Subsea approach to work systems development

Self-contained undersea working environments with applications to space station EVA environments are discussed. Physiological limitations include decompression, inert gas narcosis, high-pressure nervous system, gas toxicity, and thermal limitations. Work task requirements include drilling support, construction, inspection, and repair. Work systems include hyperbaric diving, atmospheric work systems, tele-operated work systems, and hybrid systems. Each type of work system is outlined in terms of work capabilities, special interface requirements, and limitations. Various operational philosophies are discussed. The evolution of work systems in the subsea industry has been the result of direct operational experience in a competitive market

Selecting Tasks for Evaluating Human Performance as a Function of Gravity

A challenge in understanding human performance as a function of gravity is determining which tasks to research. Initial studies began with treadmill walking, which was easy to quantify and control. However, with the development of pressurized rovers, it is less important to optimize human performance for ambulation as pressurized rovers will likely perform gross translation for them. Future crews are likely to spend much of their extravehicular activity (EVA) performing geology, construction,a nd maintenance type tasks. With these types of tasks, people have different performance strategies, and it is often difficult to quantify the task and measure steady-state metabolic rates or perform biomechanical analysis. For many of these types of tasks, subjective feedback may be the only data that can be collected. However, subjective data may not fully support a rigorous scientific comparison of human performance across different gravity levels and suit factors. NASA would benefit from having a wide variety of quantifiable tasks that allow human performance comparison across different conditions. In order to determine which tasks will effectively support scientific studies, many different tasks and data analysis techniques will need to be employed. Many of these tasks and techniques will not be effective, but some will produce quantifiable results that are sensitive enough to show performance differences. One of the primary concerns related to EVA performance is metabolic rate. The higher the metabolic rate, the faster the astronaut will exhaust consumables. The focus of this poster will be on how different tasks affect metabolic rate across different gravity levels

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

Deep Space Habitability Design Guidelines Based on the NASA NextSTEP Phase 2 Ground Test Program

This report summarizes habitation design guidelines for deep space habitats, which were derived from the NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Phase 2 Habitat Ground Test Program. All data presented in this document have been contractor-deidentified and approved for public release. The report prioritizes capabilities and recommends allocating those capabilities to either the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) or the International Habitat (I-Hab). A review of the design guidelines is presented in the main body of the report, along with a list of the 170 specific design guidelines with references to the specific data sources from which they were derived

NEEMO 15: Evaluation of Human Exploration Systems for Near-Earth Asteroids

The NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 15 mission was focused on near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) exploration techniques evaluation. It began with a University of Delaware autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) systematically mapping the coral reef for hundreds of meters surrounding the Aquarius habitat. This activity is akin to the type of "far field survey" approach that may be used by a robotic precursor in advance of a human mission to a NEA. Data from the far-field survey were then examined by the NEEMO science team and follow-up exploration traverses were planned, which used Deepworker single-person submersibles. Science traverses at NEEMO 15 were planned according to a prioritized list of scientific objectives developed by the science team based on review and discussion of previous related marine science research including previous marine science saturation missions conducted at the Aquarius habitat. AUV data was used to select several areas of scientific interest. The Deepworker science traverses were then executed at these areas of interest during 4 days of the NEEMO 15 mission and provided higher resolution data such as coral species distribution and mortality. These traverses are analogous to the "near field survey" approach that is expected to be performed by a multi mission space exploration vehicle (MMSEV) during a human mission to a NEA before conducting extravehicular activities (EVA)s. In addition to the science objectives that were pursued, the NEEMO 15 science traverses provided an opportunity to test newly developed software and techniques. Sample collection and instrument deployment on the NEA surface by EVA crew would follow the "near field survey" in a human NEA mission. Sample collection was not necessary for the purposes of the NEEMO science objectives; however, the engineering and operations objectives during NEEMO 15 were to evaluate different combinations of vehicles, crewmembers, tools, and equipment that could be used to perform these tasks on a NEA. Specifically, the productivity and acceptability of simulated NEA exploration activities were systematically quantified and compared when operating with different combinations of crew sizes and exploration systems including MMSEVs, EVA jet packs, and EVA translation devices

Assessing the Risk of Crew Injury Due to Dynamic Loads During Spaceflight

No abstract availabl

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

Microconical interface fitting and interface grasping tool

A small and light weight microconical interface fitting may be attached to the surface of a space vehicle or equipment to provide an attachment device for an astronaut or robot to capture the space vehicle or equipment. The microconical interface fitting of the present invention has an axisymmetrical conical body having a base portion with a torque reaction surface for preventing rotation of the interface grasping tool; a cavitated, sunken or hollowed out intermediate locking portion which has a cavity shaped for receiving the latches of the grasping tool and an upper guiding portion for guiding the grasping tool into axial alignment with the microconical interface fitting. The capture is accomplished with an interface grasping tool. The grasping tool comprises an outer sleeve with a handle attached, an inner sleeve which may be raised and lowered within the outer sleeve with a plurality of latches supported at the lower end and a cam to raise and lower the inner sleeve. When the inner sleeve is at its lowest position, the latches form the largest diameter opening for surrounding the microconical fitting and the latches form the smallest diameter or a locking, grasping position when raised to the highest position within the outer sleeve. The inner sleeve may be at an intermediate, capture position which permits the latches to be biased outwardly when contacting the microconical fitting under very low forces to grasp the fitting and permits capture (soft docking) without exact alignment of the fitting and the tool

NASA Occupant Protection Standards Development

Historically, spacecraft landing systems have been tested with human volunteers, because analytical methods for estimating injury risk were insufficient. These tests were conducted with flight-like suits and seats to verify the safety of the landing systems. Currently, NASA uses the Brinkley Dynamic Response Index to estimate injury risk, although applying it to the NASA environment has drawbacks: (1) Does not indicate severity or anatomical location of injury (2) Unclear if model applies to NASA applications. Because of these limitations, a new validated, analytical approach was desired. Leveraging off of the current state of the art in automotive safety and racing, a new approach was developed. The approach has several aspects: (1) Define the acceptable level of injury risk by injury severity (2) Determine the appropriate human surrogate for testing and modeling (3) Mine existing human injury data to determine appropriate Injury Assessment Reference Values (IARV). (4) Rigorously Validate the IARVs with sub-injurious human testing (5) Use validated IARVs to update standards and vehicle requiremen