Use of Variable Pressure Suits, Intermittent Recompression and Nitrox Breathing Mixtures during Lunar Extravehicular Activities

This slide presentation reviews the use of variable pressure suits, intermittent recompression and Nitrox breathing mixtures to allow for multiple short extravehicular activities (EVAs) at different locations in a day. This new operational concept of multiple short EVAs requires short purge times and shorter prebreathes to assure rapid egress with a minimal loss of the vehicular air. Preliminary analysis has begun to evaluate the potential benefits of the intermittent recompression, and Nitrox breathing mixtures when used with variable pressure suits to enable reduce purges and prebreathe durations

Desert RATS 2011: Near-Earth Asteroid Human Exploration Operations

The Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2011 field test involved the planning and execution of a series of exploration scenarios under operational conditions similar to those that would be expected during a human exploration mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEA). The focus was on understanding the operations tempo during simulated NEA exploration and the implications of communications latency and limited data bandwidth. Anchoring technologies and sampling techniques were not evaluated due to the immaturity of those technologies and the inability to meaningfully test them at D-RATS. Reduced gravity analogs and simulations are being used to fully evaluate Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) and extravehicular (EVA) operations and interactions in near-weightlessness at a NEA as part of NASA s integrated analogs program. Hypotheses were tested by planning and performing a series of 1-day simulated exploration excursions comparing test conditions all of which involved a single Deep Space Habitat (DSH) and either zero, one, or two MMSEVs; three or four crewmembers; one of two different communications bandwidths; and a 100-second roundtrip communications latency between the field site and Houston. Excursions were executed at the Black Point Lava Flow test site with a Mission Control Center and Science Support Room at Johnson Space Center (JSC) being operated with 100-second roundtrip communication latency to the field. Crews were composed of astronauts and professional field geologists and teams of Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach (EPO) experts also supported the mission simulations each day. Data were collected separately from the Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and EPO teams to assess the test conditions from multiple perspectives. For the operations tested, data indicates practically significant benefits may be realized by including at least one MMSEV and by including 4 versus 3 crewmembers in the NEA exploration architecture as measured by increased Scientific Data Quality, EVA Exploration Time, Capability Assessment Ratings, and Overall Acceptability ratings by Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach teams. A combination of text and voice was used to effectively communicate over the 100-second roundtrip communications latency and increased communication bandwidth yielded a small but practically significant improvement in Overall Acceptability as rated by the Science team, although the impact of bandwidth on scientific strategic planning was not assessed. No effect of increased bandwidth was observed with respect to Crew, Mission Operations, or EPO team ratings of Overall Acceptability

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

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

Desert Research and Technology Studies 2008 Report

During the last two weeks of October 2008, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Advanced Extravehicular Activity (AEVA) team led the field test portion of the 2008 Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) near Flagstaff, AZ. The Desert RATS field test activity is the year-long culmination of various individual science and advanced engineering discipline areas technology and operations development efforts into a coordinated field test demonstration under representative (analog) planetary surface terrain conditions. The 2008 Desert RATS was the eleventh RATS field test and was the most focused and successful test to date with participants from six NASA field centers, three research organizations, one university, and one other government agency. The main test objective was to collect Unpressurized Rover (UPR) and Lunar Electric Rover (LER) engineering performance and human factors metrics while under extended periods of representative mission-based scenario test operations involving long drive distances, night-time driving, Extravehicular Activity (EVA) operations, and overnight campover periods. The test was extremely successful with all teams meeting the primary test objective. This paper summarizes Desert RATS 2008 test hardware, detailed test objectives, test operations, and test results

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

Panel: EVA-Human Modeling

No abstract availabl

Standard Testing Procedure for Quantifying Breathing Gas Carbon Dioxide Partial Pressure for Extravehicular Activity and Launch, Entry, Survival Pressure Suits

This standard test and analysis protocol establishes the procedure for determining the partial pressure of inspired carbon dioxide (PICO2) exposure level experienced by persons operating a pressurized suit. The purpose of this Standard Testing Procedure (STP) is to describe the test conditions and procedures necessary to acquire data in support of certification that manufacturer submitted Extravehicular Activity (EVA) and/or Launch, Entry, Survival (LES) suit designs maintain safe levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the helmet during suited operations. The STP shall be used to measure the in-suit inhaled and exhaled dry-gas partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2), followed by calculation of the water vapor saturated PICO2 during the inhalation portion of the breathing cycle, while a human test subject is performing work at levels anticipated during suited operations in ground and flight environments. The procedure is designed to test the evaluated suit on a human test subject as a dynamic system, generate repeatable results under defined laboratory conditions, and perform consistent analysis on acquired samples.This STP is used to evaluate space suits in a hyperbaric environment (above atmospheric pressure). Changes would need to be made to the test equipment/setup to accommodate a hypobaric environment. There is no specific EVA or LES suit performance requirement to meet or pass/fail criteria associated with this STP

NEEMO 14: Evaluation of Human Performance for Rover, Cargo Lander, Crew Lander, and Exploration Tasks in Simulated Partial Gravity

The ultimate success of future human space exploration missions is dependent on the ability to perform extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks effectively, efficiently, and safely, whether those tasks represent a nominal mode of operation or a contingency capability. To optimize EVA systems for the best human performance, it is critical to study the effects of varying key factors such as suit center of gravity (CG), suit mass, and gravity level. During the 2-week NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 14 mission, four crewmembers performed a series of EVA tasks under different simulated EVA suit configurations and used full-scale mockups of a Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV) rover and lander. NEEMO is an underwater spaceflight analog that allows a true mission-like operational environment and uses buoyancy effects and added weight to simulate different gravity levels. Quantitative and qualitative data collected during NEEMO 14, as well as from spacesuit tests in parabolic flight and with overhead suspension, are being used to directly inform ongoing hardware and operations concept development of the SEV, exploration EVA systems, and future EVA suits. OBJECTIVE: To compare human performance across different weight and CG configurations. METHODS: Four subjects were weighed out to simulate reduced gravity and wore either a specially designed rig to allow adjustment of CG or a PLSS mockup. Subjects completed tasks including level ambulation, incline/decline ambulation, standing from the kneeling and prone position, picking up objects, shoveling, ladder climbing, incapacitated crewmember handling, and small and large payload transfer. Subjective compensation, exertion, task acceptability, and duration data as well as photo and video were collected. RESULTS: There appear to be interactions between CG, weight, and task. CGs nearest the subject s natural CG are the most predictable in terms of acceptable performance across tasks. Future research should focus on understanding the interactions between CG, mass, and subject differences

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