Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EVA decompression sickness”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessing the Influence of Decompression Sickness on Medical Risk for Artemis

As NASA begins to shift its focus from LEO missions to the Moon and beyond, our understanding of the risk associated with human spaceflight is challenged by mission profiles and objectives far different from preceding missions. For Artemis, one of these aspects is surface Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) tempo, in which the crew will perform 3 to 4 surface EVA’s in quick succession. The crew health and performance risk associated with EVA Decompression Sickness (DCS) and its associated countermeasures, is an important consideration for Artemis missions given this new and unprecedented EVA frequency. Successfully completing Artemis mission objectives relies heavily on the crew being able to perform and complete these EVAs. This analysis quantifies how medical risk changes when accounting for the expected increase in DCS risk due to the increase in EVA frequency. If there is an occurrence of DCS during a mission, appropriate downtime needs to be accounted for. Treatment for DCS requires crewmember to stop the current EVA and return to the habitat. This impacts the current EVA the crew is performing, could potentially delay the next EVA, and increases the chance of the crewmember being unable to perform future EVAs. Capturing the downtime and impact of that downtime based on the number of DCS occurrences allows us to better understand how the risk associated with DCS affects the overall medical risk and completion of missions that have more frequent EVA tempo. There are preventative strategies and mitigation countermeasures to decrease the chance of DCS occurring such as different prebreathe protocols, variable suit pressure, and vehicle pressure settings. Modeling the medical risk with and without different DCS countermeasures enables quantitative comparisons of risk reduction associated with each DCS countermeasure. We present results on how these countermeasures affect medical risks and quantify changes in the medical kit contents with respect to the countermeasures implemented within Artemis-class missions.

Clara Gasiewski↗
NASA NTRS2001

Evidence-Based Approach to the Analysis of Serious Decompression Sickness with Application to EVA Astronauts

It is important to understand the risk of serious hypobaric decompression sickness (DCS) in order to develop procedures and treatment responses to mitigate the risk. Since it is not ethical to conduct prospective tests about serious DCS with humans, the necessary information was gathered from 73 published reports. We hypothesize that a 4-hr 100% oxygen (O2) prebreathe results in a very low risk of serious DCS, and test this through analysis. We evaluated 258 tests containing information from 79,366 exposures in attitude chambers. Serious DCS was documented in 918 men during the tests. Serious DCS are signs and symptoms broadly classified as Type II DCS. A risk function analysis with maximum likelihood optimization was performed to identify significant explanatory variables, and to create a predictive model for the probability of serious DCS [P(serious DCS)]. Useful variables were Tissue Ratio, the planned time spent at altitude (T(sub alt)), and whether or not repetitive exercise was performed at altitude. Tissue Ratio is P1N2/P2, where P1N2 is calculated nitrogen (N2) pressure in a compartment with a 180-min half-time for N2 pressure just before ascent, and P2 is ambient pressure after ascent. A prebreathe and decompression profile Shuttle astronauts use for extravehicular activity (EVA) includes a 4-hr prebreathe with 100% O2, an ascent to P2 = 4.3 lb per sq. in. absolute, and a T(sub alt) = 6 hr. The P(serious DCS) is: 0.0014 (0.00096 - 0.00196, 95% confidence interval) with exercise and 0.00025 (0.00016 - 0.00035) without exercise. Given 100 Shuttle EVAs to date and no report of serious DCS, the true risk is less than 0.03 with 95% confidence (Binomial Theorem). It is problematic to estimate the risk of serious DCS since it appears infrequently, even if the estimate is based on thousands of altitude chamber exposures. The true risk to astronauts may lie between the extremes of the confidence intervals (0.00016 - 0.00196) since the contribution of other factors, particularly exercise, to the risk of serious DCS during EVA is unknown. A simple model that only accounts for four important variables in retrospective data is still helpful to increase our understanding about the risk of serious DCS.

Conkin, Johnny↗
NASA NTRS1985

Ultrasound Techniques for Space Applications

Ultrasound has proven to be a safe non-invasive technique for imaging organs and measuring cardiovascular function. It has unique advantages for application to problems with man in space including evaluation of cardiovascular function both in serial studies and during critical operations. In addition, specialized instrumentation may be capable of detecting the onset of decompression sickness during EVA activities. A spatial location and three-dimensional reconstruction system is being developed to improve the accuracy and reproducibility for serial comparative ultrasound studies of cardiovascular function. The three-dimensional method permits the acquisition of ultrasonic images from many views that can be recombined into a single reconstruction of the heart or vasculature. In addition to conventional imaging and monitoring systems, it is sometimes necessary or desirable to develop instrumentation for special purposes. One example of this type of development is the design of a pulsed-Doppler system to monitor cerebral blood flow during critical operations such as re-entry. A second example is the design of a swept-frequency ultrasound system for the detection of bubbles in the circulatory system and/or soft tissues as an early indication of the onset of decompression sickness during EVA activities. This system exploits the resonant properties of bubbles and can detect both fundamental and second harmonic emissions from the insonified region.

Rooney, James A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Moon to Mars (M2M): Exploration Atmosphere

As humans leave the bounds of Earth to explore the lunar surface and beyond, crew will don extravehicular activity (EVA) suits to learn more about these extraterrestrial environments, establish sustained presence, and perform needed upgrades and maintenance to their space vehicle and habitation systems. Spacefaring vehicle and habitation design will need to support these EVA excursions while ensuring crew health and safety. A crucial technological design advancement towards this goal is the use of a lower pressure exploration atmosphere (EA) that enables high efficiency EVA, rather than the sea level atmosphere of 14.7 psia, 21% oxygen (O 2 ) found on the International Space Station, Shuttle, and most other Russian and Chinese space vehicles and stations. Early space vehicles (Mercury through Apollo Programs) used a 5 psia, 100% O 2 environment, which eliminated the need for pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols, simplified the life support system to a single gas, and saved structural mass. For longer duration missions (Skylab), a diluent gas was added, changing the atmosphere to 5 psia, 70-74% O 2 to prevent atelectasis while remaining normoxic. As in-flight science became a top priority, Shuttle and ISS atmospheres were chosen to operate at sea level allowing for simpler ground-based study control conditions. Consequently this led to long pre-EVA denitrogenation protocols involving up to 4 hours of O 2 prebreathe because the EVA suit still operated at a low pressure of 4.3 psid. To increase operational efficiency, the Shuttle was retroactively certified to operate using 10.2 psia, 26.5% O 2 , reducing O 2 prebreathe time to 40-75 min. Current plans for M2M habitats on the Lunar surface require EVA, thus EA recommendation became 8 psia and 32% O 2 but was revised to 8.2 psia and 34% O 2 to decrease hypoxia exposure. Unfortunately, the benefits of EA in support of safe and efficient EVAs comes with the challenge of fire management in a higher-than-normal O 2 % environment. Although known for decades, the recommended forward work to address fire management has only recently begun. Current flammability tests include examining material propagation and ignition sources as well as fire mitigation processes to better understand these properties for proposed new EA environments. Fire safety, DCS risk, and mission design all contribute to the multifaceted parameters of EA. Thus while it is clear that EA is required to achieve the goals of future exploratory space missions, final specifications are still being evaluated for optimizing crew health and safety.

space atmosphere↗
NASA NTRS1993

Risk of decompression sickness in the presence of circulating microbubbles

In this study, we examined the association between microbubbles formed in the circulation from a free gas phase and symptoms of altitude decompression sickness (DCS). In a subgroup of 59 males of mean (S.D) age 31.2 (5.8) years who developed microbubbles during exposure to 26.59 kPa (4.3 psi) under simulated extravehicular activities (EVA), symptoms of DCS occurred in 24 (41 percent) individuals. Spencer grade 1 microbubbles occurred in 4 (7 percent), grade 2 in 9 (15 percent), grade 3 in 15 (25 percent), and grade 4 in 31 (53 percent) of subjects. Survival analysis using Cox proportional hazards regression showed that individuals with less than grade 3 CMB showed 2.46 times (95 percent confidence interval = 1.26 to 5.34) higher risk of symptoms. This information is crucial for defining the risk of DCS for inflight Doppler monitoring under space EVA. Altitude decompression sickness (DCS) occurs when there is acute reduction in ambient pressure. The symptoms of DCS are due to the formation of a free gas phase (in the form of gas microbubbles) in tissues during decompression. Musculo-skeletal pain of bends is the commonest form of DCS in altitude exposures. In the space flight environment, there is a risk of DCS when astronauts decompress from the normobaric shuttle pressure into the hypobaric space suit pressure (currently about 29.65 kPa (4.3 psi) for extra-vehicular activities (EVA). This risk is counterbalanced by a judicious combination of prior denitrogenation and staged decompression. Studies of DCS are limited by the duration of the test at reduced pressure. Since only a proportion of subjects tested develop symptoms, the information on DCS is generally incomplete or 'censored'. Many studies employ Doppler ultrasound monitoring of the precordial area for detecting circulating microbubbles (CMB). Although the association between CMB and bends pain is not causal, CMB are frequently monitored during decompression. In this paper, we examine the association between CMB and symptoms of DCS under simulated EVA profiles.

Kumar, K. Vasantha↗
NASA NTRS2010

Statistical Challenges in Biomedical Research

Potentially debilitating effects of spaceflight environment include: a) Bone Demineralization - Osteoporosis. b)Impaired Fracture Healing - Non-Union. c) Renal Stone Formation & Soft Tissue Calcification. d) Orthostatic Intolerance (on return to gravity). e) Cardiac Arrhythmias. f) Dehydration (on return to gravity). g) Decreased Aerobic Capacity. h) Impaired Coordination. i) Muscle Atrophy (Loss of Strength). j) Radiation Sickness. k) Increased Cancer Risk. l) Impaired Immune Function. m) Behavioral Changes & Performance Decrements n) Altitude Decompression Sickness during EVA.

Feiveson, Alan H.↗
NASA NTRS2016

An Integrated Extravehicular Activity Research Plan

Multiple organizations within NASA and outside of NASA fund and participate in research related to extravehicular activity (EVA). In October 2015, representatives of the EVA Office, the Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD), and the Human Research Program (HRP) at NASA Johnson Space Center agreed on a formal framework to improve multi-year coordination and collaboration in EVA research. At the core of the framework is an Integrated EVA Research Plan and a process by which it will be annually reviewed and updated. The over-arching objective of the collaborative framework is to conduct multi-disciplinary cost-effective research that will enable humans to perform EVAs safely, effectively, comfortably, and efficiently, as needed to enable and enhance human space exploration missions. Research activities must be defined, prioritized, planned and executed to comprehensively address the right questions, avoid duplication, leverage other complementary activities where possible, and ultimately provide actionable evidence-based results in time to inform subsequent tests, developments and/or research activities. Representation of all appropriate stakeholders in the definition, prioritization, planning and execution of research activities is essential to accomplishing the over-arching objective. A formal review of the Integrated EVA Research Plan will be conducted annually. External peer review of all HRP EVA research activities including compilation and review of published literature in the EVA Evidence Book is already performed annually. Coordination with stakeholders outside of the EVA Office, CTSD, and HRP is already in effect on a study-by-study basis; closer coordination on multi-year planning with other EVA stakeholders including academia is being actively pursued. Details of the current Integrated EVA Research Plan are presented including description of ongoing and planned research activities in the areas of: Benchmarking; Anthropometry and Suit Fit; Sensors; Human-Suit Modeling; Suit Trauma Monitoring and Countermeasures; EVA Workload and Duration Effects; Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation; Deconditioned EVA Performance; and Exploration EVA Concept of Operations.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Studies Relating to EVA

In this session, Session JA1, the discussion focuses on the following topics: The Staged Decompression to the Hypobaric Atmosphere as a Prophylactic Measure Against Decompression Sickness During Repetitive EVA; A New Preoxygenation Procedure for Extravehicular Activity (EVA); Metabolic Assessments During Extra-Vehicular Activity; Evaluation of Safety of Hypobaric Decompressions and EVA From Positions of Probabilistic Theory; Fatty Acid Composition of Plasma Lipids and Erythrocyte Membranes During Simulation of Extravehicular Activity; Biomedical Studies Relating to Decompression Stress with Simulated EVA, Overview; The Joint Angle and Muscle Signature (JAMS) System - Current Uses and Future Applications; and Experimental Investigation of Cooperative Human-Robotic Roles in an EVA Work Site.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS1994

Exercise with prebreathe appears to increase protection from decompression sickness: Preliminary findings

Extravehicular activity (EVA) from the Space Shuttle involves one hour of prebreath with 100% oxygen, decompression of the entire Shuttle to 10.2 psia for at least 12 hours, and another prebreath for 40 minutes before decompression to the 4.3 psia suit pressure. We are investigating the use of a one-hour prebreathe with 100% oxygen beginning with a ten-minute strenuous exercise period as an alternative for the staged decompression schedule described above. The 10-minute exercise consists of dual-cycle ergometry performed at 75% of the subject's peak oxygen uptake to increase denitrogenation efficiency by increasing ventilation and perfusion. The control exposures were preceded by a one-hour prebreathe with 100% oxygen while resting in a supine position. The twenty-two male subjects were exposed to 4.3 psia for 4 hours while performing light to moderate exercise. Preliminary results from 22 of the planned 26 subjects indicate 76% DCS following supine, resting prebreathe and 38% following prebreathe with exercise. The staged decompression schedule has been shown to result in 23% DCS which is not significantly different from the exercise-enhanced prebreathe results. Prebreathe including exercise appears to be comparable to the protection afforded by the more lengthy staged decompression schedule. Completion of the study later this year will enable planned statistical analysis of the results.

Webb, James T.↗
NASA NTRS1998

A new preoxygenation procedure for extravehicular activity (EVA)

A 10.2 psi staged-decompression schedule or a 4-hour preoxygenation at 14.7 psi is required prior to extravehicular activity (EVA) to reduce decompression sickness (DCS) risk. Results of recent research at the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) showed that a 1-hour resting preoxygenation followed by a 4-hour, 4.3 psi exposure resulted in 77% DCS risk (N=26), while the same profile beginning with 10 min of exercise at 75% of VO2peak during preoxygenation reduced the DCS risk to 42% (P<.03; N=26). A 4-hour preoxygenation without exercise followed by the 4.3 psi exposure resulted in 47% DCS risk (N=30). The 1-hour preoxygenation with exercise and the 4-hour preoxygenation without exercise results were not significantly different. Elimination of either 3 hours of preoxygenation or 12 hours of staged-decompression are compelling reasons to consider incorporation of exercise-enhanced preoxygenation.

NASA Discipline Environmental Health↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the Research Plans for The Risk of Decompression Sickness and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations, as well as the Evidence Reports for both of these Risks. The SRP found that the NASA DCS/EVA team did an excellent job of presenting their research plans. The SRP considers it critical that NASA proceeds with the high priority tasks identified in this report (DCS1, DCS3, DCS5). The highest priority is to determine the acceptable DCS and hypoxia risk associated with the planned human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The risk of DCS is highly dependent upon the pressure within the exploration vehicle. If slightly more hypoxia is permitted then (even with the same percentage of oxygen) the pressure within the exploration vehicle can be lowered thus further mitigating the risk of DCS. The second highest priority is to test and validate the recommended 8.2psi/34% O2 atmosphere. Development of procedures and equipment for human exploration missions are very limited until the results of this testing are completed. The SRP also suggests that DCS7 be separated into two Gaps. Gap DCS7 should deal with DCS treatment while a new Gap should be created to deal with the long-term effects of DCS. The SRP also encourages NASA to increase collaboration with other organizations and pool resources where possible. The current NASA DCS/EVA team has the extensive expertise and a wealth of knowledge in this area. The SRP suggests that increased manpower for this team would be highly productive.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2015

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated Evidence Reports for The Risk of Decompression Sickness (from here on referred to as the 2014 DCS Evidence Report) and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations (from here on referred to as the 2014 EVA Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plans for these Risks. The SRP appreciated the time and effort that the DCS and EVA disciplines put into their review documents and presentations. The SRP felt that the 2014 DCS Evidence Report and the 2014 EVA Evidence Reports were very thorough and addressed the majority of the known DCS and EVA issues. The researchers at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) have the knowledge base to deal with the DCS and EVA issues. Overall, the SRP thinks the DCS and EVA research teams have compiled excellent reports which address the majority of the literature and background information.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2013

Exploration Atmospheres for Beyond-LEO Human Exploration Missions

Atmospheric pressure and oxygen concentration of human-occupied space vehicles and habitats are an important life support parameter. The atmosphere is critical in terms of not only safety but also in terms of maximizing human capabilities at the point of scientific discovery. Human exploration missions beyond low earth orbit (LEO) will include extravehicular activity (EVA). EVAs are carried out in low pressure (4.3 psi/29.6 kilopascals) space suits running at 100 percent oxygen. New suits currently in development will be capable of running at a range of pressures between approximately 8.2 psi/56.5 kilopascals and 4.3 psi/29.6 kilopascals. In order to carry out high-frequency EVA phases of a mission safely and more efficiently, it is advantageous to have cabin or vehicle atmospheres at lower total pressure and higher oxygen concentrations. This allows for much reduced pre-breathe times for a fixed risk of decompression sickness and thus more efficient EVAs. The recommended oxygen concentration is 32% and represents a trade with respect to controlling the risk of decompression sickness and risk of fire. Work carried out by NASA in 2006 and continued in 2012 established an atmospheric pressure and oxygen concentration to optimize EVA. This paper will review previous work and describe current recommendations for beyond-LEO human exploration missions.

Henninger, Donald, L.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Verification of an altitude decompression sickness prevention protocol for Shuttle operations utilizing a 10.s psi pressure stage

Three test series involving 173-man tess were conducted to define and verify a pre-extravehicular activity (EVA) denitrogenation procedure that would provide acceptable protection against altitude decompression sickness while minimizing the required duration of oxygen (O2) prebreathe in the suit prior to EVA. The tests also addressed the safety, in terms of incidence of decompression sickness, of conducting EVA's on consecutive days rather than on alternate days. The tests were conducted in an altitude chamber, subjects were selected as representative of the astronaut population, and EVA periods were simulated by reducing the chamber pressure to suit pressure while the subjects breathed O2 with masks and worked at EVA representative work rates. A higher than anticipated incidence of both venous bubbles (55%) and symptoms (26%) was measured following all denitrogenation protocols in this test. For the most part, symptoms were very minor and stabilized, diminished, or disappeared in the six-hour tests. Instances of clear, possible, or potential systemic symptoms were encountered only after use of the unmodified 10.2 psi protocol and not after the modified 10.2 psi protocol, the 3.5-hour O2 prebreathed protocol, or the 4.0-hour O2 prebreathe protocol. The high incidence of symptoms is ascribed to the type and duration of exercise and the sensitivity of the reporting technique to minor symptoms. Repeated EVA exposures after only 17 hours did not increase symptom or bubble incidence.

Waligora, J. M.↗
NASA NTRS1989

Human tolerance to space flight

Medical studies of astronauts and cosmonauts before, during, and after space missions have identified several effects of weightlessness and other factors that influence the ability of humans to tolerate space flight. Weightlessness effects include space motion sickness, cardiovascular abnormalities, reduction in immune system function, loss of red blood cells, loss of bone mass, and muscle atrophy. Extravehicular activity (EVA) increases the likelihood that decompression sickness may occur. Radiation also gives reason for concern about health of crewmembers, and psychological factors are important on long-term flights. Countermeasures that have been used include sensory preadaptation, prebreathing and use of various air mixtures for EVA, loading with water and electrolytes, exercise, use of pharmacological agents and special diets, and psychological support. It appears that humans can tolerate and recover satisfactorily from at least one year of space flight, but a number of conditions must be further ameliorated before long-duration missions can be considered routine.

Huntoon, C. L.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Suit Portable Life Support System Oxygen Regulator History, Development, & Testing Results

An oxygen regulator has been in development for the space suit Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The regulator provides the necessary oxygen pressure for the crew member during pre-breathe, extra-vehicular activity (EVA), post EVA airlock operations, and decompression sickness treatment. The last time a spacesuit oxygen regulator was designed was for the Space Shuttle Program EMU. The regulator & EMU were then used on the International Space Station (ISS) with no significant changes to the regulator throughout its life. This xEMU PLSS spacesuit oxygen regulator implements many elements of the previous EMU Secondary Oxygen Pack (SOP) design while integrating numerous new improvements and changes. There are changes both to the high-level regulator architecture approach in the suit itself, in addition to modernizations with electrical motor control & sensing. For architecture, there are two oxygen regulators for each space suit, a primary and secondary that are nearly identical to each other and have the same maximum design pressure of 3750 Pounds per Square Inch Absolute (PSIA). The primary regulator provides nominal pressure during EVA, while the secondary provides a backup pressure only in case of primary regulator failure or if an emergency purge of the suit oxygen is required. The design was based originally off of the secondary oxygen regulator on the EMU which utilizes a two-stage regulator to improve safety and controllability. The xEMU PLSS Oxygen Regulator development started with a modification to add a linear actuator to the design to control the downstream pressure electronically instead of a manual control with a wire linkage system used with the EMU. The design was iterated to include a Monel body for oxygen fire safety, and sensors for pressure verification at each stage. Then the regulator design was packaged to fit into the xEMU PLSS envelope. Development included extensive testing which brought to light some issues with the design which were addressed at each stage of development. This paper will review the design history, development, testing results, and lessons learned designing the xEMU PLSS Oxygen Regulator.

Ryan Ogilvie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Suit Portable Life Support System Oxygen Regulator History, Development, & Testing Results

An oxygen regulator has been in development for the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The regulator provides the necessary oxygen pressure control for the crew member during prebreathe, Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA), post EVA airlock operations, and Decompression Sickness (DCS) treatment. It has been over four decades since a new spacesuit oxygen regulator has been designed. The regulator and EMU that is presently used on the International Space Station (ISS) was developed for the space shuttle program without any significant changes made throughout its service life. The xEMU spacesuit oxygen regulator is based on the previous EMU Secondary Oxygen Pack (SOP). The new design integrates numerous improvements and changes including an innovative approach to regulator architecture, a more robust first stage pressure sensing mechanism, digital actuation control, and electronic pressure sensing. These upgrades replace manual control linkages, physical gauges, and enable infinitely variable pressure set points. The new setpoints can decrease prebreathe time and make in suit DCS treatment possible. Throughout its four iterations design concerns have been addressed, safety features have been added, and the envelope of the regulator designed to fit inside the xEMU PLSS package. This paper will review the history, design, testing, and lessons learned during the development of the xEMU PLSS Oxygen Regulator.

Ryan Eric Ogilvie↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Space Suit Portable Life Support System (PLSS) Oxygen Regulator History, Development, & Testing Results

An oxygen regulator has been in development for the Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) Portable Life Support System (PLSS). The regulator provides the necessary oxygen pressure control for the crew member during prebreathe, Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA), post EVA airlock operations, and Decompression Sickness (DCS) treatment. It has been over four decades since a new spacesuit oxygen regulator has been designed. The regulator and EMU that is presently used on the International Space Station (ISS) was developed for the space shuttle program without any significant changes made throughout its service life. The xEMU spacesuit oxygen regulator is based on the previous EMU Secondary Oxygen Pack (SOP). The new design integrates numerous improvements and changes including an innovative approach to regulator architecture, a more robust first stage pressure sensing mechanism, digital actuation control, and electronic pressure sensing. These upgrades replace manual control linkages, physical gauges, and enable infinitely variable pressure set points. The new setpoints can decrease prebreathe time and make in suit DCS treatment possible. Throughout its four iterations design concerns have been addressed, safety features have been added, and the envelope of the regulator designed to fit inside the xEMU PLSS package. This paper will review the history, design, testing, and lessons learned during the development of the xEMU PLSS Oxygen Regulator.

Ryan Ogilvie↗