Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “waterproof”

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.

76 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Snowex 2017 Community Snow Depth Measurements: A Quality-Controlled, Georeferenced Product

Snow depth was one of the core ground measurements required to validate remotely-sensed data collected during SnowEx Year 1, which occurred in Colorado. The use of a single, common protocol was fundamental to produce a community reference dataset of high quality. Most of the nearly 100 Grand Mesa and Senator Beck Basin SnowEx ground crew participants contributed to this crucial dataset during 6-25 February 2017. Snow depths were measured along ~300 m transects, whose locations were determined according to a random-stratified approach using snowfall and tree-density gradients. Two-person teams used snowmobiles, skis, or snowshoes to travel to staked transect locations and to conduct measurements. Depths were measured with a 1-cm incremented probe every 3 meters along transects. In shallow areas of Grand Mesa, depth measurements were also collected with GPS snow-depth probes (a.k.a. MagnaProbes) at ~1-m intervals. During summer 2017, all reference stake positions were surveyed with <10 cm accuracy to improve overall snow depth location accuracy. During the campaign, 193 transects were measured over three weeks at Grand Mesa and 40 were collected over two weeks in Senator Beck Basin, representing more than 27,000 depth values. Each day of the campaign depth measurements were written in waterproof field books and photographed by National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) participants. The data were later transcribed and prepared for extensive quality assessment and control. Common issues such as protocol errors (e.g., survey in reverse direction), notebook image issues (e.g., halo in the center of digitized picture), and data-entry errors (sloppy writing and transcription errors) were identified and fixed on a point-by-point basis. In addition, we strove to produce a georeferenced product of fine quality, so we calculated and interpolated coordinates for every depth measurement based on surveyed stakes and the number of measurements made per transect. The product has been submitted to NSIDC in csv format. To educate data users, we present the study design and processing steps that have improved the quality and usability of this product. Also, we will address measurement and design uncertainties, which are different in open vs. forest areas.

Brucker, L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Instrumented Walking and Turning Test to Evaluate Suited Gait Dynamics and Performance in Extravehicular Activity Training Environments

Background and aims: Walking will be required for many exploration tasks on the Moon during the Artemis program. Walking in a straight line on the confined floorspace of a testing area, and repetitive treadmill walking that requires no change in direction may not adequately reflect the balance and coordination required during ambulation. Also, performance of turning maneuvers may be affected differently in different extravehicular activity (EVA) training facilities that simulate partial gravity. For example, the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) simulates lunar gravity by adding weight to underwater subjects to alter buoyancy and achieve the equivalent ground reaction force of 1/6 of Earth’s gravity (1/6G), whereas the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) uses a computer controlled overhead suspension system programmed to continuously offload a percentage of a subject’s weight to simulate 1/6G. The degree to which dynamic movements such as turning are comparable across these EVA training facilities has not yet been evaluated. The instrumented gait test helps NASA scientists and engineers evaluate gait dynamics and performance in suited conditions, and this test demonstrates the unique characteristics and limitations of EVA training facilities. We developed an instrumented walking and turning test using inertial measurement units (IMUs) and conducted the test at NASA’s EVA training facilities. Results were used to compare suited walking and turning characteristics in the ARGOS and the NBL. Methods: Subjects donned the Mark III space suit during offloading with the ARGOS spreader bar gimbal and donned the Z2.5 space suit while underwater in the NBL with weights and floatation added to achieve realistic suit center of gravity. The test team securely attached three Opal (APDM, OR, USA) wireless IMUs on the space suit for each test run: one on the middle of the hard upper torso, and one on the left and on the right ankle bearings. During the NBL tests, the IMUs were encased in a waterproof housing (GoPro) with foam added to create a tighter fit. At both testing facilities, 6.3 m x 1.0 m (LxW) walking lines were marked, and a cone for turning or walking around was located at the end of the walking path with another line on the other side of the cone to indicate the stopping point after walking around the cone. Under simulated 1/6G, subjects began by standing at the marked line with their arms folded across the chest, they then walked at a preferred speed along the straight walking path until they reached the end, turned 180 degrees around the cone, and finally stopped at the marked stopping point. All IMU data recorded during testing were automatically saved to the internal memory. Then, raw IMU signals were processed using custom MATLAB (Mathworks, MA, USA) code to compare gait parameters during both the walking and the turning components of the task. These parameters included time (s), speed (m/s for walking and rad/s for turning), step number (n) and walk:turn time ratio (% time spent straight walking versus turning). Results: Less time, faster gait, fewer steps, and higher walk:turn ratio during both walking and turning components were exhibited during tests performed at the ARGOS versus those performed at the NBL. During the NBL tests, the slower walking speed continued at the same rate throughout a U-shape turn. During the ARGOS tests, the subjects performed shorter and tighter turns at 4 times the speed of the NBL turns because they walked 30% faster and the vertical offloading system gave them more support. Conclusion: Our data show that the differences in walking and turning parameters during the NBL tests may be due to the high viscosity in the water environment where the motion of the lower limbs was slow and did not reach full flexion and extension. These tests improve the current knowledge of testing environments in preparation for EVAs on the lunar surface.

Kyoung Jae Kim↗
NASA NTRS2019

Underwater Virtual Reality System for Neutral Buoyancy Training: Development and Evaluation

During terrestrial activities, sensation of pressure on the skin and tension in muscles and joints provides information about how the body is oriented relative to gravity and how the body is moving relative to the surrounding environment. In contrast, in aquatic environments when suspended in a state of neutral buoyancy, the weight of the body and limbs is offloaded, rendering these cues uninformative. It is not yet known how this altered sensory environment impacts virtual reality experiences. To investigate this question, we converted a full-face SCUBA mask into an underwater head-mounted display and developed software to simulate jetpack locomotion outside the International Space Station. Our goal was to emulate conditions experienced by astronauts during training at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Lab. A user study was conducted to evaluate both sickness and presence when using virtual reality in this altered sensory environment. We observed an increase in nausea related symptoms underwater, but we cannot conclude that this is due to VR use. Other measures of sickness and presence underwater were comparable to measures taken above water. We conclude with suggestions for improved underwater VR systems and improved methods for evaluation of these systems based on our experience.

Simulation↗