Evaluation of Dual Pressurized Rover Operations During Simulated Planetary Surface Exploration

Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes

Modeling Oxygen Prebreathe Protocols for Exploration Extravehicular Activities Using Variable Pressure Suits

Exploration missions are expected to use variable pressure extravehicular activity (EVA) spacesuits as well as a spacecraft "exploration atmosphere" of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, both of which provide the possibility of reducing the oxygen prebreathe times necessary to reduce decompression sickness (DCS) risk. Previous modeling work predicted 8.4% DCS risk for an EVA beginning at the exploration atmosphere, followed by 15 minutes of in-suit O2 prebreathe, and 6 hours of EVA at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psia). In this study we model notional prebreathe protocols for a variable pressure suit where the exploration atmosphere is unavailable

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

Evidence-based Approach to Establish Space Suit Carbon Dioxide Limits

A literature survey was conducted to assess if published data (evidence) could help inform a space suit carbon dioxide (CO2) limit. The search identified more than 120 documents about human interaction with elevated CO2. Until now, the guiding philosophy has been to drive space suit CO2 as low as reasonably achievable. NASAs EVA Office requested an evidencebased approach to support a new generation of exploration-class extravehicular activity (EVA) space suits. Specific literature data about CO2 are not available for EVA in microgravity because EVA is an operational activity and not a research platform. However, enough data from groundbased research are available to facilitate a consensus of expert opinion on space suit CO2 limits. The compilation of data in this report can answer many but not all concerns about the consequences of hypercapnic exercise in a space suit. Inspired partial pressure of CO2 (PICO2) and not dry-gas partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) is the appropriate metric for hypercapnic dose to establish space suit CO2 limits. The reduction of inspired gas partial pressures by saturation of the inspired gases with water vapor at 37C is a significant factor under conditions of hypobaric space suit operation. Otherwise healthy EVA astronauts will exhibit wide variability in responses to acute hypercapnia while at rest and during exercise. What is clear from the literature is the absence of prospective (objective) accept or reject criteria for CO2 exposure in general, and no such criteria exist for operating a space suit. There is no absolute Gold Standard for an acceptable acute hypercapnic limit, just a gradual decrease in performance as CO2 increases. Acceptable CO2 exposure limits are occupation, situation (learned or novel tasks), and personspecific. Investigators who measured hypercapnic physiology rarely correlated those changes to neurocognitive symptoms, and those that measured hypercapnic neurocognition rarely correlated those changes with physiology. Some answers about changes in neurocognition and functional EVA performance during hypercapnic exercise in a space suit await new research

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

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

Intra-EVA Space-to-Ground Interactions when Conducting Scientific Fieldwork Under Simulated Mars Mission Constraints

The Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT) project is a four-year program dedicated to iteratively designing, implementing, and evaluating concepts of operations (ConOps) and supporting capabilities to enable and enhance scientific exploration for future human Mars missions. The BASALT project has incorporated three field deployments during which real (non-simulated) biological and geochemical field science have been conducted at two high-fidelity Mars analog locations under simulated Mars mission conditions, including communication delays and data transmission limitations. BASALT's primary Science objective has been to extract basaltic samples for the purpose of investigating how microbial communities and habitability correlate with the physical and geochemical characteristics of chemically altered basalt environments. Field sites include the active East Rift Zone on the Big Island of Hawai'i, reminiscent of early Mars when basaltic volcanism and interaction with water were widespread, and the dormant eastern Snake River Plain in Idaho, similar to present-day Mars where basaltic volcanism is rare and most evidence for volcano-driven hydrothermal activity is relict. BASALT's primary Science Operations objective has been to investigate exploration ConOps and capabilities that facilitate scientific return during human-robotic exploration under Mars mission constraints. Each field deployment has consisted of ten extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the volcanic flows in which crews of two extravehicular and two intravehicular crewmembers conducted the field science while communicating across time delay and under bandwidth constraints with an Earth-based Mission Support Center (MSC) comprised of expert scientists and operators. Communication latencies of 5 and 15 min one-way light time and low (0.512 Mb/s uplink, 1.54 Mb/s downlink) and high (5.0 Mb/s uplink, 10.0 Mb/s downlink) bandwidth conditions were evaluated. EVA crewmembers communicated with the MSC via voice and text messaging. They also provided scientific instrument data, still imagery, video streams from chest-mounted cameras, GPS location tracking information. The MSC monitored and reviewed incoming data from the field across delay and provided recommendations for pre-sampling and sampling tasks based on their collective expertise. The scientists used dynamic priority ranking lists, referred to as dynamic leaderboards, to track and rank candidate samples relative to one another and against the science objectives for the current EVA and the overall mission. Updates to the dynamic leaderboards throughout the EVA were relayed regularly to the IV crewmembers. The use of these leaderboards enabled the crew to track the dynamic nature of the MSC recommendations and helped minimize crew idle time (defined as time spent waiting for input from Earth during which no other productive tasks are being performed). EVA timelines were strategically designed to enable continuous (delayed) feedback from an Earth-based Science Team while simultaneously minimizing crew idle time. Such timelines are operationally advantageous, reducing transport costs by eliminating the need for crews to return to the same locations on multiple EVAs while still providing opportunities for recommendations from science experts on Earth, and scientifically advantageous by minimizing the potential for cross-contamination across sites. This paper will highlight the space-to-ground interaction results from the three BASALT field deployments, including planned versus actual EVA timeline data, ground assimilation times (defined as the amount of time available to the MSC to provide input to the crew), and idle time. Furthermore, we describe how these results vary under the different communication latency and bandwidth conditions. Together, these data will provide a basis for guiding and prioritizing capability development for future human exploration missions

Fifteen-minute Extravehicular Activity Prebreathe Protocol Using NASA's Exploration Atmosphere (8.2 psia/ 34% 02)

A TBDM DCS probability model based on an existing biophysical model of inert gas bubble growth provides significant prediction and goodness-of-fit with 84 cases of DCS in 668 human altitude exposures. 2. Model predictions suggest that 15-minute O2 prebreathe protocols used in conjunction with suit ports and an 8.2 psi, 34% O2, 66% N2 atmosphere may enable rapid EVA capability for future exploration missions with the risk of DCS 12%. EVA could begin immediately at 6.0 psi, with crewmembers decreasing suit pressure to 4.3 psi after completing the 15-minute in-suit prebreathe. 3. Model predictions suggest that intermittent recompression during exploration EVA may reduce decompression stress by 1.8% to 2.3% for 6 hours of total EVA time. Savings in gas consumables and crew time may be accumulated by abbreviating the EVA suit N2 purge to 2 minutes (20% N2) compared with 8 minutes (5% N2) at the expense of an increase in estimated decompression risk of up to 2.4% for an 8-hour EVA. Increased DCS risk could be offset by IR or by spending additional time at 6 psi at the beginning of the EVA. Savings of 0.48 lb of gas and 6 minutes per person per EVA corresponds to more than 31 hours of crew time and 1800 lb of gas and tankage under the Constellation lunar architecture. 6. Further research is needed to characterize and optimize breathing mixtures and intermittent recompression across the range of environments and operational conditions in which astronauts will live and work during future exploration missions. 7. Development of exploration prebreathe protocols will begin with definition of acceptable risk, followed by development of protocols based on models such as ours, and, ultimately, validation of protocols through ground trials before operational implementation

Development of a Ground Test and Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

The NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) program is a public-private partnership model that seeks commercial development of deep space exploration capabilities to support human spaceflight missions around and beyond cislunar space. NASA first issued the Phase 1 NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement to U.S. industries in 2014, which called for innovative cislunar habitation concepts that leveraged commercialization plans for low-Earth orbit. These habitats will be part of the Deep Space Gateway (DSG), the cislunar space station planned by NASA for construction in the 2020s. In 2016, Phase 2 of the NextSTEP program selected five commercial partners to develop ground prototypes. A team of NASA research engineers and subject matter experts (SMEs) have been tasked with developing the ground-test protocol that will serve as the primary means by which these Phase 2 prototypes will be evaluated. Since 2008, this core test team has successfully conducted multiple spaceflight analog mission evaluations utilizing a consistent set of operational tools, methods, and metrics to enable the iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration architectures, operations concepts, and vehicle designs. The purpose of implementing a similar evaluation process for the Phase 2 Habitation Concepts is to consistently evaluate different commercial partner ground prototypes to provide data-driven, actionable recommendations for Phase 3. This paper describes the process by which the ground test protocol was developed and the objectives, methods, and metrics by which the NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts will be rigorously and systematically evaluated. The protocol has been developed using both a top-down and bottom-up approach. Top-down development began with the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) exploration objectives and ISS Exploration Capability Study Team (IECST) candidate flight objectives. Strategic questions and associated rationales, derived from these candidate architectural objectives, provide the framework by which the ground-test protocol will address the DSG stack elements and configurations, systems and subsystems, and habitation, science, and EVA functions. From these strategic questions, high-level functional requirements for the DSG were drafted and associated ground-test objectives and analysis protocols were established. Bottom-up development incorporated objectives from NASA SMEs in autonomy, avionics and software, communication, environmental control and life support systems, exercise, extravehicular activity, exploration medical operations, guidance navigation and control, human factors and behavioral performance, human factors and habitability, logistics, Mission Control Center operations, power, radiation, robotics, safety and mission assurance, science, simulation, structures, thermal, trash management, and vehicle health. Top-down and bottom-up objectives were integrated to form overall functional requirements - ground-test objectives and analysis mapping. From this mapping, ground-test objectives were organized into those that will be evaluated through inspection, demonstration, analysis, subsystem standalone testing, and human-in-the-loop (HITL) testing. For the HITL tests, mission-like timelines, procedures, and flight rules have been developed to directly meet ground test objectives and evaluate specific functional requirements. Data collected from these assessments will be analyzed to determine the acceptability of habitation element configurations and the combinations of capabilities that will result in the best habitation platform to be recommended by the test team for Phase 3

Reach Envelope and Field of Vision Quantification in Mark III Space Suit Using Delaunay Triangulation

The Science Crew Operations and Utility Testbed (SCOUT) project is focused on the development of a rover vehicle that can be utilized by two crewmembers during extra vehicular activities (EVAs) on the moon and Mars. The current SCOUT vehicle can transport two suited astronauts riding in open cockpit seats. Among the aspects currently being developed is the cockpit design and layout. This process includes the identification of possible locations for a socket to which a crewmember could connect a portable life support system (PLSS) for recharging power, air, and cooling while seated in the vehicle. The spaces in which controls and connectors may be situated within the vehicle are constrained by the reach and vision capabilities of the suited crewmembers. Accordingly, quantification of the volumes within which suited crewmembers can both see and reach relative to the vehicle represents important information during the design process

Evidence Report: Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS)

The Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) is identified by the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) as a recognized risk to human health and performance in space, as defined in the HRP Program Requirements Document (PRD). This Evidence Report provides a summary of the evidence that has been used to identify and characterize this risk. Given that tissue inert gas partial pressure is often greater than ambient pressure during phases of a mission, primarily during extravehicular activity (EVA), there is a possibility that decompression sickness may occur