities with respect to structural capability and pressure control.

Sargusingh, Miriam J.↗

Development of ARGOS (Active Response Gravity Offload System) Offloading Assessments and Methodology for Lunar EVA Simulations

The Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is an analog environment that can offload pressurized suited subjects for various reduced gravity simulations. The suit is suspended from a robotic overhead crane by a cable connected to the suit via a gimbal with an adjustable pivot point (i.e. offload attachment). There has been increased interest in providing planetary pressurized suited training at ARGOS in preparation for lunar missions. Determination of the appropriate gimbal pivot point location for a given subject is vital for a high-fidelity functional lunar simulation. Interactions between the pivot point location and human-spacesuit center of gravity (CG) can result in righting moments that may lead to artificially stable or unrealistically challenging configurations. Changing the pivot point location is time consuming and repeated adjustment can result in loss of valuable pressurized suited time. This paper aims to share knowledge obtained from the offloading characterization efforts during pressurized suited testing at ARGOS and document the ongoing process to define an appropriate pivot point location through iterative quantitative and qualitative assessments. Human-spacesuit CG locations for the ARGOS lunar simulation were estimated using a 3D body scan and density model combined with spacesuit hardware CAD and specifications. Early pilot testing of the gimbal revealed that setting the pivot point coincident with the modeled CG location was not always possible due to the current gimbal design, and small pivot point shifts had noticeable effects on subject stability. Fourteen subjects performed a series of CG-related tasks in the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) to assess simulation characteristics. Through iterative testing, this task list evolved to streamline the process needed to efficiently identify a suitable pivot point for a given subject. The developed methodology will be critical for pivot point selection during astronaut training in the ARGOS environment.

Sarah L. Jarvis↗

Space suits.

Development of pressure suit from Haldane to extravehicular space suit, noting support equipment and advanced concepts

SPACE SUIT↗

Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) Chamber B Thermal Vacuum “Suit 2” Pressure Garment System Hardware and Test Design

NASA’s Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) is the government reference next-generation space suit design and is engineered to protect astronauts from extreme lunar environmental temperatures. To evaluate the xEMU hardware thermal requirements, the xEMU Testing Team invented, designed, and executed a dual-suit, uncrewed thermal vacuum (TVAC) test at Johnson Space Center’s (JSC) Chamber B. This paper details the test hardware design and test methodology for the “Suit 2” Pressure Garment System (PGS) test article. The uncrewed “Suit 2” PGS test article consisted of a full PGS assembly with simulated Portable Life Support System (PLSS) functionality provided by test equipment, including a ventilation loop and two distinct thermal control loops. This paper will discuss in depth the test hardware design, including internal suit thermal boundary simulation, sensor quantity and placement, test support equipment rigs for gas flow, water flow, and power. Custom hardware designed to add additional penetrations to the suit or provide additional interfaces for sensors will also be discussed. This paper will also address the assembly and integration sequence for the test article. In addition to test hardware design, this paper will provide insights into the test methodology for this test article, including a discussion of thermal steady-state testing, simultaneous dual suit thermal vacuum testing, and hazard mitigation and controls.

xEMU↗

EVA Swab Kit: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Aseptic Samples from Crewed Space Missions

Introduction: When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed spacecraft meet planetary protection requirements—and to protect our science from human contamination—we'll need to assess and verify whether micro-organisms may be leaking/venting from our spacesuits. This requires collecting samples under Extravehicular Activity (EVA) conditions. Detailed, systematic research on forward contamination from robotic spacecraft has been steadily progressing since the Viking missions, but systematic studies of contamination from space suits has not been conducted in many years. The modern EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suit used by NASA is designed to leak at rates as high as 100 cc/min. Before humans land on Mars there is a critical need to understand the types and quantities of microbes that could be introduced via space suits. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype EVA swab tool [1,2,3,4] designed for use in space to sample cleaned and uncleaned space suits to determine the present day microbial load and eventually the rate of leakage. The ability to assess microbial leakage early in advanced space suit and life support system design cycles will help avoid costly hardware redesign later. Test Objectives: The primary objective of EMU testing was to characterize the type of micro-organisms typically found on or near selected suit pressure joints under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-borne microbes can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 µm gap. Knowing which joints are more likely to leak will inform hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of micro-organisms may leak from EVA suits provides a basis for subsequent studies to characterize the viability of those organisms under destination conditions, as well as how far they might spread through natural or human-influenced processes. That data, in turn, will inform exploration mission operations and hardware design. The secondary objective of testing was to evaluate the interface between a fully suited test subject and the EVA swab tool at vacuum. Bulky EVA suits can restrict movement and limit visibility through the helmet visor. Fully suited testing is important for identifying tool design issues prior to flight. At exploration destinations, such as Mars, suited crew may be required to periodically sample their suits as part of an environmental monitoring protocol. Suit Microbial Sampling Results: This report details results of microbial swabs collected from current flight suit configurations worn by crew members assigned to upcoming ISS expedition missions as well as swabs collected from prototype suits intended for use on the Orion spacecraft. These tests were intended to characterize the types of contaminants found on flight suits under current, typical handling conditions. No attempt was made to change suit handling procedures, provide additional sterilization, or to limit typical potential contaminant sources. Using culture based techniques, we cultivated 235 CFU (colony forming units) comprised of 26 bacterial species and one fungal species on the outside of the suits. The fungal species and 14 of the bacterial species were unique to the suit surfaces and were not detected in any of the background samples collected within the chambers. We sequenced 755,434 ribosomal fragments on all of the suit surfaces from swab samples. 557,016 of these sequences represent DNA that survived at least 4 hours at vacuum. These sequences formed 2,464 OTU's (Operational Taxonomic Units, 97% similarity) showing low diversity in the samples. The most abundant sequences that survived vacuum belong to the genera Staphyloccocus, Ralstona, Bacillus and Rhodobacter all of which are common to the human microbiome. [5] See Danko et al., (2021) for more complete details of these first analyses. Further analysis of EVA suit materials with respect to the efficacy of various cleaning protocols and engineered containment solutions is planned to inform suit design for NASA’s Artemis Moon to Mars program crew testing. Swab Tool Function Results: The kit was demonstrated for fit and function in suited subject vacuum tests to determine how well the tool worked as an aseptic microbial sampling device as well as to identify any design elements that could be upgraded for EVA task specific improvement. It was found that sample acquisition efficacy could be enhanced by redesign of the sample canister to end-effector interface. Several modifications of the sample caddy assemblies to optimize EVA safety and functionality were also identified. Consequently, fabrication of the redesigned sample canister to end-effector assembly interfaces and and the sample caddy assemblies are required. Fabrication of sixteen flight sample canister assemblies (8 per each of two EVA Swab Kits) and two sample caddy assemblies are in process to be followed by hardware testing and certification to produce two flight-certified EVA Swab Kits for transport to ISS no earlier than summer of 2022. Sampling Strategy: The International Space Station is an ideal testbed for systematic studies of contamination from crewed vehicles since it has been continuously occupied for 20 years and exposed to non-terrestrial conditions. We will sample the exterior of the ISS during EVA using a purpose-built swab tool capable of maintaining sterility while undergoing temperature changes from -151 to +121°C under hard vacuum. Prior to each EVA, the project team will work with ISS mission managers to identify precise sampling locations, which will vary by EVA based on the translation paths and worksites scheduled for that particular EVA. Ideally, translation path handrails and areas near ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) external vent openings on a spacecraft would be assessed. There are currently more than a dozen ECLSS external vents on the ISS. Some are connected to systems that vent waste products, while others are intended to equalize cabin pressure. As EVA opportunity allows, microbial samples from any of these external vents would provide a valuable data point, though some will be more useful than others. Four criteria have been identified to help prioritize sampling sites near vents: • EVA Accessibility: To minimize cost, it is desired to piggy-back onto a planned EVA. Therefore, the sampling location must be readily accessible by an EVA crew • Type of Vented Products: Vent products that have been in direct contact with crew, such as cabin air, are more likely to contain microorganisms than vent products associated with isolated systems, such as experiment module combustion products. • Mass of Vented Products: Higher-flow vents are more likely to contain detectible levels of microbial contaminants than lower-flow vents. • Local Environment: Sample locations with relatively benign local conditions, such as warm surfaces shielded from direct ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, may be more likely to support microbial growth than locations with harsher local environmental conditions. Because EVA accessibility is the most important criteria, the proposal team worked with an astronaut and flight controllers using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) tool. The DOUG virtual environment allows an operator to “fly” around the current ISS vehicle configuration to assess EVA translation paths, attach points, and keep-out zones. While analysis on station or rapid return to Earth would be preferable, samples collected from the exterior of the ISS have already been exposed to temperature variations between -157 and +121 °C as well as hard vacuum. Therefore, they should be fairly stable and robust. We hypothesize that samples collected from the ISS exterior could be stored for up to 6 months at -80°C without degradation. Sample canisters will be returned to Earth while frozen at -80°C for analysis, and sterilized canisters can be re-flown back to ISS to support additional sampling opportunities Relevance to NASA Exploration Objectives: These data will allow us to identify new or improved methods, technologies, and procedures for spacecraft sterilization and leakage mitigation to minimize the amount of contamination introduced to the environment by human explorers. This work is funded by NASA research grant: NNH18ZDA001N-PPR References: [1] Bell, M.S. et al. (2015) LPS XLVI, Abst. #1832 [2] Rucker et al. (2018) 42nd COSPAR (PPP.3) [3] Bell, M.S. et al. (2019) Mars Extant Life Conference, Abst. #5096.[4] Bell, M.S. et al., (2020) 43rd COSPAR (BO.2).[5] Danko D, et.al.,(2021)Front.Microbiol.12:608478.

Mary Suzanne Bell↗

Development of a space activity suit

The development of a series of prototype space activity suit (SAS) assemblies is discussed. The SAS is a new type of pressure suit designed especially for extravehicular activity. It consists of a set of carefully tailored elastic fabric garments which have been engineered to supply sufficient counterpressure to the body to permit subjects to breath O2 at pressures up to 200 mm Hg without circulatory difficulty. A closed, positive pressure breathing system (PPBS) and a full bubble helmet were also developed to complete the system. The ultimate goal of the SAS is to improve the range of activity and decrease the energy cost of work associated with wearing conventional gas filled pressure suits. Results are presented from both laboratory (1 atmosphere) and altitude chamber tests with subjects wearing various SAS assemblies. In laboratory tests lasting up to three hours, the SAS was worn while subjects breathed O2 at pressures up to 170 mm Hg without developing physiological problems. The only physiological symptoms apparent were a moderate tachycardia related to breathing pressures above 130 mm Hg, and a small collection of edema fluid in the hands. Both problems were considered to be related to areas of under-pressurization by the garments. These problems, it is suggested, can ultimately be corrected by the development of new elastic fabrics and tailoring techniques. Energy cost of activity, and mobility and dexterity of subjects in the SAS, were found to be superior to those in comparable tests on subjects in full pressure suits.

Annis, J. F.↗

Improving survival after tissue vaporization (Ebullism)

Exposure of unprotected humans to altitudes above 63,000 ft results in ebullism. Ebullism occurs when the vapor pressure of tissues is less than the ambient pressure and the tissues spontaneously 'boil'. This may result in rapid unconsciousness, cardiac vaporlock, pulmonary collapse, cerebral anoxia, and sometimes even death. Potential places for this include EVA accidents in space, aircraft experiencing rapid decompression at high altitudes with cabin or pressure suit failure, and accidents during pressure suit training exercises. The pathophysiology of ebullism was studied in the 40's to 60's using animal models. There is one report of a prolonged, unprotected human exposure and several anecdotal of unprotected short term exposures to near vacuum. In addition to pulmonary and neurologic concerns, unprotected exposure of the head may result in freezing of the corneal surface of the eye. Surface eye freezing may impair vision and significantly impact mission completion. At this time, little data are available on the effectiveness of conventional treatment protocols, such as hyperbaric oxygen, for ebullism induced injuries. Research is needed to assess the efficacy of other adjunctive therapies such as high frequency ventilation and cerebral protective drugs that are still under development.

Stegmann, Barbara J.↗