Search Results

A work envelope has been defined for weightless Extravehicular Activity (EVA) based on the Space Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), but there is no equivalent for planetary operations. The weightless work envelope is essential for planning all EVA tasks because it determines the location of removable parts, making sure they are within reach and visibility of the suited crew member. In addition, using the envelope positions the structural hard points for foot restraints that allow placing both hands on the job and provides a load path for reacting forces. EVA operations are always constrained by time. Tasks are carefully planned to ensure the crew has enough breathing oxygen, cooling water, and battery power. Planning first involves computers using a virtual work envelope to model tasks, next suited crew members in a simulated environment refine the tasks.

In order to estimate the exposure to a crew in space, there are three essential steps to be performed: first, the ambient radiation environment at the vehicle must be characterized; second, the mass distribution properties of the vehicle, including the crewmembers themselves must be developed, and third a model of the interactions of space radiations with matter must be employed in order to characterize the radiation field at the dose point of interest. The Space Radiation Analysis Group (SRAG) at the NASA, Johnson Space Center carries the primary responsibility for the operational radiation protection support function associated with manned space flight. In order to provide support during the various planning, execution, and analysis/recording phase activities associated with a given mission, tools have been developed to allow rapid, repeatable calculations of exposure on orbit.

This paper will provide an overview of the International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) design of the Crew Health Care System (CHeCS) Rack 1 and it will document some of the lessons that have been learned to date for the ECLS equipment in this rack.

Airborne dust, suspended inside a space vehicle or in future celestial habitats, can present a serious threat to crew health if it is not controlled. During some Apollo missions to the moon, lunar dust brought inside the capsule caused eye irritation and breathing difficulty to the crew when they launched from the moon and reacquired “microgravity.” During Shuttle flights reactive and toxic dusts such as lithium hydroxide have created a risk to crew health, and fine particles from combustion events can be especially worrisome. Under nominal spaceflight conditions, airborne dusts and particles tend to be larger than on earth because of the absence of gravity settling. Aboard the ISS, dusts are effectively managed by high efficiency filters, although floating dust in newly-arrived modules can be a nuisance.

Introduction: There are contradictory opinions regarding the contribution of local hand thermal insulation to support local and total comfort during extravehicular activity (EVA). Instead of a local correction by means of thermal insulation on the periphery of the body to prevent heat dissipation, it may be optimal to prevent heat dissipation from the body core. To examine such a concept, the effects of different insulation levels on the left and right hands on the heat flux and temperature mosaic on the hands was measured. These variables were assessed in relation to the level of heat deficit forming in the core organs and tissues. Methods: Six subjects (4 males, 2 females) were donned in a liquid cooling/warming garment (LCWG) that totally covered the body surface except for the face. Participants wore the Phase VI space gloves including the entire micrometeoroid garment (TMG) on the left hand, and the glove without the TMG on the right hand.

NASA issued a Request For Information (RFI) to identify technologies that might be available to monitor a list of air pollutants in the ISS atmosphere. After NASA received responses to the RFI, an expert panel was assembled to hear presentations from 9 technology proponents. The goal of the panel was to identify technologies that might be suitable for replacement of the current Volatile Organics Analyzer (VOA) within several years. The panelists consisted of 8 experts in analytical chemistry without any links to NASA and 7 people with specific expertise because of their roles in NASA programs. Each technology was scored using a tool that enabled rating of many specific aspects of the technology on a 4-point system. The maturity of the technologies ranged from well-tested instrument packages that had been designed for space applications and were nearly ready for flight to technologies that were untested and speculative in nature.