Correlation Study of the Simulation of Gemini Extravehicular Activity With Flight Results

8/7/2019 Correlation Study of the Simulation of Gemini Extravehicular Activity With Flight Results

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/correlation-study-of-the-simulation-of-gemini-extravehicular-activity-with 1/204

N A S A

*

C O N T R A C T O R

R E P O R T

N A S A

e'.i

LOAN CCIPY: RETURN TO

KIRTLAND AFB, N MEXAFWL (WLIL-2)

SIMULATION

EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY

by

or Langley Research Center

A E R O N A U T I C S A N D S P A C E A D M I N I S T R A T I O N W A S H I N G T O N , D. C . F E B R U A R Y 1 9 6 9



NASA CR- 1146TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

CORRELATION STUDY O F THE SIMULATION O F GEMINI

EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY WITH FLIGHT RESULTS

By Harry L. Loats, J r . , G. Samuel Mattingly , and G.M. Hay

Distribution of this reportis provided in the inte restof

information exchange. Responsibility fo r the contentsresi des in the author o r organization that prepared it .

Issued by Orig inator as Report No. ERA-67-7

Prepared under ContractNo. NAS 1-7142 byENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

Randallstown, Md.

for Langley Research Center

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS ANDSPACE ADMINISTRATION

F o r sale b y the Clearinghouse for Federa l Scient ific and Technical Information

Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTI price $3.00



A B S T R A C T

to the Gemini 3x mission all simulations of extravehicular acti-w e r e of a partial nature, main ly utilizing the zero gravi ty air-

This simulation technique did not provide adequate assessmentthe biomedical factor8 of the per formance of Gemini X-m. Thi8

w as brou ght into shar p focus by the early cessat ion ofCernan rs extravehicular task on Gem ini X .

c ur re nt ly , a N A S A - L R C s up p or te d program of water immers ionmulation wa s und erw ay at Env ironm enta l Rese arch Asso ciate s to

f u tu r e i ngr es s - egr es s r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h i s p r o g r a m w a sended b y N A S A - M S C to include the post fl ight evaluation of the

X task a nd further to invest igate the E V A of Gemini X andI. The program culminated with Astronaut A l d r i n p e r f o r m i n g p r e -

training and postflight evaluation of the success fu l GT-XZT E V A .

wa ter imm ers ion s imulation=tf the Gemini E V A utilized full-scale of the Gemini veh icle including po rtio ns of the Agena target

of ancillary E V A equipment such as tools , maneuver ing unit , etc. A I I impor tant items were maintained

a neutrally buoyant condition. %io-instrumentation was incorpor- into the Gemini flight suits and continuous voice and f i lm rec ord s

he water immersion simulation of the Gemini extravehicular activityvided a valid training time line for per form ance of com plex extra-

tasks and provided adequa te mea sures of the level of w or kA second capability evidenced a s a result of the program

as the method f o r evaluating various competitive hardware conceptsa8 tools a n d motion restraints. The technique used in the p r e -

evaluation and training w as to per form the simulation r u n withR A sub jec t s pr ior to actual per formance of the training r u n b y th e This technique permitted pre-evaluation of hardware in a

manner a n d s er ved to as s es s the vabidity of the water simu- mode. Factors such as drag-damping and orientational stability

re com pen sa te d by varia tionof the mockup orientation and c o d ig -.

en t to the flight, the t ime line s and the bio-medical data w e re to determine correspondences and dz er en ce s . T h e r e s u l t s

the simulation program suppo rted b y an ana lysis of idlight dataides a per formance base l ine f o r fu ture E V A tasks and critically

the water immersion simulation technique f o r utili ty in f u ture

iii



T A B L E OF CONTENTS

P A G EvS T R A C T iii

O F C O N T E N T S

OF F I G U R E S

OF T A B L E S

P R O G R A M S U M M A R Y - G E M I N I E X T R A V E H I C U L A R

S I M U L A T I Q N

W A T E R I M M E R S I O N S IM U L A T I O N TE C H N I Q U E

T H E G E M I N I P R O G R A M A N D R E F A T J Q N OFW A T E R I M M E R S I O N S I M U L A T I O N

P E R F O R M A N C E A N A L Y S I S

4 .l G E M I N I X

4 .2 G E M I N I X

4.3 G E M I N I X

G E M I N I XU

5.1 G E N E R A L

5.2 T I M E L I N E C O M P A R I S O N

5 .3 W O R K L O A D C O M P A R I S O N

5.4 E V A L U A T I O N O F T A S K S B Y C A T E G O R I E S

C O N C L U S I O N S

6 .1 C O R R E L A T I O N W I T H S P A C E P E R F O R M A N C E

6.2 U T I L I T Y OF T H E S I M U L A T I O N

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

V

vi

ix

xi

1

8

12

1 6

16

22

2 6

53

53

58

a1

88

181

181

183

188

V



L I S T C2F FIGURLS

FIGURE NO.

2 -1 T-Z 7 a& S-020 Exper iment Placsqqnt pcnd Fqbieyal

1-2 ++MU Donpinp Tssk

1-3 Gemini &T Simvlat ion Sequence

1 -4 Gemini XU Umbilical EVA-Time Lipe

8-1 Instrumentation -Flow Diagram

2-2 Gemioi X U Mocl.gup Configuration in the ERA Facility

4-1 Gemini X Wockup Cqnfiguration

4-2 Gemini . X Mockup Configuration

4-3 Aetronaut Cernan at Umbilical Pigtail &ea

4 -4 Arstrov& Cernan Unstowing AMq C~nt+-ol lsrA r m s

4-5 Aetronaut iq Foot S t i m u p Reqtraint System

4-4 SubJeot Using Neutrally Buoyant Torqueless

4-7 D-$6 @ q e r i m e n t S t o w a g e A r e a

4-8 RetFo Adaptem C am er a Installation

4-9 Movement Sgquence f r o m Spacecra#t Hatch to Agena

4-10 Uemini “Hear t a n d Respiration Rate f o r the

4711 Agena T e t h e r T as k in Orbit

4 -12 Simulated Ageqa Tether Task

4-13 D-16 E q q r i m e n t H a r d w a r e

4-14 Waten Sirnuletion oE D-Z 6

3 -

P o w e r Tool

OFbitd E VIA

5-1

5-2

5-3

9-4

5-5

5-6

5-7

a -e

Gemini XCC-CQmparison of Orbital, Water Sirnulqtionand Pjrcrat3 Simulgtion Selected Film S e q u e n c e s( F ive S e c o n d I n ter va l s )

Gemin i XlI-Sequence of Tota l Preflight Waten SitpulationTat34 T i m e L i n e ( Th i r t y S e c o n d I n t e p u d ) ’

P i p Pin De vice

WaJor T a s k - E v e n t s of the Gemini XU Vmbilical E V A

p o c k i n g Bar Clamp Configuration

Sqquezzce of Available Film from the GT-XU Flight(Thir ty Secon’d Interva l )

Sgquence of Available Aircraft Simqlaticm Fllm( Th i r t y Second I n t e r va l )

L eg Tether Configuration

vi



LIST O F . F I G U R E S (cont. )- I - -

N O .

o

-14

5

16

718

19

Cgmera Placement Evaluation While Stqmdipg inSpacecraf t Cockpi t (Untethered)

Camera Placement Evaluation-Body Outpide S p a c e -craft Hqtch

Pilot 1s Initial Reqting Position on Portable Handrail

Right Wais t Tether Attached to Portable Handrai l Ring

Docking Cone U-Bolt Attachment Point f o r Wais tTe t h e r

Agena T ether Configurat ion Prior to Activat ion. b yqatronaut

Agena Tether Deployed

S-010 Fully Deployed on T c l A

Adapter Work Stat ion Task Board

Astronaut Aldrin Performing Center, ElectricalConnector Evaluation

Astronaut Aldrin During Movemen t f ram Ada p terto S p a c e c ra f t H a t c h Are a

Flight and Water Simulation Task Time Comparison

Compar i son S u m m a ry of Mqjor Task Category

H e a r t Ra t e V e r s u s El a p se d T i m e f o r O rbital E V A

Pref l igh t Ergometry-Gemini =-XUOxygen Utilization Curves f ro m Pre f l i g h t E r g o m e t r yGemini XU Biomedical Measurement8 of the Simula4ion

Gemini XU Biomedical Measurements of the SimulationUsing the de V . Weir Technique

Preflight Simulation Biomedical Measurements Us,ingE R A Subjec t

Preflight Simulation Biomedical Measurements UsingE R A Subjec t

Cumulative Work Load f o r the GT-XU T a s k Li n e

E f f e c t of Am b i e n t Pre s su re on H e a rtRate atCoqstant Work Rate

E f f e c t of Heat Load on Heart Ra te at Constan tWork Rates

Single Parameter Work Load Correla t ions

Gemini XU- Task En e rg y C o m p a r i so n

vii



L I S T OF FPGURES (csnt. )

FIGURE NO.

5-34 En e rg y Ex p e n d i t u re Rat io

5-35 Cqlculated Drag f o r Motion of a P r e e s u y e S u i t e d

5-36 Ast ronau t AGus t ing Posi tion with Resatraint Attgched

5-37 Aetronaut Ac(justing Position with Restraint Attached

5-38 T h e Ef fec t of Restraint on Task WQrk Goad

5-39 Suit Mobility Evaluation in Adapter Fogt Rwtra in ts

5 -4 0 Su it Mobility A na ly si s for Le a n Back Task

5-41 Apol lo Torque Wrench

5-42 Telescoping Handrail

5-43 Compgrison ot the Effectiveness of $?est@

5-44 E x p e r i m e n t 4 S u p p o r t T a s k s Cwnpadsan

Sub j so t Th ro u g h th e W a t e r

to Fip Pin

to Portable Handhold

?+GEJ

174

175

1 76

177

3 77

1 78

1 79

1 8 0

180183

1

viii



T A B L E NO. P . A G E

Gemini Extraarehicub Simulation Task S u m m a r y

S u m m a r y of the Umbilical E V A of thq GeminiMissions

Gemini X Wa ter Simulation-Data Andpis

Gemini Ix Water I mmer s ion Tas k Sequence

Gemini Ix Water Simulat ion-Data Analys is

W e c t of Restraint Mode on Gemini A M U Donning

Qualitative Evaluation of t h e E f f e c t o€ Restraintson th e AMU Donning Task

Gemini X ( 1 ) Water Simulat ion-Data Analysis

Gemini XT Water Simulat ion-Data Analys is

Simulation Time L ine -Final Iteration

Flight Time Line-Final Iteration

Aircraft Simulation Time Line-Final Iteration

Comparison of Trans i t ion Tasks

Flight Time Line-Wo rk Station Tasks-DetailedA na lys i s

Preflight Simulation -Work Station T a s k s-DetailedAnalypis

Comparison of C onnec tor Tas ks

Biome,dical Instrumentation Components f o r theWater Simulation

R es u l t s of Biomedical Analysis of Gemini XUPreflight Simulation, Astronaut Aldrin

Results of BiornedicaI AnalyBis o f Gemini XUPreflight Simulation

Task Time- Tas k E ner gy C ompar i s on

Task Complement

Evaluation Objec tives fo r V ar io us E V A S u b t a s k s

Effect of Restraint Modes on Work Tasks

Time and E ner gy C ompar i s on for Rest P e r i o d s

Conclusions

S u m m a r y o f G em in iE V A Results and Applicabilityof Water Immersion Simulation

Recommendation8

ix



I N T R O D U C T I O N

The ear ly cessa t ion of the E V A task of Gemini X caused a reappraisalo f the qe thods for prepa r ing the as t ronau t s for the f l igh tand also of

the techniques for planning E V A t a sks . This reappra i sa l focusedpr imar i l y on the inapplicability of the then existing simulations and train -ing Eor long duration E V A t a s k s .

T o address this p ro bl em , N A S A e xte nd ed a current water immersion€ $ VA research contract wi th Environmenta l Re se a rc h Assoc ia tes toinclude an assessment o f th e G T - X E V A . When the simulat ion, per-f o rm e d by an E R A subject, closely approximated the actual f l igh t per-f o r m a n c e it w as decided to cont inue the program through G T-XI andGT-XLT. T h e p r o g r a m fu rt he r included a subjective evaluation of thesimulation tFchnique b y an exper ienced astronaut . Cdmr . EugeneCernan performed this function through a postfl ight evaluation of theG T - I X E V A .

Simulat ion of the GT-XI E V A , b y E R A sub jec t s , w a s u s e d to iden-

t i fyprob lem ar ea s and to schedule

tasksequence. Although the

G T - X I E V A was not completed during the flight, a comparison of theresulting data emphasized the need for wa ter imm ers ion simulationand training. At this point in the p ro gr am N A S A included the waterimmersion training of t h e G T - X I E V A astronaut.

C alib ra tio ns r u n s b y E R A sub je cta n d training r u n s b y the pr im e andb ack -u p c r e w s w e r e p e r f o r m e d on a continuously updated mo cku p ofthe GT-XtI f l igh t configuration. Subsequent to the initial training r u n ,mqjor modiEications were made to the E V A task which required addi-tional training time and a reschedul ing of the launch date.

Training f o r the final version of the GT-XU E V A using high f ide li tyhardware mockup w as comple ted tw o weeks prior to launch. Bio-medical measuremen t s were m ad e and a time line f o r the flight E V Aw as establ ished. Final ly , a postfl ight debriefing run was performedt w o w e ek s d e r mission completion b y the astronaut.

T h e s u c c e s s o f t he Gehin i XII E V A has led N A S A to include waterimm ers ion training as .an integral part of EV A mission training a n d apool facili ty has been added to the M S C complex f o r th i s purpose .

S ince the end of the Gemini program me an t an end to all imme diate3 V A e x p e r im e n t s c o n t ra ct N AS I -7 1 4 2 w a s initiated b y N A S A - L R C

and undertaken by E R A to corre la te , as closely ,as pos sib le , sp a c eexperience and the simulation program. T h e fo116wing re p or t p re se n t sthe res ul ts and conclusions of this program.

xi



2 .0 - P R O G R A M S U M M A R Y

G E M I N I E X T R A V E H I C U L A R T A S K S I M U L A T I O N

Por t ions of the umbilical extravehicudar t a sk s ' of four Gemini missionswere s imulated by water immers ion techniques at E R A . T h e s e w e r ethe G T - X , X X , and . X n miss ions . A summary of the speci f icBasks simulated is given in _T&Ie I .

T h e Q T -X umbilica lE V A was the first mission-task to be simulated,and wa s per fo nm ed by anE R A subject wearing an A r r o w h e a d v e r -s ion o f th e fu l l pressure suit, This w as fol lowed by a postflight runof t he G T - X A M U donning t a sk b y As t r o n a u t C m d r . E . C er n a n .

S u b s eq u en t to th e p er fo r m a n ce o f th e GT-IX simulation, th e completet a s k l ine o f th e G T - X umbilical E V A w a s p e r f o r m e d b y anE R Asubject . This w as fol lowed by the simulation of the original versiono f the G T-X U E V A p er f orm e d b y As t r o n a u t Col . E . A ld rin . S u b -sequently, Astronaut Aldrin participated in exten sive water immers ionsimulation - training of the final version of the GT-XU E V A .

Gemini X - T he Gemin i X E V A tasks w e r e p e r fo r m e d b y an E R Asubject wearing an a i r -p res su r i zed Arro wh ead , MarkN Mod .6fullp r e s s u r e suit. T h e task l ine included the connection of the H H M Unitrogen quick disconnect on the adap ter and the placement and r e -trieval of experiment components located on the A ge na T D A (th eT-17 , and S ; - O l O e q e r i m e n t s ) . T h e s u b j e c t pe r fo rm ed the HHM.U-Q D task b y staging in a position representative of stand ing in the openhatch of the spacecraft , proceeding in a hand-over-hand fashion alongthe adapter hand rail and conn ecting the Q D while retaining a handhold.The subject routed the N underneath the handrail prior to the connectt a s k . A r e v e r s e ord er &connect task was also p e r f o r m e d .

T h e E R A subject also p e r f o r m e d t h e T - 1 7 , S-010 placement task onthe A ge na T D A m oc ku p. This task included transfering the T-17exper iment to the Agena T D A mockup, placing the T-17 on the Velcroattachment pad on the Ag en a sur fac e and retrieving the S - 0 2 0 exper i -men t . The S - 0 1 0 exper imen t w as transpor ted from the Ag ena in twop i e c e s b y m e a n s of Velcro attachment to the E L S S . T h e H H M Umockup w as also ca rrie d on the E L S S b y m eans of Velcro attachment.F ig u r e ,1-1 s h o w s a sequence of T-17 and S-010 exper imen t place-ment a n d re t r ieva l . T he E R A subject experienced great difficulty inhandling and retaining experiment hardware during movement to andf r o m th e Gemini target vehicle.

Gemini lX - As tronau t Cernan commenced his AMU donning ta s k atthe umbilicql pigtail connection on the circumference of the adaptercurtain. H e then proceeded to don the A M U to the point of the 180"

turnaround prior to strapping hims ell into th e A M U . T h e task in-cluded th e activation of the A M U and ended with the chest restraintconnect ion prior to release of the A M U , the point at which the abort

1



decision w a s made in flight. F;gure 2 - 2 is an e x c e rp t se q u e n c ef r o m th e film record of C m d r . C e rn a n 1s .pes foz-mance . Wate? i m m e r -sion simulation of GT-IX substantiated the validity of water immersionsimulation as a tool for assess ing sp a c e b o rn e tasks,.

Gemini X l - A n E R A subjec t wearing a pressu r ized G 2 C - F P S p e r -f o r m e d th e G T-X l E V A tasks in sequential order. . During an initial

run i t was determined that the sequence required modification due toequipment interactions. The resultant sequence of the Gemini X

E V A t a s k s w a s used during the subsequent simulations. Figure 2 - 3shows a port ion of the water imm ers ion Simulation of t h e G T - X lE V A . Early terminat ion of the G T - X E V A prevented a direct com-par i son of the resul t s of the preflight water immersion simulation.

Gemini XU - Subsequent to the reeon figuration of the G eminimjE V A ,a se ri es of simulations of the final version of the G T - X I e x t r a -vehicular tasks w a s p e r f o rm e d b y As t ro n a u t Lt. C s l . A l d r i n . A l s oincluded w a s a postflight simulation evaluation run by Ast ronau t Aldr in .

Th e m o c k u p codiguration comprised a full scale visually-accurate I )

vers ion of the Gemin i reentry module including the R/R section an d

the adapter sect ion plus a cylindrical section of the A gen a T D A w o r k -s i te .

T h e sim ula ted G T - X I E V A comprised three basic sequences; (I) e r e c -tion of the cockp it T D A handbar , ( 2 ) A g e n a T D A w o r k s i t e t a s k s a n d( 3 ) adapter worksi te tasks. Figure 2-4 sh o w s th e planned ta sk l ine

f o r t he GT-XU umbilical E V A which evaluated the astronaut Is abilityto work unr estr aine d and to work a n d res t , res t ra ined by w a i s ttethers, both in the spacecraft hatc h and on the target vehicle . During

this per iod the pilot conne cted the Age na tether and activated theS-010micrometeorite experiment package located on the forw ard sect io n of

the target vehicle . Th e pilot then moved to the spacecraft adapterwork station.

During the first night perio d, the pilot pe rfo rm ed var iou s sub tas ks atthe adapter work station, alternately evaluating various restraint modes.T h e p i lo t exited the adapter at the start of the sec ond daylight pe riodand proceeded to the A T D A work station where he per formed var ioussu b t a sk s . T h e pilot returned to the hatch after clearing the targetvehicle and spacecra f t .

2



w

~

MISSION

GT-9

01- IO

GT-II

GT-12 -I

GT-12-2

TABLE I GEMINI EXTRAVEHICULAR

~~

TASK

HHMU N2 QD

EV A Camrra

placement

Agena t r the r

Foot restra in t

evaluat ion

Apollo sumpcamera re t r i eva l

HHMU Q D

D -16

AMU Donning /

D o f f i n g

AMU evaluat ion

Handrai l eraction

Adapter work ta rk rTDA work tasks

~~ ~ ~~~

CONFIGURATION

Adapter end sectlon

HHMU QD panel

Agena TDA h a l f -

sect ion

Adapter end sectlon

an d thermal curtain

Reentry module

R / R s e c t i o n

Same as fo r GT-11

Reentry module

R/ R sectionEqulpment adapter /

work station

Retro. adapterTDA /work station

SIMULATION TASK SUMMARY

ANCILLARY HARDWARE

AM U (1x1 with tether ba g an d prnl ightG T- 9 foot restraintsGT- I1 foot rectra lntsE L S S

HHMU

S-IO an d retentlon bracketEV A still cameraELSS

T - I 7

Apollo s ump camera an d brackeir

HHMU

EVA mode camera and brackets

E V A sti l l camera

E L S S

D-16 wi th knee tethersGT- I1 foo t restra ints

Agena tether an d clamp

Docking ba r mirror

Debr is cutters

AMU (XI11 wlth tet her bag and penlights

GT-12 foot res t ra in tsEVA movie camera an d brackets

AMU tether restra int c lamps an d ‘attachments

Debris cutters

ELSS

Foot restraints / waist tetherPortable handrailAdapter work station

TD A work station

Agena tether and locking clamps-IOEVA movie camera



5



6



e.t.k 42:40

. 42:4s

- 43 . 50

t

Figure 1-4 GEMINI PI: UMBILICAL E V A TIME LINE

7



2 . 0 - W A T E R I M M E R S I O N T E - C - H N I Q U E-

The water immersion technique employe d in Gemini sim ulation w adeveloped b y E nv i r on men ta l R es ear c h A s s oc ia t e s and com ps f s e s thcomplete submersion of a subject in an air -pressur ized single-gasanthropomorphic ful l -pressure space sui t . The suit is maintained at p r e s s u r e of '3.7-4.0 ps i above ambient w ater p r es s ur e by me ans of

relief valve mounted in the outlet port of the suit.

The complete weight of the subjec t and associa ted equipment is countebalanced b y th e buoyancy forces acting on the subject exterior , i .e . ,

the mass of the sub ject and equipment is aGusted to equal the total dip lacement . Since the suit w h e n pressur i zed occ upie s a volume greatethan the subject, ballast is required to achieve this condition of neutrabuoyancy . The ballast is provided b y m e a n s of distributed externalwieghts, located to provide balance in roll , pitc h, and ya w axes a swell as maintaining the neutral buoyancy of the l imbs . The w aterimmers ion technique has been demonstrated to be valid for low-ve loc i tmotions within restricted a r e a s s u c h a s th e A g en a and spacecral? adap

work stations.

S u c c e ss fu l application of water immers ion to the Gemini Program w asd u e in large me asure to the experience gained in p r io r r es ea r ch pr ograms and to careful consideration of reco gnized simulation con straintThe w ater im m er sio n simulation technique is const ra ined b y the follow-ing major factors:

( 1 ) Th e ef fec t of the fluid medium on the motion of the subject.

( 2 ) T h e m a s s incr eas e due to ballasting the subject.

(3) Attitude stability characteristics due to g e o m e t r y of thesubject .

( 4 ) Metabolic ekfects of the sui t pressurizat ion s ys t em.

Th e fac t tha t limb movement rates are cons trained in a p re ss u re suitand that safety considerations dictate that EVA be pe rfor me d in a s lowand deliberate manner greatly assist in minimizing the dynamic ef fectsof the water med ium. Exper ience at E R A h a s sh ow n that subjectvelocities of l es s than one foot pe r se co nd re su lt in negligible displaments due to planing and that the drag forces are low as compar ed to

t h e p r e s s u r e suit f o r c e s n e c e s s a r yto induce the translational velocity.T h e p r e s s u r e of the water drag force as a damping medium not pre-Bent in space is a limitation which must be kept constantly in mind inevaluating th e re su lts of the simulations.

The damping ef fect of the water is somewhat offset b y th e necess i t yf o r t he suit subject mass to be 3 0 to 40 percen t higher than actual dueto the ballasting re qu ire d for neutral buoyancy; that is , the ballastinertia tends to compensa te for the wa ter damping and th e response to

a



net force is sim ilar in direction a n d magnitude to the same require- spaqe envirgnment so lopg as the accqleration a n d velocity

he subject are relatively small.

e air volume of the inflated ful l-p re sg ur e suit allows the body pqsi-of the sybject to cha nge within' the suit . The center of gravi ty of

is therefo re a functio n of subjec t body attitude.ncy for the suit-sybject assembly is not altered by

shi3 of center of gravity. Misalignment of the center of buoyancy center of gra vity res ults in rotatian of the subject to a p r e f e r -

aligns the center of buoyancy with the center of dong the gravity vector . Co ns tan t attention to this phenomenon

d reballasting necessitated b y g r o s s attitude chan ges hold thisp r e -attitude e ff e c t to a minimum.

to exactly duplicate the suit environment a s provided by the Environmental Life

S y s t e m ( E L S S ) chest pack in sp ac e. A ir is supplied topr eg su re suit subject via an umbilical containing the air supply line,

exhaust line, a nd electrical leads for biomedical measurements and

communications. These items are enca sed in a normal umbilical weights added to achieve neutral buoyancy for

umbilical. T h e resulting umbilical as se m bl y w a s slightly larger the flight item but exhibited sim ilar dynamic behavior.

a ir flow of 10 C F M w as used to assure adequate cooling and car bon removal from the s pace suit . The subject w a s biomedically

s t a n d a r d f l ight sensors to obtain electrocardiograms,rate a n d depth, and body tem per atu re on a continuous

2-1 shqws the system configuration developed f o r the simula- the GT-XU umbilical EVA.

full scale mockup of the Gemini spa cec raft and target vehicle was training-simulations. It consisted of a half section of

spacecraf t reentry module , a 1 / 4 section of the spacecraft adaptera fu l l mockup of the adapter work station a re a , and a 112 s e c -

of the Age na target vehic le.

e spacecraft target vehicle area a n d spacecraf t adapter work stationsre full fide lity mo cku ps utilizing training ha rd wa re identical to the

items . Intervening areas were con structed to conform to the of the flig ht d i c l e . T h e m ockup was located

of the assembly 6 feet below the s u r -oi: the water . Figure 2-2 shows a repregentat ive mockup con-

E R A facility.

equipment included the Agena target vehicle work station adapter area wo rk station equip men t, astronaut tethers, and

picture and stil l camerae.

9



F&ht configuration work station ha rd wa re and Cethers wcrq used an#DQ attempt wals mede to achieve neutral 4uoyanay in these Items.The c a m e r a s w e r e non-opersjlting neutFajly buoyant mockups of the

fliqht hardware , but the attachment braqkqtry was identical to flighth a r d w a r e .

T h e fol lowing personnel attended the suit-eubject in the water f o rtheGemini XE simulation run.

2 -1 -1 -3 -

Ass i s t ing

3 -1 -1 -

1 -2 -

saf ety and equipment specialistssimulation engineertest conductorphotographers

in the simulation activities in the area outside the pool were ;

biomedical monitorscommand pilotflight plan specialist

p r e s s u r e s u i t specialistphotographic specialist

All eimulation personnel w e re in communication via a system of head-sets and an underwa ter loud sp ea ke r.

Data fro m th e s imulation consisted of:

(1.) Continuous 16 mm color motion picture film

( 2 ) Continuous tape recorded voice communications

(3) Biomedical data in continuow and/or tabular form

( 4 ) P o s t run debriqf ing of the E V A astronaut

(5) Pos t run debr ief ing of simulation personnel

Eaoh s imulation session lasted approximately 3 112 hours and twosimulations were p e r f o r m e d e a c h day. Gemioi XU simulation schedulewlth Astronaut Major E . Adlr in as thq Hubject was as fo l lows :

Sepbember 12, 1966 - Simulatioq of the early task plqn f o r the

Gemini XU mission which included (2) attachment of thetarget vehicle tether and ( 2 ) preparation and flight OE theastronaut maneuver ing unit.

October 17, 1966 - Simulation of the revised Gemini XU taskplan which included (1) attachmqnt of the target vehiclete ther , ( 2 ) operation of the adapter wo rk statio4 and (3 )operation of the Agena work stat ion.

October 29, 1966 - Simulation of final Gemini XU task p l a n .

Emphas i s on task time, task rsequence 'and work load .

10



I I

Flgura 2 - I

J i

INSTRUNEHTATION - FLOW DIACRAN

NOCKUP CONFlOLRATION

FACILITY

111 C . R A

11



The Gemini Program consis ted of twelve flights , ten of them mannedby tw o- man cr ew B . S ix of these fligh ts had umbilical extr ave hic ula ractivity b y the pilot a s p a r t of their mission p lan . T h e s e f l i gh t s a r eshown in Table lI.

Additional standup E V A was accomp lished on these fligh ts with the

pilot standing in the open spacecratl hatch. The E V A portion of themiss ions w as completely or partially accomplished on all Flights exceptGemini Vm, which was terminated before the scheduled E V A due toa spacecraft malfunction.

The three objectives of E V A on the Gemin i P r ogr am w er e :

( I ) Develop the capability f o r E V A in free a p a c e .

( 2 ) Use the developed E V A capability to increase capability OE

the Gemini spacecralt .

( 3 ) Develop operational techniques and evalu ate advancedequ.ipment in support of E V A f o r future p r o g r a m s .

In general , the principal object ives were met but prob lems encounteredduring the program som ew hat shifted the empha sis on the objectives .T h e evaluation of var ious free space propuls ion devices w as deferredin or der to obtain a better understanding of te ther dynamics , bodycrtabilization requirements, operat ion of the pressure su it s ys tem , an dcontrol of metabolic ene rgy loa ds.

Qne of the moat difficult aspects of developing an extrav ehicu lar capa-

bility w a s simulation. of the E V A environment . The combination ofweightlessness and high vacuum is unattainable on ear th . Zero gravibyaircraft simulations were extensively used and proved valuable butoccagionally misleading. Neutral buo yanc y simulationrs un der wa ter ulti-mately proved to be the most use ful duplication of the weightless ,t ract ionless Mpect of the E V A environme nt as exper ienced by theGem ini astronauts.T h e f light plans and ta s k s fo r E V A w e r e diaCerent f o r each Geminimission BO the widest possible expe rience could be obtained in thelimited flights available. This diversity of flight activities made the suc-cess d the program highly depe ndent on good sim ulation of theEVAenvironment f o r development of the flight plan and equipment and f o rtraining of the E V A astronaut.

Simulation for Gemini N, and X - A consis ted of flights in the ZQTO

gravity aircraft f o r astronaut training and equipment p roc ed ure s de ve l-opment; and one gravity walkthrough for fl ight planning deve lopment,stowage development, and astronaut procedures tra in ing .

12



Gemioi X and XT had the benefit of water imm ersion zero gravitysimulation f o r flight planning and equipment evaluation f r o m simulationsper formed by the Env i ronmenba l Researgh Assps ia tespr e s s ur e suit-8ubjecbB 4nd ma de available to th e Gemini night c r e w 8 in motiov pi c-t u re filma. Gemini X,the last Gemini misrsion, had the ful l benefiqof water immersion zero gravity simulation in the f o rm &:

(1) Real t iqe , fq11 length task line deve lopm ent utilizing boththe E V A pilot and the command pilot.

(2) Extens ive pressur i zed spacesuit operating time in a trac-t ionless environment f o r theE V A qstronaut.

( 3 ) Biomedical surveillance of the E V A astronaut during simu-lation to enable p ro pe r f light planning OE the E V A w o rkload.

Froblema Encovntered During E V A - While the mqjori ty of the E V Am'ission objectives were met on each flight, each had min or discrep-

ancien worthy of note to those intere sted in the planning required bysu c h a unique activity.

T h e first entry into extravehicular activity was perform ed on Gemini Z Vb y Lt. Col . E . H . White. T h e only difficulty he encountered wae inclosing the spacecraft hatc h at the end of the E V A . A much higherleve l of ef fort w as req uir ed than had been enoounter ed in airc raft andground simulation, resulting in ra the r severe overheat ing of the E V Apilot and to some lesser extent the Command Pilot who had to assist.

T h e G e m i n i = -A mission objective, to evaluate a stabilized maneuv-ering unit during E V A , w a s not achieved because Astronaut Cernan tw

high metabolio heat load cau sed visor fogging, resulting in res tricte dvis ion . The high heat load w a s due to difficulties in maintaining bodyposition during the maneu vering unit prep aratio n activities. Thesedifficulties were une xpec ted in that the Gemini IV E V A and theGemini X -A training in the zer o gr av ity air cra ft had not identified theextent of the difficu lty in maintaining bod y positio n.

T h e body positioning problem occurred again 00 Gemini X but did nothave a significant effect on performance. T he wo rk load and p o si -tioning problem became increasingly more important alter the Gemini X lm i s s i o n . S ev er e heating and sweating of the astronau t in coqjuncticwwith body positioning p ro bl em s with activation of the Ag en a teth er

paurged an early cessat ion of the umbilical E V A .

Major Results of Water Immersion Simulation of Gemini .E V A - T h ewater immersion simulation of ze ro gr av i ty had been used previously

quickly establishe? a s an engineering and task planning tool in supp ortof future Gem ini flights.

b y NASA as a research too l and a s a resul t of Gemini X - A , w as

13



A relatively low fidelity neutral buoyancy sim ulation of GeminiX E V Apa& tasks revealed no unexpected dBiculty a n d n o n e wa s experiencedby .AatronauC Collin s on the Gem ini X f l ight except stowage and house-keeping dBicult ies which resulted in loss of some equipment . Theneutral buoyancy simulation of the Gemini X E V A task plan revealedthat mov emen t along the vehicle while burdened with ma ny loo selytethered items of equipment resulted in a high probability of equipmentlolss and possib le entanglement , as had bee n experienced on Gemin i X .A s a result , tw o bulky items of equipment were deleted to enhancethe chan ces for recove ring the data f rom experim entsin the adapter.N o diEiculty wa s experienced with the target vehicle tether attachmenttask during the neutral buoyancy simulation of Gemini Xl E V A , wh e rethe task w as conducted as a one hand operation with the other handused on the docking bar to maintain a floating stability.

During the Gemini Xl flight E V A Astronaut Gordon exceeded thecapability of the E V A Life S u p p o r t S y s t e m , re su l t i n g in excessivefat igue, overheating, and possibly exceeding acceptable COz levels dueto high metabolic Ioada. The high metabolic loads were genera tedwhile attempting to maintain body position to accomplish the task of

&aching the target vehicle tether. The body positioning technique ofusing the legrs to hold position on the spacec raft nose wa s success fullysimulated in aircraft and L G training but proved too fatiguing in flight.Had the astronaut used both n eutral buoya ncy and aircraf t zero grav i tysimulation f o r his training the problem would most likely have beendiscovered .

Gemini E V A experience through mission XT l ed to the following con-clusions :

( 1 ) Engineering and task analys is pre fligh t planning of the E V Amissions had been inadequate to completely define the d B i -culties encountered.

( 2 ) When unexpected difti'culties we re encoun te red in f l ight theyresulted in body positioning problems and a large increasein metabolic load as the astronaut powered the space sui tin an effort to maintain body stability.

(3 ) The astronaut could generate metabolic loads which exceedthe capability of the E V A Life Suppor t Sys tem resu l t ing indegraded performance .

( 4 ) The E V A astronaut should use neutral buoyancy simulationf o r t ra in ing in addition to zero g rav i ty aircraf t f l ights .

(5) The Gemini xzir should be devoted to defining and resolvingthe body res t ra in t prob lems by m ea ns of aseries o f variedtasks, while assuring metabolic loads within Life S u p p o r t

. System capabi l i ty .

These conclusions resulted in the requir emen t for a h ighfidelity,neutral buoyancy simu lation of the Gemini XU umbilical E V A to be f lownb y A s tr on a ut A l d r i n . This simulation would ad dr es s both engineeringand c r ew tra in ing aspects.

14



TABLE 33

Summary o f Umbi l i ca l EVA Activity of th e Gemini Mission

MISSION

GEMINI IE

OEMfNl 9III:

GEMINI 38c - A

GEMINI X

G E M I N I X E

. GEMINI XIC

E V A ASTRONAUT

LT. COL. E. H. WHITE II

LT. COL. 0,R. SC OTT

C M D R . E. A. C E R N A N

MAJOR M. COLLINS

LT. CMDR. R.F. GORDON

LT. COL. E . E . A L D R I N

D A T E DURATION

JUNE 3,1965 36 min.

MARCH 16,1966 -

JUNE 5,1966 2 hrs, 7m in

JULY 20,1966 39 m i n .

SEPT, 13,1966 33 mln.

NOV, 13, 1966 2 hr 6min.



4. O - P E R F ' O R M A N ~ J ? ~ANA L YSIS

Water immersion simulation had been used b y ER.A p r io r t o the Geminis imulation program f o r general reseaz-ch ~ L ~ F P ~ ~ S B S .T h e main tasksinves t igafed were ingress -egress thsaggh E L ~ P ~ Q C ~ Sand p a s s a g e w a y s .I n th i s research p r o g r a m th e intent was to measure the interactionsbe tween a subject pressur ized in an anthropom orphic ful l -pressure

suit and the surrounding airlocks a n d p a s s a g e w a y s t r u c tu r e s . N oattempt was made to ascertain metabolic requirements .

T h e p r im a r y a dvan ta ge of water immersion a n d th e main factor whichrecommended it fo r us e in the Gemini program, w a s th e re la t ive in s en -sitivity of the simulation mode to task length. Its major drawbackappeared to be that since the subject was maintained in a one gravityenvironment within the suit a n d only the external tractionless aspects ofweight lessness were simulated , the metabolic determinations wereunjustiEied.

Other versions of water immers ion simulation, the water filled suit

technique, partially compensa te f o r th is restr ict ion since the density a€the human body approximates that of water . T h e water fil led suittechnique, however , suffers a greater handicap, in that suit mobilityis altered due to the incompressibility a n d v i scos i t y of the water pres -sur i z ing m ed ia . T h i s la t ter fac tor exerc i ses a f a r greater degradationof the s imulation s ince the prim ary facto r und er inves t igatio nis suitmobility in weightless environments.

4.l - G E M I N I X - Although the problem of valid simulation first a r o s ein coqiunction with the early cessat ion of the Gemini Ix E V A , the firstuse of the water immers ion techn ique w as a port ion of the G T - X

umbilical E V A task.

The pr i m ary ob jec tive was the retrieval of an exper iment package ofthe GT-VRI target vehicle previously I& in orbit. Astronaut Collinstranslated through f r e e s p a c e b y m e a n s of the tractor- type propuls ionunit ( H H M U ) . Figure4-1 shows the equipment mockups used duringthe water immersion simulation of the nitroge n umbilical sup ply line-coupling and disconnect, T-17 placement and S - 0 1 0 re tr ieval .

A I 1 water immersion simulation of the G T - X tasks w e r e p e r f o r m e d b yERA personne l wear ing Arrowhead , Mark N fu l l -pres sure su i t s .The three umbilical E V A tasks were simulated numerous t imes in amanner sp ec ifie d b y N A S A f lig ht c r e w t ra in in g personnel . During theper formance of the simulations various astronauts were present and

ac te d a s o b s e r v e r s , and per forme d cer ta in pas t s ofthe ta sk inSCUBA . Fi lm r e c o r d s of the simulat ions were viewed by the Gemin i Xf l igh t crew. T h e im p o r ta n t aspects of the simulated task per formanceare summarized below :

( 1 ) The eubject wearing the F P S # s t a g e s f t f r o m a standingposition in the pilot Is seat .

16



The subject activates the handra il on the adapter.

The subject, wearing an E L S S with the H H M U velcroedto it , e g r e s s e s t h e Gemini a n d proceeds in a hand over

hand manner down the adapter handrail to the location ofthe disconnect panel.

The subject opens the storage p a n e l of the HHMU- NzQDb y a pinch-action on the fa st en er in the Eace of the pan el.Subsequent to panel releaBe, the eubject throws the panelaway .

Taking the HHM U-N2QD in one hand, retaining a hand-hold on the handrail with the oth er , the subject e f fects aconnection OE the QD with a pushing motion.

Upon successful Q D operat ion, the subject rotates thenitrogen on-off valve wh ich had been made automaticallyaccess ib le by panel removal . Thi s activation involv es the90 O rotation of a small handle Iocated ne a r the Q D .

Removal of the Q D occurs in a re ve rs e m a n n e r . T h erelease of the Q D occurs in response to a f f l ightIf p u shon a r e l e a se lever integral with the QD.

Various general conclusions concerning the simulation technique a n d

operat ion were made by the E R A and N A S A pro jec t engineers . Itappeared that the mockups supplied to E R A , by M SC we re inadequa teto determine the total ch arac ter OE task per formance . T h e m o c k u pduplicated only small portions of the spacecraft, approximately onesquare foot of the adapter surface and a small length of a half sectionof the target docking cone area. These sections were insufficient todetermine complete body interaction with the spacecrat3.

Several important fac tors w e re determined . (1)A new routingtechnique w a s speciEied f o r the nitrogen umbilical sup ply line to preventastronaut entanglement and to control the location of the disconnect ,( 2 ) ser ious hardware-spacecraf t interact ions were observed whereinvarious loosely attached elements were continually being snagged byprotruding hardware and lost during mo vem ent to and around the tar-get vehic le , ( 3 ) it w a s ob se rv ed that the hand holds and motion a i d s onthe target vehicle were inadequate to perm it the astronaut to properlyretrieve and activate experiments (particularly the S-010 micrometeor-ite collector), and ( 4 ) the subject Is Eeet continually contacted thespacecra f t as a resu l t OE the 'na tura l tendency OE the suit when armmotions were involved. This latter factor wa s in disa gre em ent withthe repor t s of Ast ronau t Ce rn an , who had experienc ed body position-ing difficulty; his Eeet a n d body continually moved aw ay fro m the sp ac e-c r&.

N o attempt w a s made to determine the metabolic requirements o f th etask since the Navy Mark N F P S was used and a continuous task

17



line simulation w a s not per formed. P T 2 4 S A personne l u,ssed the Lcitr-r e c o r d of the simu lation in a qualitative m an ne r to acqzlaint the c r e wwith the visual aspectB of th e task per formance . At t h h t i m e , theflight c r ew felt that the motions evidence d in the water imrnsrsion simu-lation would not be replicated ig fIi'ht,

Subsequen t l y , a quantitative measurement o€ task time and body-

hardware contactrs w a s made b y E R A in preparation for correlationwith data from the fl ight . A s it turned out there was no flight film dueto cam era m h c t i o n so that the voice r e c o rd a n d the postflight de-brief ing were the only idormation that w a s analyzed.

T h e G e m i n i X umbf l i cd E V A began after ren dez vou s with theGemini W target vehicle. M e r retrieving the S-022 micrometeoritepacka ge the pilot proc eed ed to connect the HHMU nitrogen supply line.T h e S-012 re tr ieval w a s not simulated in the water . M e r returningto the cockpit the astronaut prepared to t r a n s f e r t h ro u g h f re e sp a c etothe target vehicle, WTth the G e m h i vehicle and target i-2 close p r ox -

fmi ty (a p p ro x f m a t d y 5' separat ion) the astronaut pushed o f f toward

the target vehicle grasping the outer I& of the docking cone.

V er ba l description of the man euver ascertain ed that theE R A subjecthad accomplished this man euver in a similar fashion, The astronautlost his hold on the smooth docking aurface and drif ted away f r o m thevehicle, returning b y means of the H H M U . H e then used appur-faaces on the docking COR^ aa handholds and proceeded to accomplishexperiment re t r i eva l . S imi l e p e r f o r m a n c e had been observed in thesimulation. Table pr es en ts the results of the data analysis of thesimulation run.

T h e GT-X umbilical E V A had the following rnq-or resul ts:

(1) It marked the performance of the first w o r k task b y anastronaut in space and also first transfer between space-craft.

( 2 ) T he as t ronau t per formed an abbreviated E VA with relativee a s e .

(3 } T h e p e r f o r m a n c e of the E V A wam incomplete and data r e t z z z

degraded b y a maIfunction of c a m e ra and the loss of

camera and micrometeori te package.

( 4 ) The astronaut experienced relat ive dsicul ty in moving alongt h e s p a c e c r d d u e to inadequate restraint and handholdsand perturbation to the passive target vehic le ,

T h e w o r k loads evidenced w ere rela t ive fy low and onXy during ingressand hatch closure were elevated heart rates and resp ira t ion ratesnoted (peak respiration rate = 34/min. , p e a k heart ra te = 260 mi'. 1.



I n general , the f light perfo rma nce correlated v e r y well with th e p re -flight simulation taking into ac co un t the differen ce in suits and also

subject di f ferences , The astronaut w as required to route the nitro-ge n umbilical in a slightly d se re n t m an ne r than planned because the &handrail did not fully extend , As tronaut Co llin s Mated in the postflightdebriefing -

Collins. - 9)As f a r as the nitrogen line hookup went, it w a s notv e r y difEicult, but it was not v e r y eas y ei ther i T h e hal f of thequick discon nect on the umbilical itself has a s leeve around it,and this sleeve mus t be in the retracted position in or der to haveit cocked so that you can make the disconnect connection,, Thef i r s t time I took a stab at it , I hit the fitting on the side of thespacecraft a little bit off cen ter - a little bit o f f axis ,. and thatsnapped this collar down to the engaged position, and in thisconfiguration it will not lock in place, S o , that meant I had togo back a n d r e c o c k it, Th i s takes tw o hands , and so I had to1st go with both han ds f o r not m or e than 3 - seconds to get thatthing rec oc ke di and then on m y second attempt I did make theQ D without any trou ble , and then .I turned on the nihogen valveIn gener a l , the bo dy positioning w a s not quite a s difficult I think,a s I had been led to believe by s o m e of these w ater tests andwhat not, but on the other hand it wasn ' t a v e r y easy th ingeither particularly because I w a s using the f o r w a r d handrBailrather than the aft handrail and m y b o d y had a s or t of a s ide -ward component whenever I pushed dow n on the Q D < I

not only tended to pitch m y body down against the side of theadapter but also tended to roll off, and this made it slightly moredi f f i cu l t . A n y w a y , I did get the thing plugged up on the secondt r y , and d used maybe 5 minutes doing this, Th e peas on I

wasted s o muah time was becaus e I had to correlate my b o d yposition with John. ! f

l n the water immersion simulation the subject experienced similar d i f -ficulties with inadvertant activation of the conn ector and with hi s fee tinteracting the spacecraf? exterior .

Dur ing the water immers ion simulation the E R A subject ahso had d i f -f icul ty in obtaining and maintaining a handhold on the dmooth dockingcone l ip- Fur ther , even though the mockup hapsection of the T D Awa s fa i r ly r ig id due to buoyancy the sub ject 's motion continu ously af-

fected the mockup , The subject also had diffic ulty in op erating theS-010 latches and in attaching the sections of the S-010 to his ches t -pack and Velcro patch on his thigh. T h e astronaut had a similarexper ience dur ing flight, Pilot Collins and Com mand Pilot Youngstated in the postflight debriefing -

19



Collins - f f I g r ab be d hold o f the docking cone as near a s I can

recall , at about the tw o o ?clock position. If you call the locationof the notch init, the 12 o f c l o e k , I wa s to the right of that- - atabout the two orclock position and started crawling around. N o ,I must have been mo re about th e four ofc lock pos i t ion , b e c a u seI started crawling aroun d at the docking cone counterclockwise,and the docking cone itselE, a leading edge of the docking co ne ,

which is v e r y blunt , makes a very poor handhold in t h o s e p z e s -s u r e g l o v e s . I had great dz ic ul ty in holding on. A n d , a s amat ter of fact , when I got ov er by theS-010 package and triedto stop m y motion , m y iner tia , my l o w e r b o d y , k e p t m e righ t onmoving and m y hand slipped and I fe l l off the Agena.rf

I n t h e first water im me rsio n simulation run the Agena Targe t Vehic lew a s f i x e d mounted on the poo l f loor . The subjec t ~ t&&d itn.i?m~foc-

ward end in front of the docking bar guide. His initial eticorts at T-17and S-010 operation were impeded because the chest pack interactedthe docking cone . The subjec t rol led ov er on his back to f r e e thec h e s t pa ck and gras ped the edge of the docking con e. The subjec tmoved around the lip of the cone b y a sliding hand motion, taking careto retain a handhold at all times. The subjec t altered his posi tion b yexer t ing for ce s with hia ha nd s, using random handholds in the areabe tween the docking cone and th e Ag e n a in ter face . Th i s resu l t ed inplacing the subject in a position facing the Velcro pad located on theA g e n a s u r f a c e .

A second simulation ru n wa s pe r fo rm ed to as ses s the fac tor s invo lwhen the Agena mockup was allowed to mo ve in six d e g re e of f r e e -dom motion. This w as accompl ished by suspending the Agena mockup

above weights located on the pool floor. The mockup w as connectedto the weigh ts b y a three cable suspension . I n th i s manner the ef fec tof subject velocity at the time of contact w a s a s s e s s e d . T h e su b j e c twas propel led toward the mo cku p at a low velocity from a separat iondis tance of approxima te ly threef ee t .

This attempt failed because the su bje ct could not mainkiin a visualsighting of the mo ckup and conse quen tly lost physical contact as hepassed over the mock i zp . M om en tar y conkact with the mockup causedsigniEicant motion perturbation to both the subject an d the mockup.S ince no handho lds were provided further atte mp ts at eantact b y thesubject only added to the motion pertur bation.

A second attempt at subject contact with a se m i-f re e m o c k u p w a ssu c c e s s f u l . T h e su bj ec t had determined p ro p e r orientation and handposi€ ion prior to the maneuver .

20



After successful initial contact the subject moved to the experiment area

in a manner similar to that pei-form ed during the %ixed mockup simula-tion ru n . Mockup perturbation WQ I minimal during movement to the e x -per imen t area and w a s only vkBbPe when the subject attempted to man-e u v e r o v e r th e lip of the docking canen This mockup movement did notdegr ade the subjec t s per for mance . It ia fel t that the motion w a s notent irely representat ive of thefree motior, of t he A gena in space due to

the mockup configuPatiotL How ever , th e ef fec t o f semi- f ree m o c k u p TC

action in the water simulation aided in assess ing simi lar ef fects in thet r ue s pace , env i r onmen t .

Collins continued his descript ion of the orbital per formance in h is d e -briefing -

Collins - "A t any Pate, I sPowdy w o r k e d m y way around tothe S-010 package and removed the nose fair ing. If took meabout three or f o u r stabs to get both those but tons pushed, T h ebutton on the right , I think, I got the second time a n d the button

on the lefi, I bel ieve, I got the second time.., A n d when th eywere bo th pushed in# I got m y fi n g e rs down in that hole on top

of the fairing and ezse d the &.iring forward . : T he fair ing c a m efo rw ar d and then felt Bike it w a s locked in place, . B u t when Ig a v e it an upward compFnent it did Dome offu A n d I w as tryingto do this v e r y gently, because the faiping was connected to themain S-010 package by these tw o little w i r e s , w h i c h are simplypins that would pull right out of the S - 0 1 0 package ., I v e r y gin-ger ly rem ove d the nose fair ing and without putting an p r e s s u r eon the wires , I went back a n d grabbed a hold of the S - 0 1 0

package itself and rem ov ed it., I h e l d , fr om that t ime on,, I heldthe S - 0 1 0 f i r m ly in m y left hand and the wises held , and we gotthe nose cone back in that manner..

While the simulation ~f the Gemini X umbillicad was b y no means a qom-ph te tas k l ine , several impor tant conclusions were drawn. ,

The s eve r a l Gemin iumbilical EVA tasks simulated(T-17, S-810 a n d the nitrogen disconnecg) were adequate lyaccomodated b y water immemsion techniques

Equipment carried the su i t exterior would have to be

secu red to prev ent damageOF dsss.

B o d y dynamics a n d motion characteristics were adequate lysimulated as long as the astronaut was restr icted to motionson or n e a r t h e s u r f a c e of the spacecraft.

21



he Gemini X task, simulated at E R A comprised only the AMU don- Table n/T summarizes the sequeptjal steps simulated.

s was stated earlier, the Gemini IX umbilical E V A of As tronaut .

w a s the first indication of potential dzficultieq of man I s oper a -Severa l aspects of the X performance contr ibuted to

:

( 1 ) Prior to the Ix mission, no simulation technique existedwhich would give a true picture of the A M U donning p o r -tion of the t a s k , part icularly the weightless aspects of thetasks . T he zero gravi ty aircraft simulated the ta sk in anumber of thirty second segments . Th is did not gi ve atrue picture of the cumulative task work-load. One grav-ity walkthroughs-did not determ ine the work requ ired tomaintain body position while working a n d those due to therequiremen t to e xe rt fo rc es and torqu es without the aid o€normal LG traction.

( 2 ) Up to the time of the mission, umbilical E V A was thought

to be relat ively easy due to t h e e q e r i e n c e o f As tronautCol . E . White on Gemini N.

( 3 ) Minor hardware equipment malfunctions during the E V Acontributed to accelerated hear t rates . A garment tear inthe inner layer suit contributed higher heat loads.

( 4 ) T he umbilical E V A wa s terminated due to visor foggingbrought on by excess ive w or k lo ad s complicated by thesuit pr ob lem.

as a bas i s , a water immers ion task simulation evaluation pro-

w a s cQnduated using both the E R A subjects and As tronaut T h e p u r p o s e of this E V A simulation w a s not primarily to

the problems encountered b y As tronaut Cernan . Rather , thew a s fo allow Astronaut Cernan to assess the simulation tec h-

o f h is r ecen t s pace exp er ien ce, in order to providewith guidelines f o r the remaining Gemini umbilical E V A miss ions ,

of Gemini X t ype tasks are discu ssed and com - following section. These ar e ' : ( 1 ) the postflight run b y

he Gep in i JX astronaut, ( 2 ) a comparison run of the Gemini X tasky the ERA test subject, and ( 3 ) the prefl ight run of the initially

Gemini 2Q.T task by As tronaut Aldr in . Campar i son of these

runs yields direct correlat ion of the ef fect iveaess of the var ious res traint modes u s e d throughout the Gemini missions. Astronaut

u s e d the GT'IX foot s t irr up s, while the nGolden Slipperres t ra in t s w er e us ed by A s t r onau t Aldr in . T he ERA subject

A M U donning task both with a n d without foo t rest rain ts.

hgs been forthcoming oq the value, validity, and futureee of foot res t ra in t sas a result of the outcome of the Gemini X F V A .he determination of the exa ct value d t he foo t r es t r a in t s r equ i r esan

of condit ions ex idin g prio r to water immersion simulation.

23



Thnee Rro blem s had bee n identi fied as res po nsib le for the ea rlyter-mination of the umbilical E V A of GT-IX

( 1 ) lack of a valid simulation mode f o r long duration tasks

( 2 ) improper body re4traints

(31 Z L S S capacity exceeded

The astronaut stated that throughout his E V A , hi s fe et continuallyf loated away from the sp ac ec ra ft and that he had to exp end cons ider-able energy maintaining body posi t ion. H e also Stated that these f a c -tors had not been reproduced dur ing preflight simulation ru n s in thez er o gr av i t y r es ear ch ai r cr a f t .

At the time of the postflight water imm ersion simulation of the GT-IX

pmbilical E V A , E R A specz ical ly se t about investigating this unrestrainedmotipn phenomena to determine whether simi lar effe cts would be en -oountered during water immersion Simulation r u n s . T h e N A S A h a d

at this time already planned and initiated futu re spa ce ex pe rim en ts todetermine the bod y motion ef fe ct and to circumvent body positioningd E f c u l t i e s . T h e G T -X pilot and subsequent E V A astronauks wouldt r y to reproduce the free- f loat tendencies exper ienced by the G T - Xpilot. Missions X I and Xll would include redesigned foot res traints .F ur ther , the pr imar y emphas i s of the GT-Xll umbilical E V A would bean evaluation of res t ra in t s .

T h e post fl ight evaluation run of Gemini X w a s p e r f o r m e d b y A s t r o n aCernan at the E R A facility on 7/29/66 and lasted f o r approximately3 h o u r s . T h e A M U was mounted in the stowed position in the adapter

well and {he foo t s t i r rups w er e in the activated position. The as t r o -naut staged f r o m the position in the flight line where he enters theadapter from the handrail and i ns er ts h is umbilical in the pigtail andbandbar glips . Figure 4-3 s h o w s the astronaut at this stage of theprimulation. Table V details the results of the analysis of the filmr e c o r d of the water im me rsio n simulation of G T - X .

The total duration scheduled f o r the GT-IX umbilical E V A w a s 267 miutes, but it w as terminated 3 9 minutes ea r ly due to the visor foggingproblem qent ioned earl ier . Visor fogging oc cu re d at a point in theta sk line immediately after the lo wering of theAMU control ler arms.T h i s task is shown in Figure 4-4 in the water immersion simulation.

1.p the simulation, Astronaut Cernan per formed the control ler arm un -s tow ta8ks a pumber of times in orde r to compare the simulation withh ie s pace exper i ence .

The unstow task required the astronaut to exert a large pushing forceon the top of the control ler arm to free the arms from a detent . Themotion w g s t o c o m p r e s s a relative ly high forc e (approximately 25#/in. )spring approximately 1/2-1 in or der to allow a blade shaped detent tomove f r e e of its retention slot. Gener a l miss ion r equ i r emen t s w er e

24



the astronaut was instrkc;ted.fo maintain hi6 stanoe in the foot stir- s h p w n in Figure 4-5 during the A M U donning seq uen ce. This

imul taaeous ly com pressthe . c o n - arm and to beqd tho lsuit at th e torso a n d at the arm. All

motions req uir e lar ge for ce saqd induce high metabolic The astronaut reporte d that the w ater impersioa simulationadequately reproduced the mqjor aspects of E V A p e r f o r m a n c e .

o prov ide a direct comp arison of the effectiveness of the footr e -an evaluation of the E R A subject f s performanCe without r e -and Astronaut A l d r i n f s p e r f o r m a n c e of the original version

GT-XlT with the molded foot restraints w as m a d e . Thr ee cri ter iacompar i s on w er e used (I) direct time compar i s on from fi lm a n a I p

(2) average lim b motion fro m film analys is , and ( 3 ) subjective the subjec t s and the direct e b s e r v e r s . T a b l e Z

ef fect of the res traint mo de on the subtasks compris ing theM U donning tasks. It is evident that, in genera l , the mor e r e -

the individual the greater the duration 6f th e ' tas k . . Generalof the motions involved further indicate that f o r the A M U don-

task that the greater the res traint the greater the energy required

r sui t f lexure. T h i s is attributed mainly to the rigidity of the spaceand the relative placement of the res train ts and the work station.

h e natural angle of the upper tors o and arm s of the Gemini suit weref o r optimum operation in a seated mo de. While standing, the

position of the arms cau'sed the optimum work leve l to corres - to a position approximately one foot below eye leve l . T h e A M U

task required rela tive ly high le ve l fo ro e application in a region1.5) f ee t f r om th is optimum w or k s i t e . Th ere for e, a large portionthe ta sk s induced an added en er gy re qu ire m en t fo rsuit f l e x u r e .

is basically true whenever the position of operation is fixed rela- to the worksi te. Fixed work spaces impose 3 npsuedo one

av ity handiuap on the task. Optimum operation in weightless environ- allows the qstronaut to freely position himsex relative to the work- optimize the eaergy e w e n d i f u r e tor e a c h tas k . T h i s is

b y the qualitative evaluation of the AM U donning tas k with- aids presen ted in Table Tm . Th i s is not to s a y that

e astrona ut should wo rk in a completely unrestrained condition. It mos t tasks the best combination of r es t r a in t s ar e

tethers to control gross motions to relative proximity of the work-and portable handholds to permit the application o f fo rc e s o r

t to Astronaut Aldr inf s training f o r the GT-XLT task (first

r s i o n ) , N A S A decided to reconfigure the tasks to comprehens ively the broades t poss ib le spec t rum of E V A tasks . Table Vmthe results of the analysis of the water imm ersio n simulation of

). A na lys i s of the resul ts of the simujation indicate that thetronaut could ha ve pro per ly and succe ssful ly com pleted the tasks a8

scheduled but that minor modifications to the restraint desigq accomplished if a similar task is scheduled fo r fu tu re.

25



4. 3 - GEMINI X i - Water immersion simulation of the Gemini X Iumbilicaf E ' V A w a s initiated at ERA on Augus t IO, 1966. D ue to theproximi ty of the flight astronaut participation- w a s not plann ed.

Certain port ions of the se q u e n c e s were omitted in the sirnulation due tounavailability of representat ive f l ight hardware or b e c a u se of the obvi-O U B limitations of the simulation me dium . Pnevious experience had

shown that tasks involving gross, re la tiv ely high velocity motions andexcurs ions a w a y from th e spacecra f t sutfer serious degradation in thewater simulation mode d u e to the drag-damping characterist ics of thewater. Rapid attitude excursions of the subject are l imited b y thep re fe rr ed attitude character i s t ics previously discu ssed and b y dragand planing effects. H H M U evaluation is represen ta t i ve o f tasks notparticularly suited to water immersion simulation.

The Gemin i X simulation marked the initiation of the use of the totalGemini mockup configuration. All simulation r u n s after Gemini XT util-ized a quasi-complete spacecraf t system configurat ion which conformedin moldline contour to the actual spa cec raf t codigurat ion . The basicmockup codigurat ion comprised a modified adap ter end section from th eGemini X simulation, a representative Gemini R / R section loaned bythe L a n g l e y R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , N A S A a n d a quader sect ion of theadapter sur face . I n later simulations a section of the Agena targetvehicle was added to the mockup complement but w a s unavailable f o rthe GT-XT r u n s .

A sequential time line was p e r f o rm e d b y th e ERA subject wearing aG2-C vers ion F P S . Port ions of the time line which were incompatiblewith the simulation medium w e r e omitted. Ac tua l hardware w as usedwhere available. Where this hardware was not available, reasonable

facs imi l i w er e built at E R A and made neutrally buoyant where timepermit ted.

T h e U S A F , W P A F B supplied a working versiop of the D-16 exper i -ment , the torqueless power tool . This was made neutral ly buoyantb y encapsulation in a transparent plastic cylinder and is shown inF i g u re 4-6. The encapsulation increased the external dimensions ofthe tool making it impossible to stow in the equipment stowage areaprovided in the re en tr y adapter wall, Figure 4-7. A second unit wasu s e d f o r t he unstowing operation but w as not mad e neutrally buoyant.

A n initial simulation r u n indicated that a reschedul ing of the sequential

events would result in better utilization. A l s o , the astrona ut had beenr e q u i r e d t o c a r r y e x c e s s h a r d w a r e ( c a m e r a s ) t o the adapter. Recom-mended changes were incorporated prior to the final simulation r u n .T h e p u r p o s e of the G T - X simulation was to provide a complete pic-torial record so that NASA personne l a n d the cr ew could rev ie w theumbilical time line. T h e re su l t s of the analysia of the fi lm record ofGemini XT simulation is given in Table X .

26



The Gemin i X umbill'cal w a s terminated early d e s approximatelythinty-three minutes of hatqh-open time. This ear ly terminatii5n w a sattributed to tw o factors ; ( 1 ) dif ficul ties wiCh the qttachment of theex t r aveh j c&r v i s p r pr ior to E V A and (2) an ynusually high expendi-,t u r e of e n e r g y b y th e pilot du ring the Ageqa tether task. T he as t ra -naut &EO noted a continuous tende ncy to float up a n d out of the sp a o e -craft 4 the beginning of the EVA.

Tbe +-&z?iewal of t he S - O O 9 exper iment a n d the handpail erection wentsmooth ly . The first problem encountered was with the installation Q€

*he E V& motion p ictu re camera . This dZicuf ty w as later attributedto a last miqyte change in the design and operation of the bracket .The camera had to be inserted in one orientation to permit a detent tcrmate with anfirotation slot in th e recepbcre . The astr on au t had toexit the hatch to bring his body ovFr and apove the camera receptacleand e xqd a relat ively high pushing force to instdl the camera.Fiquye 4-8 , is a picture showing the ERA subject installing thegarneya duriag the p reflight simy lation.Astronaut Gordon then moved to the area of the Agena tether . H epushed off the hatch and the hatch holding deviFe using a techniquesugges ted by A s t r onau t C er nan , and moved to the docking bar, attempt-iqg first to g r a s p the RCS thrus tera . H is initid p u s h off c a u s e d h iqto float yp above the T D A . Command Pilot Conrad retrieved him by#*$in# him back with the umbilical. H is second t r y at th is movementw a s s u c c e s s f d . F i g u r e 4-9 is a pictorial seapence from the waters imda t iap r un of this qegment of the time line.

Attaching the &en3 tether involved a n unusually high expenditure ofetnerqyn an d the pilot b e c a q e v e r y fat igued and began breathing rapidly,F igure 4-10 is the astronaut '8 heart rate suzd respiration rate during

the E V A . M e q u r e m e n t g of s imi lar par ame ter s were no t mgde durinepthe simulation since the simulation involved only the E R A subject .Figure 4-11 i8 a flight film sequence showing activation of the q ~ q ?te ther . The fol lowing comments by thg com ma nd pilot and the pilotduring the postflight debrieEing de sc rib e the detailed p e rf o rm a n c e .

I

Gordon - n Well, we did get it, and I t r igd to get myself in gost-.tiaq on the spacecraft , as I had done before. I wanted bo usem y leg8 in8fde the dockinq cone tQ help wedge. myaeIfin t her e 4qthat I could have both handa f r e e . B'u t , unfortuhately, this wasngt the cas e .. It didn tt happen this way. I had to use my I&hand and haqg on to the handhold on the le& side and do all thewQrk end attaching this tethep with m y r ight bgnd. p n d t h i s w a ~a monqmental tarjrk as f a r as I was qoncernsd . n

Conrad - * Yes, now let Is atpp dghb these. I had watched yoydo. khils v e r y task in the zepo-g airplane. You could get in thatzero-g airplane and whiatle vp to thgt thing and get yoursel fpprked where you were completely as t r ide it and pull yourselPdown, but,pou never could do that up there. Y Q u w e r e d the



thiqg, an$ you never got your leg8 a& f a r f o r w a r d in the TDAas you did in the zero-g airplane. It j u s t w a sn lt quite the 4arrng

A n d t h e re y o u w e r e , I kep t see ing y ~ uworking away, havingto hang on with yo ur left hand.

Gordon - " T e t h e r i n g w a s d z i c u l t ; it w a s so hard to maintainm y posi tion and work on this thing, that I let m y f e e t f lo at up

p d out of the re and use one of th e handholds and one hand onShe clamp. I-had an awful lot of trouble screwing this clafnPd o w n . E v e r y t ime I tried to tuzm it, it would swive1 on thedocking bar.

Gordon - IIAnyho w, I fina lly got t he clamp on to m y satisfact ioqT h e ' t e t h e r wa s in p lace . There w as one tes t remaining to doup there , and that was to install th e m i r ro r . I took one tug atthe cover that w as ov er that mir ro r , a nd it didn I t give an inch.I j u s t gave it up and said forget it. I came back to the hatch.

Conrad - " T h a t was qui te a jqb gett ing you back t9 the hatch.

You aqked me to do something a couple of t i m e s . I gave youa v e r y light tu$ a n d you started to take of& up a n d a w a y f r o mthe hatoh.

Gordon - Wel l , w e did get back tQ the hatch, and b y t h i s timeI w a s pretty exhausted . We stood ther)e f o r a long time tryingto catch up with eye ryth ing , and the only thing that was rea l l yw ro n g was that I was haviqg trouble with p y r igh t eye . Th i swas mqrely a mat ter of sweat in m y eye, a n d I wa8 havingtrouble seeing out of it. It was actual sweat , a n d , it w as sting-ing m y eye . I w as completely exha usted at the time. I wanted

to get back to that adapter ve ry ba d/ y fo r the nightside pass? butw e talkgd about this and made the decision to ingress rather thanleave me out th er e fo r th e n ights ide p a s s .

Figure k - I 2 is a pic ture of the E R A subjec t performing the Agenatether taqk during the simulation. The E R A aubjec t per formed theq g s n a tether task in a manner completely di@erer)t f r o m bhe pilot. TheF R A subject utilfzed the advantages of opergtion in a weightless envi-

ronzpent to poqition h im se r in an optimum manner relative to the work-site qnd p e r f o rm e d the taqk while maintaining ? single handhold. Abettar method might have included the waist tether restraint techniqueWhi9.h would have allowed the subject to uge both hands . N o undue

effor t was no ted during the simulated perfopmance Qf th i s task . T h ecombination of eqcessive sw eat buildup b y the astronaut and the apparngnt fatigue oau8ed the comm and pilot to termin ate theEVA.

AI! other) assi gne d tasks were acc om plis hed withoub undue dS icu lfy in$he simulation with the exception of the D-16 e x p e r i m e n t . T h e D-16aypqriment hardware is sh o w n in Figure 4-23 . T he subjec t vas me-

uired tg evaluate a cornbination o f restrqined and unrestrained opcrgrhone u t i b h g a t o rq ue les s pow er tool(SPT)to establish man 1s%

28



capability to p e d o r m control led m ain ten an ce t e k s in p l a c e , T h e in i f idbvaluati p w q s scheduled f o r the G T - W E umbilical E V A , but was potaccomp~*shed due to the earJy termination of the miss ion . T he D-16experiment w a s the subject of exten sive stud y and simulation b y theUEiAF-WFAFB.

DfaCicdties wepe encountered in the water simulation due to (1) the

Ip#ioq OE the torque panel relative to the restraints, (2) knee tether@cctivation, and (3 ) the exceseive focce requirement8 of the ( S P T )

tr igger mechanism. Figure 4-14 is a sequence showing the D-16tqa& #uring the water immersion simufat ion. Similar diqicdties didnQt occur in the simulation of the 0-16 in the zero gra vity aircr aft .This di f ference is probably d u e to the relatively lowfidelity of th e h q d -warq in the water simulation. The short duration of th e zero grav i t y

f r o m continuoes application of force on the trigger and due to body.positiop mqintenance.

! parabola, however , pr ob ab ly did not show the diFTiculties re su lt ing

The re su l t s of the Gemini X miss ion pedormance em phas ized the needf o r more extensive simulation by water immersion techniques to devel09

flight hardware configurat ions. Further, it became obvious that as tro --aut training in the water simulation mod e would grea tly benefit missioqpe rfa rm an ce. with this in mind, the NASA scheduled AstronautAldr iq t,v participation in the water immersion simulation of the initialversion of the GT-XU umbilical E V A . Details of the simulation &~rt

of tbe GT-JCU, version 1, were included in the Section dealing with theG T - X simulation due to task similarity.

29



TABLE SI F E M l N l X WATER SIMULATION DATA ANALYSTS P a g e 1'072

c I

TASK

T - 1 7

HHMU-N2-QD Activation

SUBTASK

Initial body positioningeveluation

Movr=m ent

Posit ioning pr i or to T-17placement

T -17 placemen t

Manual deptoyment of T-17panels

Positioning prior toS-10retrieval

S-10 fair ing remova l

S-10 experiment retrieval

Movement - s / c along hand-rail to Qui& DisconnectPanel

Positioning

QD oonnection

Nz valve activated

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIfiTTES.

33a4

20.8

15.'0

6 6 a . 6

5 .0

C0t:rEinEHTS

Subject attempts to find correct handhold positionsF o r approach to S-10 area on ;Agene.

Subject travels a long c ircumferenc eof T D A ,retaining .contact with left hand ,

T-2'7 los t due. to interaction with mockup.

SubJec t recover s T-17 with right hand andplacesexperiment M Agena velcro qetention patch;Le f t handmaihtaining body position during thissubtask .

Subject unfolds experiment manually using righthand to maintain body position. SuIjject securesopen panels to velcro (spring loaded mechanismfo r automatic unfolding panels no toperative)Subject inadver tant ly &ouches faced T-17 whileattempting body positioning.

Subject maintains handhold on lip of docking conethroughout this movement.

Par ,ing velcroed EoE L S S . Subject uses lef thand to maintain contact with Ag en a.

S-10 removedwith left hand and- velcroedtoE L S S . Interaction with T-17 and left side ofsubject Ls body almost Lrees experiment f rom i t svelcroed position.-~~~

Subject pivots on handrail (180°) at QD panel .

Subject . transfers QD hose -&-aft section ofhandrail (threading operation).

Sub j ec t examinw QD a n d ,hosemomentarily beforactivation.



TABLE IR ContinuedI-TASK

HHMU-N2-QD Activation

(ContJ

HHMU-N2-QD Deactivation

P a g e 2 of2.

SUETASK

Movement .- QD panel alonghandrail to s / c

Movement - s / c along hand-?ail taQDpanel

-V2 valve shutoff and QDdlsconnection

Movement - QD panel alonghandrail toward s / c

Positioning '

Movement along haqdrail tos / c . continued

TIMEINTERVAL

(Seconds)

37.5

281

11.4

16.7

12.5

4 1 .7

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

cor;,;IGiEm

Subject again pivots 180" on handrail.

Sub j ec t uses left hand fo r both subtasks .

Subject t rans fer QD hose to leEt hand beforemoving down handra il ,

Subject transfers QD hose back through afkBection of handrhil (unthreading operation).

, .



Whl

~~~~ ~~

1 . M ove to adap te r pig ta i l along adsp t e r hsndrs i l

2 . In se r t umbi l i ca l in to ad3p te r guard

3 . Move to donning stat ion - s tand on foo t ba r

f a c i n g A M U

4 . Pull umbilical taut and i c s e r t i n h2nd b a r ciip

5. Uns tow sn d pos i t i on m i r r o r s

6 . O p e n p e n l i g h t s - sctTJat= and attaoh lights to

7. Cor i cec t black te ther jumper hook t o A M U

handrai l with velcro

ta ther r i n g . U n s t o w te ther bag an d c o n n e c t

b o t h o r a n g e A M U te ther kooks to ri.ng onumbi l ical tether

8 . I n s p e c t A M U

9. I n s p e c t b a t t e r y c a s e s

1 0 . VeriEy R C S shu t -a f f h a n d l e s s t o w e d

11 . U n s t o w a t t i t u d e con t ro l l e r a rm an d check

at t i tude control ler

12. E x t e n d a n d l o w e r c o n t r o l l e r a r m t o f u l l d o w n

posi t ion

13. U n s t o w trans la t i on con t ro l l e r ar m a n d c h e c k

t rans la t i on con t ro l l e r

14 . E x t e n d a n d l o w e r c o n t r o l l e r a r m to f u l l d o w n

posi t ion

15. U n s t o w r e s t r a i n t h a r n e s s , o x y g e n h o s e a n delectr ical umbi l i ca l

16. A t t a c h the f o l l owing i t ems in order to V e l c r o

o n c o n t r o l l e r a r m s

(a) o x y g e n h o s e

( b ) r e s t r a i n t h z m e s s( c ) e lec t r i ca l u m b i l i c a l

17 . R e a d N p r e s s u r e

1 8 . O p e n N 2 v a l v ~

1 9 . O p e n O 2 v a l v e

2 0 . R e a d O 2 m d N2 p r e s s a r c z s

21 . M cde s s lec to r s w i t c h - m m c a !

22 . V e r i f y v o x s w ; t c h - v 3 x

23 . R e l e a s e n o z z l c e x t e n s i o n s

24 . M ain power s w i t c h - o n

25. H 2 0 2 T I M s e l e c t o r s w i t c h - b a c k p a c k u p

2 6 . Tu rn let? 180 and don A M U

27. Pos i t i on te ther to avo id en tang i emsn t

2 8 . V e r i f y s / c PWR l i gh t goes off

29 . Ver i f y ava i lab i l i t y of AM U electr ical rlmbi l ical

2

a n d c h a n g e - o v e r f r o m s / c

30. Test warn ing lights and aud io tone

31. R e a d H 2 0 2 quan t i t y

32 . Connec t and t igh t en res t ra in t

TABLE Ip

GEMINI IX WATER IMMERSION TASK SEQUENCE



TABLE P GEMINI WATER SIMULATION DATA ANALYSIS Page I of 3

wW

TASK

DositioninglRestraint

Work Station Preparation

Positioning/Restraint


PositioninglRestrainf


Communications

PositioninglRestraint


ConKect Black Tether JumperHook to A M U Tether Ring

Cammunications

Uns tow Tether Ba g

Connect Both Orange A M UTether Hooks to Ring onUmbilical Tether

PositioningjRestraint

Inspec t AM U an d Bat tery Case

VeriEy RC S Shut C f f HandlesS t o we d

PositioningjRestraint

SUBTASK

Pull umbilical taut and insertin handbar clip

Uristow left mirror

Posi t ion from left to rightside of work station to deployrightmirror

Urstow right mirror

Position back into footrestraints after mirror task

Unstow penlights

Repositioning umbilical inclip

Repositioning feet in st irrups

Reposition tether bag

Reposition feet in stirrup s

TIMEINTERVAL

(Seconds)

5 . 5

48.4

7.8

12.5

22.2

41.6

11.8

9.3

8.4

25.6

8.7

23.0

86.1

13.1

38.1

33.4

17.0


COhlhlENTS

Tnstructions from C . C .



TABLE -X Cont-'d.Page 2 o f 3

1 TASK

Unstow Attitude Controller A r mand Check Attitude Controller

Communications

Unstow Translation Controller

A r m and Check TranslationController

Communications

Unstow and Attach O2 Hose toVelcro on Controller A r m


Unstow an d Attach ElectricalUmbilical to Vel cro on Control-le r A r m

Communications


Read N z P r e s s u r e


Unscheduled

' Positioning/Restraint

Gpen N2 Valve

. O;?en O2 Valve

I

I

1I!

I

1

SUBTASK

Bo dy positioning of Feet inrestraints

Body positioning

Maneuver to left side of A M L

Bo dy positioning

Pilot reaches around left sidco f AM U

TIMEINTERVAL

(Seconds)

27.5

6. 6

66.4

6.9

31.3

36.5

24.5

25.0

6. 9

8. 4

10.8

3 . 6

6.9

15 .6

53.2

COMMENTS

Zxtend an d lower controller ar m to full down)osition

Txtend and lower controller ar m to full down,osition

Pilot repositions hi s Feet in restraints because hi sbody moveme nts degrade his foot restraint positionduring each task that involves reaching or bendin4

Pilot also appears to be resting here.

Pilot remov es feet from foot st irrups prior tomaneuvering over to read N pres sure .

2

Pilot returns to footstirr ups after reading N2p r e s s u r e

Pi lot pauses to remove debris from frontof hi swork area (floating Velcro strips)

Pilot rea4usts penlight on let? hand ba r

F e e t in restraints at beginnfng of this task butduring taskboth feetcomefree of restraint8


-

D

-



WUI

TABLE X Cont'd.Pa g e 3 OF 3

TASK

Read O2 and N2 Pr e s s u r e s


Switch Mode Selector Swi tchto Manua l and VeriEy V o xSwi tch on


Release Kott le Extensions

Positioninglzestraint

Communications

I\: 0 TIM Selec tor S wi t c hSwitched to Backpack Position

Unscheduled


2. 2

Tu r n Left 180'

Don A M U

Positioning/Restrainf

Ve rif v Availibility OF AMUElectrical Umbilical an d ChangeOver From Spacecraf t to A M UP o w e r

Connect and Tighten Restraint

SUBTASK

5

Position back into stir rup s

Positioning on handbars a n dregaining Feet position inresbraints

Repositioning feet in restraint

Equipment positioning

TIMEINTERVAL

(Seconds)

14.0

16.2

22.5

23.3

15.1

15.7

18.8

2.1

184.4

9.1

26.9

18.1

46.5

120.8

37 . 7

ENVIRONMEWTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

C0IC:LIENTS

Pilot pauses For an air bottle change (surface)

180" turn into A M U (safety precaution)Pilot positions his umbilical and mirror prior to

Pilot backs into backpac k

Pilot positions hi s m i r r o r s to check hi s positionin A M U

Decision mad e at this point in GT-9 flight to aborttask



TABLE

THE EFFECT OF RESTRAINTS ON A M U DONNING

Subtask Time : second

SubtaskFoot

RestraintsStirrupsRestraints

NoFoot

Umbilical In Cllp

4 3 . 441.659.4Penlights

66.068.7132.5Unstow Position Mirrors

87.05.563.9

Connect Tether Jumper 24.5 25.6 25.0

Unstow Tether Bag

35 .O71.5118.8AMU lnspectlon

87.0117.8106.5I

Unstow Left Controller

Unstow Right Controller I 7 2 . 3I 18.027.529.5

i 21.05 5 . 8Unstow & Velcro Electrical 81 0, Connectors 1 77.6

73.3I

I1 l 8 O 0 T u r n I 274.6 7 3 . 4 1 120.0 ,Connect - Tighten Restra ints i 103.7 158.5 148.6



TABLEXU

QUALJTATIVE EVALUATION O F THE EFFECT O F

FOOT RESTR AINTS ON THE A M U DONNING TASK

SUBTASK

UMBILICAL IN CLIP

UNSTOW LEFT MIRROR

REPOSITION

UNSTOW RIGHT MIRROR

UNSTOW PENLIGHTS

UNSTOW TETHER BAG

TETHER HOOK ACTIVATION

A M U INSPECTIONUNSTOW RIGHT ARM

UNSTOW LEFT ARM

OPEN N, AND 0, VALVES

READ PRESSURE GAGES

UNSTOW RESTRAINT BELT

TURNAROUND

.. . .

"=AIDED - DETERED

EFFECT O F

FOOT RESTRAINTS

+

--I

--+-+

+--+-

37



!I

Install EV-4 Camera in Adapter

I

TASK

-

-

1 Move T o A d a p t e r

Rstr ieve and Replace . E V AC a m e r a

ti1

SUBTASH

1. S e c u r e from cockpit

2 . Mount camera

1. E g r e s s h a t c h

2 . Move along handrail to

pigtail

3 . Insert umbilical ih pigtail

1. E g r e s s h a t c h

2 . Remove camera f r omadapter socket

3 . Place in cockpit

4 . Film load

5 . Return to adapter and

replace camera

1 . E g r e s s h at ch

2 . Se cu re l ine and move

along adapter handrail

3 . Position QD f o r c o n n e c itfon

4. Connect QD

C O I I E N T S

9 . 6

43.1

32.5

9 . 6

1 . 7

15.5

60.0

35 .6

9 .6

6.9

7.6

4.8



TABLESm . Con?'d.Page 2 of 31SUBTASK

AM U Donning-XU Codiguration

1.

2.

3 .

4.

5.

6-

7.

8.

9.

10 .

11.

12.

13.

14.

I~

Start with feet in stirrup2to attach umbilical to lefthandbar

Unstow and positionmirrors

Unstow penlights andVelcro to handbars

Connect black tetherhook to AMU tetherring

Unstow tether ba g an dconnecttether hook toumbilical

Veicro tether bag toleft handbar

Inspec t AMU

Inspect RCS handles

Unstow l e f t controllerarm

Unstow right controllerar m

Unstow a d Velcro oxy-

gyn hose

Unstow a n d Velcro

restraint harness

Unstow and Velcroelectrical connector

@en nitrogen valve

1

TIMEINTERVAL

(Seconds)

63.9

132.5

59.4

24.5

106.5

6.7

62.9

55.9

29.5

72.3

34.1

55.6

43.5

18.2

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSQCIATES

COMMENTS



TABLE P: GEMINI= WATER SIMULATION DATA ANALYSIS

TASK

Sequence 1

Sequence 2

Sequence 3

SUBTASK

1 . Standing in hatch

2. Positisn propellant lineback to propellant valveRoute under handrail

3 . Install E V camera inadapter mount. Facecamera forward

4 . Mount Hasselblad onE L S S

1 . Move to spacecraf t nose

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

1.-2.

3.

Unstow spacecraft end ofAgena tether

Loop end over dockingb ar

install on docking barUnstow tether clamp axd

Tighten clamp

Remove and jettisonclamp handle

Install docking ba rmirror

Return to cockpit

Remove E V A camera fo .film change

Remount EVA cameraFacing D-16 area

Plug in HHMU propellamfitting

Page I of 5 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

TIkIEINTERVAL

(Seconds)

224.6

84.2

264.2

75.8

10. g

--

27.9

39.2

21.7

59.6

25.8

Subject dri f t s out of spacecraft during .thismaneuver

Subject ha s extreme difficu lty mounting cam era

Subject is out of spacecraft hatch when he beginstranslating ForwardFilm segment ends as pilot reaches spacecraf tnose . Possibie time e r r o r .

fidelitySubtask omitted in simulation due to low mockup

I f

I f

If

11

Subject comments :#Noproblem u installing mirror



TABLE 11 Cont'd.";equence 4

Page 2 of 5 ENVIRON#E#TAL RLSEARCH ASSOCIATES

. P e r f o r m 0-16 Exper i -ment

A .

B.

C.

D .

E.

F.

G .

H.

Grasp handrail and

position self f o r kneetether attachment

Attach rt. kneetether to handrail

Grasp tool boxhandle, release lockand extend toolboxuntil positivelock isengaged

Open tool box,extend power toolhandle, check it.s w 50 forward andtool in impact mode

Grasp power tool ,tighten instrumentedbolt fo r fiv e (5 )seconds

Un s c r e w in succes 's ion four ( 4 ) work .site bolts

S t o w p o we r t o o l ,turn over worksi tepiate and hand-stadthree (3 ) bolts

Unstow power tool ,reverse s w and

tighten bolts

TIMEIRTERVAL

(Seconds)

11.7

19.a

48.7

12.9

61 - 6

85.0

40.0

Hasselblad carried to 0 - 1 6 areabecause d lo w

fidelity mockup character istics. Unit could notbe detached f r o m ches tpack .

Stowage clip not evaluated because OF s i ze dneutrally buoyant gun. Pilot comments 11 cannotse e clip when knee tethered 11

Subject comments Ittrigger Eorce way too high.. .hand cramps du e to force requi red . 1)



TABLE IX . Coat-'&

TASK

Sequence 4 (cont )

S e q u e n c e 5

Page 3 of 5 ENVIRON#E#TAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

I.

J.

K.

L.

M .

Stow power toolorlid an d removehand tool

Tighten instrumentebolt for f i ve (5 )seconds a n d then

loosen bolt

Stow hand tool intool box

Cetach knee tetherfrom handzail

Remove power tool ,check it on, a n dtool in impact mode

2. R em o ve E V A c a me rafo r f i lm change

3 . Remount E V A camerafacing aft

4 . Evaluate handrails

5 . Remove E V A camerafo r f i lm change

6 . Remount E V A camerafacing forw..lrd

7. Move to adapter

1. Insert umbilical into

~~ ~

adapter guard

2. Photograph adapter

53.3

4 . 2 9

95.8

68. 7

-9.6

14.6

36.9

Su bta sk omitted in simulation. Po we r tool couldnot be stowed because of sizerequi rementsfo rneutral buoyancy.

Subtask omitted in simulation.

If

Subject stops test during this subtask because dexcessive work loads a n d overall inability tocomplete task"due to lo w mockup fidelity (negativebuoyancy of power tool ) .

Subtask omitted in simulation


fl

Subj ect uses' pigtail f or bo dy positioning



ENVIRONHENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

Sequence 5 ( con t ) 3.

4 .

5 .

6.

7.

8 .

9.

10.

1.

I2 .

3.

64 *

I

Clear adapter of debris

A!tach restraint system

Open tunnel door andVelcro in place

Unstow HHMU N2 line

Connect HHMU to N 2line

Unstow HHMU an dVelcro to E L S S

Attach camera lanyardto E L S S ring

Remove camera pip-pin

and Velcro to ELSSUnstow ..4pollo cameras

Close tunnel d o o r

Remove umbilical fromguide

Open N2 valve on adaptel

Sequence 6 1. M o v e to cockpit

2 . Hand cameras f r o mE L S S

3 . Mount re tro adaptercamera facing forward

-10.4

26.3

7 . 1

35.0

1 6 . 7

--94.2

42.1

4 . 8

2.9

1 6 . 9

167.9

34.1

Subtask omitted in simulation.

Subject unable to fully evaluate E o a t restraints du e'0 improper f i t (under size restraints ) .


If

Revelcro curtain

Subject comments that mirror was used toadvadage in checking chestpack, umbilical andfee t .



TABLE R Cont'd. Page 5 of 5 HIVIROWPE#TAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE)

TASK

-Zequence 7

i WETASK

I

I I

II I. Move to nose of s / c

I 2* m i m o rJettison docking bar

Sequence 8 1.

2.

- 3.

4 .

5 .

I 6 *I

i

Return to adapter

Turn off IfN2" shut-offvalve

Bleed off propellant inH H M U with short thrustwhile holding on to theadapter handrails

Unplug th e HHMU p r o -pellant fitting

Move toward hatch

Retrieve E V camera and

hand to cmd. pilot(disconnect electrical andcontrol cable fromcamera first)

1

I

40 . 7

5 . 1

97.9

2.9

~~

14.4

2.0

41.0

18.2 En d of film



".

. .

F ig u re 4 - I GE MIN I X UOCKUP CONFIGURATION

~i~~~~ 4 - 3 A S T R O N A U T CE RNAN AT UMBILICAL PIGTAIL

AREA

" . . . --

F ig u re 4 - 2 GEMINI IX MOCKUP CONFIGURATION

. g m 4 - 4 AS T RONAUT CE RNAN UNSTOWING AM U CONTROLLERARMS

46



F l q u r e 4 - 5 AS T RONAUT IN FOOT STIRRUP RESTRAINT SYSTEM Flgure 4 - 6 SUBJECT U S I N G NEUTRALLY BUOYANT TORPUELESS

P O W E R T O O L

Figure 4 -7 D - 16 EXPERIMENT STOWAGE AREA Figura 4 - 6 RETRO ADAPTER CAMERA INSTALLATION

47



Figure 4 - 9 M O V E M E N T S E O U E N C E F R O M S P A C E C R AF T HATCH

T O A G E N A

48



Flqurr 4-11 AOENA TETHER TASK IN ORBIT

50



F l q u r c 4 - 1 2 SIWLATED A S € W TETHER TASK

F i g u r e 4-13 D - 16 EXPERIMENT HARDWARE

51



Flqure 4 - 1 4 W A T E R SIMULATION OF 0-16 E X P E R I ME N T

52



5 . 0 - G E M I N I Xn

5;l : G E N E R A L

~___"Geminlf-XU Orbital Mission Data - Data received f ro m th e standup andumbilical E V A periods of the Gem ini XU f l ight include a transcript ofthe continuous onboard voice rec ord and ten separate film sequencestotalling approximately 16.5 minutes out of the one hundred twenty sixminutes of umbilical E V A . This includes a 1 = 5minute segment fromthe firdt standup E V A . T h e r e w a s n o f i lm c o v e r a g e o f w o r k in theAdapter Sect ion due to the fai lure of the portable camera . Conse-quently, all flight fil m relates to wor k on the spacedra f t nos e or at theA g e n a work station.

The onboard voice record , t h e r e f o r e , f o r m s t h e only complete recordof the G T - X l umbilical E V A . The only dificiencie s in this recorda r e d u e to time lo ss es related to tape changes . Where possible, the

film was com pare d with the voice transcript and these tape changeintervals were determined

T h e first iteration of the time line from the voice record of the flightw as made from the transcr ipt of the original onboard tapes. This w assupplemented by analysis of the actual onboard ta pe s by E R A personnel .

o f th e ta pes in coqjunction with continuous cornparison of thevoice tapes from the preflight water immersion simulation made i€ p o s s -ible to fill in all time line "gaps 11 e

Th e Iack of contihuous flight film and the original di scr ep an cie s in the voice transcript, made it ne ce ssa ry to use th e preflight simulation

a s t h e ba se line of information fr o m whkih to construct the first i tera-

flight time line, This analys is required a complete understanding ofhe movement a n d activities of the pilot d u r i n g the simulations in o rd e ro visualize consis tent performance in spac e. Applying this knowledgeo the voice record and the fi lm s equences from spa ce, an overall

of the actrtal umbilical E V A w as cons tructed. Idormat ionm th e two complete preflight simulation r u n s and f r o m the partial

ight evaluation r u n aided im m ea su ra bly in the rationalization ofancie s betw een the original iterations of flight and pr dl ig ht and

sic flight plan data.

a flight plan was used to coordinate the E V A work and res t

the preflight simulation ta sk s, the actual written planid not serve as the bas i s for the t ime line comparisons . In effect,he entire f inal preflight simulation time line be cam e the flight pla n.

53



Flight F i l m S e q u e n c e s - Although the visual quality of the G T - X iq-f l ight f i lms w as excel len t , the perspect ive from which the film w astaken in combination with the shadowing effects in space made detailedanalysis of the flight film vez-y difficult. I n m a n y hstances cr i t ica l taskelement took place completely in sh a d o w , therefore making detailedvisual analysis impossible . Analysis of specific body movements , e s -pecially for the arm and handsis not possible in at least 50% of the

f i l m . E v e n g r o s s t a s k identification pr ov ed difficult in s o m e p a r t s Q fth e fi lm , and was resolved by repeated view ing and comparison withsimilar preflight simulation films. Detailed com par ison of individualt a s k s w e r e , h o w e v e r , m a d e on a f ra me b y f r a m e b a s i s . T h e h a n d -rai l erect ion is the mos t rea dily identif ied se qu en ce . This se q u e n c ewas not par t of the umbilical E V A but wa s pe rfo rm ed ina p r i o r s e g -ment of the standup E V A . T h e se c o n d se q u e n c e , m o v e m e n t from th ehatch area to the spacecraf t n o se and T D A i n te r fa c e , is also easi lyidentified and analyzed. S u b se q u e n t task se q u e n c e s c a n only be identi-f i e d when a thorough acqua intance with the particular tasks is obtained.A s e c o n d m o v e m e n t se q u e n c e , from the spacecraf t ha tch to the A g e n qwork station (after a d a p t e r w o r k se s s i o n ) , is the only other readi ly

identifiable sequence.

It should be noted that the camera posi t ion in spa ce does not co rr e -spond with camera posi t ions in the water or aircraft simulations. bhiafact contributes to the dHiculty of direct compariaon of the flight filmtasks . W a t e r im m er sio n simulation f i lm s take advantage of optimumcamera location for task analys is e.g . , perpendicular to the space-cr& longitudinal axis. T he portable E V A c a m e r a w a s located on asemi-f ixed connector on the spacecraf t retro-adapter sect ion near there tro separat ion plane during the flight. This pos ition could be readi lyr e a c h e d b y the pilot standing in the spacecraf t hatch. The camera wa8aligned parallel with the longitudinal axis of the spa cec raft allowingc o v e ra g e of astronaut movement forward of th e re t ro -adap ter . Th u sthe basic diEference is a 90' axis variation in camera posi t ions be-tween the wa ter and spa ce f i lms . Al so , fo r th e w a t e r i m m e rs i o nsimulation the c a m e ra is, in ef fe c t , looking dow n on th e primary vehioleworking areas from above the astronaut . B y rotating the axis of p e r vspect ive it was determ ined that body positions and mo vem ents in thesimulation and in the actual flight corresponded v e r y closely .

T he initial m ov em en t fro m th e sp ac ec ra hatch along the portablehandrail is an example of the similarity of motion between the spaceand water. As t ro n a u t Aldr in p e r f o rm e d a 180' turnaround on the

handrail at the end of this movement . The flight film shows this turn-around to be in the opposi te direct ion. When comparing the sequencesf r o m beginning to e n d of this initial tra ns lat ion , the movements appearto be almost identical in both time and body posi t ion . The water simu-lation turnaround made in the opposite direction appears a s a m i r r o rimage of the actual flight turnaround. Figure 5-1 , a comparativese q u e n c e of the fl ight , wa ter, and aircra ft modes , demonstrates ingreater detail the similarity in t h e se m o v e m e n t se q u e n c e s .

54



e ma'or advantage derived from analys is of the fi lm w as the capa?ity to com pare the kinem atics of the tasks with s imilar film recordam t he water immersion simulat ion. This com par ison had aided in

the correlation of water immersion simulation to the space

Simulation - P r i o r t G the Gemini XU mission water immersion

ation ru ns of th e umbilicalE V A t a s k s w e re p e r f o rm e d at t he Re se a rc h Assoc ia tes w at er simulation faci l i ty. The

o f this s imulation w e r e : ( I ) to provide the E V A astronaut time training a n d (2) to orga niz e and validate

final flight time line plan.

continuous film and voice reco rd wa s ma de of the last two pref l igh t T h e s e f i n d r u n s , s u b s e q u e n t l y re f e r red to a s P r e -

I a n d Preflight Z, were intended to be accurate rehearsals of orbital E V A mission plan. Af ter the Gemini XlI miss ion ,

to E R A to perform a posff l ight evaluation his E V A . Continuous film and voice recorck were made of this

T he po sff l ig ht evaluation run permit ted the astronaut to certain of the ta sk s in m or e detail than w a s allowed in

d u e to time constraints. Further, the astronaut evaluated s e v - other close ly rela ted tasks which were not included in the GT-XH

complete film and vo ic e r e c o r d s were made on the Gemini XlT water immersion simulat ions, the fi lms w er e edited pr io r to The loss of th is edited portion complicated the film analysiB

T o reconstruct the complete time line, the voicewas compared to the film in or de r to identify the areas wheye

Tape change intervals did not affect this time comparison since they did not normally coincide with fi lm b re a k s .

X details the resul t s of this preflight film-voice comparison. final iteration all legitimately identified time losses a re inc luded ,

time discrepancies are noted.

t imes the astronaut I s body posi t ion restricted view of his hands working on a w or k station ta sk . N o ser ious prob lem s in task

encountered during film analysis , however .y / ca m er a posi tion co d ic ts mentioned above degraded the visual

of the 'Eine hand m ov em en ts and ope ratio ns associated withe wo rk station ta sk s. A synchronized voice transcript was used to

quest ionable areas.

sk pe r fo rm an ce do es not p r ec i se l y coincide withits verbal descr ip- w a s t rue throughout the GT-Xl I preflight simulations.

e x a m p l e s w er e .the scheduled res t periods , wherein the astro- prev ious w o rk ta sk s while commenting that he w a s

Be c a u se o f th i s , fi lm a n d voice time lines were constructed The time variations between film and voice data in the

55



success ive i tera t ions , in general , support the rationale for data s e p -aration for initial iterations. Since the f i lm w as used as the true indlcator of task t ime durat ion, discrepancies were recon ciled in the f inditeration time line with the data fr om th e voice record serv ing main lyto pr ov id e continuity andfine level details.

F i g u re 5-2 is a continuous pictorial sequence of the simulation time

line including the handrai l erect ion sequence of the E V A . T h i s t a skwas included in the water immersion simulation to s e r v e a s a stan-dard ized refere nce poin tand t o prov ide an ex t ra measureof pract icef o r t he astronaut.

I n o r d e r that a high fidelity simulation be maintained, the handraile rec t ion task w a s p e r f o rm e d separa te from the umbilical E V A timeline. The pilot, standing in the hatch, deployed the handrail , markingthe star t and fin ish of this tas k on the voice tape. A t the end of thistask the command pilot initiated the start of the umbilical E V A t imel ine . The umbilical E V A simulation commenced with the standup famil-iarization task.

A i rcr a f t Ze ro Gr av i t y S imu la tion- A limited portion of t h e w o r k p e r -formed dur ing aircra f t zero gra vity simulation pr og ra m on the Geminiumbilical E V A has be en suppl ied to E R A b y N A S A - M S C f o r p u r -p o s e s of cross-corre la t ion of simulation mode. These simula t ionswe re ve ry us e fu l in de termining the fine hand tas k details su ch as thehook and ring connections, the waist tether con nec tions , and operationinvolving Velc ro handhol.Js and p ip pins . The pref l igh t redesign of thepip pin s ser ves as a good example of the utility of t he zero grav i t yaircra f t s imulation. P r io r to aircraf t evaluat ion the pip pins, Figure 5w e r e f r e e t o rotate in th e socke t s . T h e aircra f t o b se rv e r s de termined

that if the pip pins were allowed to rotate freely , serious interact ionswith free tethers could O C C U P . The update version employed an anti-rotation p i p pin design. Comparison of the available results of the air-craft simulation with water imm ersion and spac e per formance is madea s applicable.

General Configuration of the Umbilical E V A - The sta ted purpose of

the tasks comprising the Gemini X U umbilical E V A was to determineth e ef f ec t i veness of various restra in t modes on Z V A p e r f o r m a n c e .T he speci f ic nature of th e tas ks and the restraints related to futuremissions configurat ions such as A A P . S ince G e m in i signiEied atemporary hal t to E V A experimentation, the intent of the E V A w a s t o

y ield an sw er s to a broad as poss ib le spec t rum of represen ta t i vef u t u rE V A t a s k s .

F igure 5 - 4 is a functional flow diagram of the major task events OP

the Gemini X U umbilical E V A . Although there were minor variationsbetween the pr efli gh t simulation and the flight per for ma nce the mw'ortask sequence remained unchanged. Water imm ers ion simulation w a sinstituted to quantitatively determine the time line, to assess the levelsof energy expend i ture requ i red to per form the time line and to sp ec if ythe durat ion and frequency of rest periods in order to maintain e n e rg yexpenditures at acceptable levels .

56



per for med was s tandup familiarization. T h k t a s k waB to further evaluate the free f loat tendencies experienced on

and to prepare the as tronaut for the umbilical E V A . I d o r m a wfrom prev ious E V A r s sugg ested that a familiarisation period hav-

minimum work le ve ls could better introduce the astronaut to hisw environment. The astronaut w as also to evaluate the cooling e f -

of the E L S S at this time. The astronaut w as then required to

a 16 mm motion picture camera on the retro- to th e A g e n a te ther tas k . Several at tachment mode@ evaluated; ( 1 ) attachment while standing in the spacecraft

by the command pilot, ( 2 ) attachment while standing in the unres t ra ined , and ( 3 ) attachment while outside the hatch.

the camera placement evaluation, the astronaut was to pr o - down the handrail to the nose of the sp ac ec ra ft, evaluating teth-

dynamics along the way. The astronaut w as then to connect the te ther . This te ther w a s a 100 foot long, 2 inch nylon web

conn ected on one end to the A gena vehic le . T he free end of

tether termin ated in a multi-strand cable loop, which was to be

the docking bar by th e astronaut during the EVA.e loop was loc ked onto the docking bar b y the handhold clamp

5-5 . The as tronaut was to per form th i s task whilga n d docking lip by waist te thers . The

tether task w as subs tant ial ly the same as the one which proveddifficult on Ge min i XI. The as tronaut was to activate the S-010

experiment from this posit ion. This task was similar previous discuss ion of G T - X .

was then to move to the adapter and pe rfor m the adap-work s tat ion tasks . T h e p u r p o s e of the work tasks w as to evalu-

the effect iveness of the two restraint mode s in per form ing variouB

The subtasks inc luded: ( 1 ) evaluation of tw o types of (nylon, stainless steel) , ( 2 ) operation of various electrical and

( 3 ) evaluation of cutting type tasks and ( 4 )rf or m an ce and evaluation of torquing opera tions. While in the adap-

the astronaut w a s also to evaluate sui t mobility characteristics.e astronaut w as then to proceed to the Agena work s tation to p e r-

of s imi lar ta sk s evaluating teth ered versus untethered mode . The subtasks included: (1) fluid connector operationt

) evaluation of portable Velcro handholds and p ip pin restraint an-(3) evaluation of the Apollo torque wre nch and torquing

throughout the time line w er e a number of camera acti- changes as well as eleven, two-minute duration res t

Following 'the Agena work tasks the astronaut w as to r e - to the hatch and in g r e s s, ending the umbilical E V A . T h e p e r -

in space and the simulations closely followed this format with minor changes. The following sec tion s detail th e per for mance in

well as in the simulations.

57



.B - T I M E L I N E C O M P A R I S O N - A detailed analysis OE the orbi5 1 and simulation time lin'es was per formed to determine areas of sirnlarity and dissimilarity in task time a n d astronaut motion. Tables X,X,and ZX presen t the resu l t s of the final iteratioq of the time linesf o r t he water immersion simulation, the fligh t and the aircraft simula-tion, and details the task per formance tim es and the task descript ion.Speci f ic comments are made to indicate anoma lies or per t inen t obs er -va t ions . Sequences of se lec ted tasks are give n in Figu re 5-1, c o m -paring the flight, water simu lation, and aircraft simula tion on a f ivesecond increment basis . Figure 5-2, a continuous sequence of theXU time line for the w at er simulation and Fi gu re 5-6 , a continuouss equence of the flight,rarepresented for r e f e r e n c e p u r p o s e s . T h e s e -quences :comprise pictur es on a 30 second increment basis . Figureis a similar sequence of the available film from the zero gravi ty a i r -craf t simulation .Handrail Deployment - Handrail deployment was not an element of theumbilical E V A . T h i s tas k w a s per formed dur ing the first standupE V A per iod . Since un de rw ate r- s imulation pre sen ted an excellen; mode

to evaluate this ta sk , and bec aus e th e s ucces s of handrail erection waconsidered critical to the overall umbilical E V A , a handrail erections equence w a s per for med at the beginning of each prefl ight water simu-lation film. A comparat ive film sequence is shown in Figu re 5-1. T hf l ight sequence is show n in the upper line. Directly below this is thes e q u e n c e fr om the water imm ersion and zer o gravi ty aircraf t s imula-t ion runs ,

Astronaut Aldrin began handrail deployment at an elapsed time ( G E T )of 20:27:24, immediately following the adapter handrail deployment .The erect ion task las ted 115 s e c o n d s . T h e s a m e tas k per for med inthe w ate r simulation lasted 145 seconds . The m otio ns in both mo de s

w er e ver y s imi lar . Th e t ime di f f erence is attributed to difficulties indeploying the telescoping sections of the handrail in the water simulation.

S i n c e th e handrail ta sk duration exceeded the time duration of one p a rbola in the zero gravi ty aircraf t (approximately 30 s e c o n d s ) , it is d i f -f icult to co m pa re aircraCt simulation data. A n interruption in the taskis noted on the original film. Th e total task t ime f o r handrail erectionin the zero gravi ty aircra f t app ears to be 4 0 s econds . Th i s fo l lowsthe norm al pat tern zero gravi ty task per forman ce in aircra f t vewater simulation. It w as fou nd that in m ost cases the task time tendsto be markedly de cre ase d in aircraft simulation o ve r actual pe rfo rm an

o r w at er s imulation. Th is m a y be due to the psychological factor thata zero grav ity para bola gives only limited t ime to accomplish a task.The mor e famil iar a subject is with this simulation mode, the less th isfac tor tends to be a prob lem with prop er task plann ing. Pilot Ald rincommented that the handrail erectiQn was Ifquite easy I f in both simula-tion modes and was equa l l y ea sy in f light . I n a postflight debriefing,Aldr in descr ibed his mo vem ents in performing this erection task inorbit.

Standup Familiarization - T h e first major umbilical E V A task w asstandup familiarization. The object of th is task w as to give the pilot

58



time to a a u s t to his new environment . The only w o rk tasks schedulecjduring this familiarization w e re subjective evaluations, which requiredsmal l phys ical exer t ion. The major i ty of the t ime during this taskcould therefore be used b y the astronau t in "getbing th e fee l?? of theumbilical E V A made .

Th e pre vio us s tandup E V A had provided Pilot Aldrin with an excel-

lent introduction to the E V A environment. Aldrin' commented on theuse fu lness of this first standup E V A in a postflight debriefing.

A ldr in - n I w a s quite thankful that w e did have the standupE V A first because it ga ve me an opportunity to see jus t howsmal l the forces were that were required to get the body mov-ing. I 'm s u r e a lso that having this standup E V A f irst , with itasmal ler pr io rity than the umbilical E V A , tended to have slightlylower psychological ef fect i f there real ly was any in te rm sof

effecting a n y mental tension or som ethi ng that might have impairedthe activi ty o r changed heart rates .. .

"Irm glad that we did that one first instead of the other one.It put me in mu ch better shape because then I could devote allm y attention t o the particulars of the umbilical E V A when thatcame u p . . . 1'

A short umbilical attached dir ec tly to the suit int&e sy st e m was utilizedduring the s tandup E V A . This ef fect ively tethered th e pilot to thespacecraft cockpit and limited his movements . The long umbilicalchanged the pilotrs configuration considerably. His overall volume in-creased with the addition of the chestpack ( E L S S ) , and his freedomof movement was extended to the length of umbilical. B e c a u se of

these va riatio ns, it wa s fel t that another familiarization period was

n e c e ss a ry to ailow the pilot to orient himse lf to this ne w codigurat ion.Standup familiarization apparently accomplished this objective. A 11 indi-cations show that Astronaut Aldrin was both physically and p sycho log-ically prepared as he mo ved into the subsequent t ask l ine.

Aldrin's orbital standup familiariza tion included an evaluation of f r e efloating dynamics and E L S S outflow characteristics. Th e total ta skinterval was 100 seconds . In his pref l ight water simulat ion, Aldr in'spent only 50 seconds on th is same task. The mqjor i ty of this taskt ime wa s utilized f o r the f r e e floating dynamics evaluation, since theE L S S mockup in the water was of low fidelity.

Aldr in first attempted to release hi s hand grip and evalua te a n y r e -sulting fo r c e s . Regaining his hand hold position , the pilot attempted tochange his positions with minor hand m ov em en ts noting an y part icularforces involved . Aldr in Is orbital dynamics evaluation was simi lar tohis preflight evaluation, excep t that he did not have a com ma nd pilot inthe wa ter simulation to steady his position with th e leg tether , Fig-u r e 5-8 . While the pilot evaluated f r e e floating dyna mics in orbit,the command pilot rel ea sed his hold on the leg tether .

59



I._.. . I ,

,..., ,,.... , ... - - .

The SLSS ou fflow evaluation w a s a simulated maneuver in the waterand , in e f f e c t , A l d r i n passed over this subtask completely in the simu-lation. This explains the dif ference in t ime between the orbital andsimulation evaluations. N o aircraft data oli atandup familiarization waBavailable. I n the postf l ight debrief ing, Aldrin indicated that the dyna-mics evalu ations are not particularly suited for aircra f t zero grav i tysimulation due to aircraft perturbations.

A ldr in - ItIn the ze ro g airplane, it is extremely difficult to at-tain this pur e zero g a n d w e n e v e r r ea l l y k n o w w h e t h e r w e ' r eworking against a small perturbation in th e aircraf t trqjectory orwhether this is an actual re sp on se that we have . 11

Immediately following the standup familiarizat ion period, the commandpilot requested that Aldrin r es t . T h i s p r o c e d u r e w a s a variation fromthe simulation time line. During the preflight simulation, the pilot beganthe retro-adapter camera placement immediately after his standup famil-iarization. The first two minute rest per iod w as sch ed ule d in thewater simulation following the evaluation OE the methods of camera place-

m ent .Aldr in 1s first orbital E V A rest period lasted 52 s e c o n d s . H e c o m -mented that this rest did not see m ne ce ssa ry s in ce no rea l acti vity hoccurred dur ing his familiarization period. A t this point the rest per iodwas cut shor t a n d the pilot began the camera placement evaluation.I n the postflight debriefing, Command Pilot Lovell commented on thisres t per io d and the overal l res t schedule .

Lovell - "O u r t ime l ine fo r the umbilical E V A was ba sed on theones w e ha ve done in the water . We allowed eight minutes f o rthe unlatching of the spacecraft hatch to the final jettisoning of thewaste po uc h, and the pilot getting up a n d outside the hatch bystanding up. W e were actually very conse rvative on the timeand completed this prior to the eight minutes we allowed. It( the f irs t r e s t p e r i o d ) w a s j u s t too soon. T h e w a y we managedto hit the proper hatch opening tim e, and be r e a d y at the sametime, didn I t allow u s to sit around. W e weren I t rushed duringthe umbilical E V A preparat ion. O f course, the E V A w a s d e -signed to get the most out of basic E V A with res t pe r io ds to

anticipate any problems which we might enco unter . We took theres t per iods as they c a m e along , ho we ve r, it w as getting obviousto me that res t per iods w h ich we had allotted w ere ei ther too

long or too f r equent . We managed to stay on the time line throug hout the ent ire umbilicalE V A .

Th e fir s t orbital res t per iod, elapsed time1 :52 (0:00 elapsed time isset at the start of standup familiar izat ion f o r com para t ive purp oses) ,came before the elapsed time of the f irs t sched uled rest perio d of thepreflight simulation (4:35). During the preflight simulation, the firstres t per iod w a s inter rupted by an optical su rf a c e evaluation. Al dr in

60



attempted to clean the command pilot's hatch window using a wipercloth located in a pouch on his low er leg . Th e optical su rfa ce eval-uation lasted 55 seconds, separating the two segments of the first60 second rest per iod . A similar optical surface evaluation, alsolasting 55 s e c o n d s , w a s p e r f o r m e d at an elapsed time of l l 2 : l 5 inthe orbital E V A . A poss ible reason for this change in sch ed ule w asthe concer n over adher ence to the planned time line. T h e optical s u r -

face task w as cons idered of secondary imp ortan ce and was placednea r the end of the umbilical E V A time line so that it could be omitted,iE the mission fell behind the time line sch ed ule .

Camera Placement Evaluation - Immediately following standup familiar-ization in the simulation time line and following the first orbital restperiod, Pilot Aldrin evaluated various placement techniques for theE V A I 6 mm motion picture camera. During this camera placementevaluation task, Aldrin attempted to determine the best body configu-ration for c a m e r a installation and positioning. F ig u re s 5 - 9 and 5-20show two body posi t ions evaluated during the preflight simulation.Aldr in descr ibes the task in his posfflight debriefing and com me nts on

i ts purpose.

Aldr in - nWe had three dif ferent ways of mounting the camera .T he firs t tw o w er e essen t ia l l y the s a m e a s the standup E V A .I w as re al ly still inside the cockpit. The nex t one , I w a s c o m -pletely out and switched over to having the right hand on thehandrail and the left hand taking th e ca m er a off and then putting'it back in . This w as quite a di ffe rent method o f putting it in thanthe other two. It required the use of one hand and a little bitof torquing opera tion with that hand to get the came ra into po si-tion and put it on down. But, again, this didn I t appear to beany real difficulty. Th e thing w e are trying to find out is , ingoing back and f or th putting th e camera up and taking it d o w n ,did you want to go through the procedure of getting back in theh a t c h , a s fa r a s y o u r f e e t g o , a n d using the left hand on theseat to p u t the camera in , or could you do this in p as si ng ?Could you stop there and put it up? If you could, then you mghbbe able to save a little bit of time. 1'

Comparison of the simulation and orbital data indicate s that it did notmatter whether the pilot wa s ins ide or outs ide of the spacecrd cockpi t ,or whether his legs were res trained or unres trained. A s long a6 +handhold could be maintained to counteract reactions created during

camera attachment, the task was not diEficult.Following camera placement evaluation, Pilot Aldrin began his secondorbital res t per iod . A t an elapsed time of 6:54 , Aldr in is lagging thepreElight w ate r simulation time dine b y 139 s e c o n d s . T h e f i r s t r e s tand the longer standup familiarizat ion and cam era place me nt tasks ac-count for th is time lag. This second orbital rest per iod cor r es pondsto the first rest period in the water simulation.

61



Aldrin posi t ioned his bod y out&de the spacecr& coc kpitt, and beganthis res t holding on with both hands to the portable handrai l . Thiswas the same position used in the prdl ight water simula t ion . Fig-u r e 5-12 shows the posi t ion Aldyin assumed in the water simulation.T he p ilot stated during this rest period in orbit that he had to get pro-

p e r pos ition and Ithold onto something 11 to res t . T h e same situationwas noted during the preflight simulation. The first rest in the watersimulation lasted 65 sec on ds and w as interrupted by the optical su rf ac eevaluation. The second rest period in flight lasted 103 s e c o n d s . T h eoptical surface evaluation was postpon ed until m uc h lat er in the flight.The original flight plan called f o r rest pe rio ds of tw o minute duration.Most rests in both orbital and preflight simulation modes did not attainthis scheduled length.

B e f o r e m oving f o rw a rd to th e sp a c e c ra f t no se , Pilot Aldrin extendedthe umbilical out of the cockpi t. I n orb i t , Aldrin w as ass isted in thismaneuver by his c o m m a n d pilst . The task w as initiated at an elap sedt ime of 8:37, and requ ired 65 seconds to comple te . Dur ing the pre-

flight water simulation, Pilot A ld ri n had to simulate the extension sincethe umbilical was already out of th e cockp i t . Thi s w a s n e c e s sa ry b e-c a u se of the construction of the mo cku p umbilical and si nc e the com-mand pilot was not in the spacecraf t mockup . The low fidel i ty of

these important hardware elements caused the actual orbital ta sk lineto slip farther behind its mission time schedule.

Movement to the T D A - Movement along the spa cec raft began at 9:47( E T ) in the flight. Aldrin 1s objective was to move from the hatcharea up the portable handrail and position himself on the handrail atthe spacecrat l no se and Agena target docking a da pte r ( T D A ) i nt er -f a c e . T h e m o v e m e n t re q u i r e d 4 1 - s e c o n d s . F i g u r e 5-1 sh o w s th e

comparison sequences of this movement f o r the flight and pre flightw ate r and aircraEt simulations . T h e m o v e m e n t ta sk in the preflightwater simulation lasted 31 seconds and 8 .1 sec ond s in the aircratlsimulation. This movemen t is equivalent to an average velocity of

0.16 R / s e c f o r the flight, 0.22 f % / s e c f o r the water simulation, and0.64 f t /s e c fo r th e aircraEt simulation.

This part icu lar movement taskis ver y use fu l fro m the standpoin tof

motion analysis. A ll three modes yielded excellent film coverage ascan be seen f rom the pic tor ia l sequences . Aldrin made a 180" t u r n -around during this forward transla t ion. I n his orbital E V A , Aldr in

made this turnaro und in the opposite direction fr o m thatof

the p r e -flight training session. W h e n viewing these fi lms together , the tw omodes are kinematically identical. The small time ditferences betweenthe wa ter simulation and the f l igh t performance are proba bly due to theastronaut 1s analytical evaluation of movement in sp ace . T h e l a rg e dif-f e rence b e t w e e n th e aircart3 translation time interval and both orbitaland water modes substant iates the premise that ma ny tas ks ar e "h ur -ried f t due to the zer o gra vity par ab ola tim e limitations.

Rest Evaluation on Wais t Te thers - The astronaut completed this for-ward movement b y attaching his waist tethers in prepara t ion for a rest

62



later in the mis sion . Adthough th e decking bar w as also to aerve a sa handhold position, Pilot Aldrin later decided that the clamp w as notoperating properly, and discarded this use s o as no t to jeopardize thesubsequent tether experiment . The com pariso n dsequences f o r the tetheractivation task are s h o w n in Fi g u re 5-1.

Activation of the Agena tether be ga n at an elapsed time of l2:23 in

flight a n d lasted 140 seconds . In the water sim ula tio n, activation ofthe Agena tether began at 8:57 ( E T ) and took 100 s e c o n d s . T h eAg e n a te th er activation req uire d 40 s e c o n d s m o re in flight than thes a m e tas k in the water simulation. This may be explained by threecharacter i s t ics . First, installing the docking bar clamp, the pilotremoved a smal l tw o foot length reta iner tether from this unit. T hi ste ther wa s not re m ov ed in the preflight .water simula t ion . Second,Aldrin found the Iftoadstool f f atop the docking bar loose when attachingthe docking bar clam p in Plight. H e paused for a shor t t ime to eval -uate this problem. No read delay w a s c a u se d he re , and the looseIItoadstool f I p o se d n o ser ious p ro b l e m . Third ly , w h e n Aldr in b e g a n

th e Ag e n a te ther ta sk , both he and Com man d Pilot Loveld noticed thatfas t m o v e m e n t af f ec ted th e Ag e n a sp ac ec ra ft stability. T o eliminatethis prob lem, the pilot delib era tely slowed down his movements . Thisthird factor probably accounts for the entire variat ion. The activationtask requ i red 35 seconds in the aircraf t simulat ion. Because of thelength of this task and the brok en f i lm sequ ence s receiv ed from thissimulation, it is difficult to determine an exa ct time interval . However ,it can be see n in the film that this task appeared to be rushed duringthe airc raft simulation mo de.

S-010 - A t the completion of the Agena tether ta sk in flight, anotherc h a n g e o c c u r re d . Before moving to the S - 0 1 0 e x p e r i m e n t , As t ro -

naut Aldrin began a rest period at 15:52 ( E T ). The third orbitalrest period was the first t o reach the fu l l scheduled time duration oftw o minu tes . T h e rest period lasted 127 seconds and was p re c e d e db y a 38 second rest preparat ion . During the preparat ion , Aldrinaltered his tether placement so that he would be in the best position toimmediately activate the S-010 after h i s r e s t . I n the preflight watersimulation, Aldrin did not take this rest period . Fol lowing the Agenatether activation, the pidot mo ved imm ediately into position to activate theS-010 experiment at 12:32 ( E T ) .

S-010 activation was simulated in the water time line because of lowfideli ty mockup characterist ics . Aldrin spent 55 seconds reaching the

positions that he cons idered n e c e s sa ry f o r S-010 activation. The in -terval, h o w e v e r , w a s not readistic. T h e actual orbital s-010 activa-tion lasted 219 seconds . Aldrin experienced minor posit ioning difficultiee,but no ma,jor pr ob lem s oc cu rr ed in his orbital activation.

In Figure 5-16 , the S-010 is seen fully deployed on t h e T D A . A

comparison sequence of S-010 activation in flight a n d in the water simu-lation is presented in Figure 5-1 .

64



T h e addition of a rest period after the Ag ena tethe r task in the orbitaE V A and the fact that the S-010 waaS sim ula ted in the preflight waterE V A caused fur the r deviation fr o m the planned time dine. Up on com-pletion of the s-010 activation in flight, Aldrin repo sitione d hi's te th er sin p r e p a r a t i o n fo r th e T D A w op k station se tu p t a s k . T h e same tether,repos i t ion ing task w as perform ed in the prefl ight w ate r simulation at13:27 ( E T ) . This repositioning task took 40 seconds in orb i t . Dur-

ing this t ime, he moved from the S-010 position on the Agena to theT D A w o r k station a r e a . A t the end of the repositioning task in thes imula t ion , Aldr in removed the Velcro protec t ion covers from the workstation area. Th i s increased the t ime req uire d fo r prepara t ion to

75 s e c o n d s .

-T D A- .."Wo-rk- Station Prepara.tion - Aldrin imm ediately began the initialportable handhold and pip pin plac em ent in flight. T h e initial setuppreparation took 66 s e c o n d s . - Aldrin comm ents on the purpose 02 thistask in his debrief ing.

A ldr in - "Having done this I then moved around to make anotherchange in the tether locat ion, the purpose her e being to deploy the

portable handholds and to preposition them and loca te pip pins onthe work station so that we'd ha ve that much more time left af-ter the adapter work to make the complete evaluation of the workstation. I f

The command pilot interrupted this initial se tup preparation, suggestingthat Aldrin begin his four th orbital r e st p er io d , commenting that the yw e re ahead of their time line. Aldrin elected to util ize this rest p e r -iod to send messages to Houston. Following these messages Aldrincompleted his res t per iod and his w ork station setu p preparat ion.Aldr in 1s description of t h e s e t a s k s f o l l o w s .

A ldr in - I fWe had time left during th e states ide pass a n d Iwanted to deploy the tw o flags that I had stowed in the portablehandhold. It looked like in or de r to do this, in the way withleas t jeop ard y, would be to do it b e f o r e I pulled the p ip pins out ,instead of trying to take tw o hands to do it. S o I pulled themout and said a fe w w o rd s about Ve tera n& D ay and said a f e wm o r e w or ds about th e A r m y - N a v y g a m e . I took the Veteran IsD ay flag and tos se d it in the breeze . I took the other flag andtucked it as tightly as I could in the right side of the E L S S , b e -t w e e n w h e r e th e hoses w e r e b e t w e e n th e ELSS and my c h e s t .I then wen t about the t a sk of deploying portable handholds. Itook e ac h pip pin out a n d in turn put it into a holder that I wasn f tgoing to use with the portable handholds that w e r e going to comeup f rom the adapter. I c h o s e free p ip pin attachments . Theyw e r e th e ones that did not have s tar s . I wanted to then eval-uate a f te rw ar ds and co mpa re a freely swinging pip pin as a hand-hold with the one s that w e r e rigidly mounted in the s t a rs . I putthe two portable handh olds in the outboard pos ition, both on theleft and on the right leaving room for the others to go in the in -board . I took the one remaining pip p in .at this time a n d put it

65



on the le& side of the Agena a s you. fa ce the Ag en a fro m thespacecraf t , to get it out of the w ay for both the tomping opera-tions and also so it wouldn I t be in the center when the chestpack lights hit it. About this time I received a call fr om H o u s t o nto slow down a little bit. It w a s p e rh a p s j u s t after the littleblurt about Veteran 1s D a y and before deploying a portable hand-hold, as prev ious ly discussed in the medical briefing. I thinkthat som e of the reaso ns for the change in heart rate was the

audience that I was address ing and I wanted to make sure thatI didn r t f l ub . There wasn I t much of a rest period while I w a sdeploying th e portable handholds. I did p a u se there for a min-ute and be fore I started back, I did get th e w or d f ro m H o u s t o nthat the rec ove ry wa s good which meant the return of the heartrate back down to normal. 11

T h e task t ime intervals f o r the wo rk station preparation a n d t h e re s tare given in Table Xi . The subsequent movemen t fol lowed by acamera change , G L V strip retrieval , a n d a camera retrieval tasksh ow s no signif icant time variations between the orbital and wa ter simu-lation modes. In all cases orbitad task times were slightly longer

than the simulation, TableXm.

Aldr in - "I then started moving back along the handrail. I hadto take the wais t tethers off n o w, o ne at a time. I took th eright one OLY and put it back on the E L S S . Th is t ime I tookthe left one and instead of attaching it to the folding bar with tw orings on it, I stuck it with Velcro on top of the ches t pack .Th i s bar that w en t a c ro s s , I think w a s le s s than optimum in de-sign. I had some exper iences in training with it coming off'andI thought that I might just as wel l leave it loose and not botherusing it and t r y using the V elcro instead...fI

P r i o r to the movemen t from the spacecraf t hatch , Aldrin extended ad-

ditional umbilical out of the spacecraft f o r the maneuver backto theadapter. In the simulation mode the umbilical was not s'tored in th espacecraf t and ex tension was unnecessary . The movemen t to the ad-apter took 22 seconds from the spacecraf t hatchto adapter pigtail -inflight. In the simulation this movement took 145 s e c o n d s . This t imevariation was caused b y tw o interruptions in the simulation to positionthe rfsnaking If umbilical. A description of this motion in flight wasg iven b y A l d r i n .

Aldr in - flabout that time, w e fed out the remaining part of theumbilical. I stopped about this time to m a k e su re that the um -bilical looked like it was routed in t he proper fash ionand wa sn f ttangled around anything. It s e e m s to m e a s I started moving

along th e han dra il that th e umbilicaldid start to snake ... I star-ted moving back f r o m that posit ion do ng the handrail going backright hand first so that the left side of me wh ere the umbilicalwas attached, was trailing so that the umbilical was out behindme and moved back out toward the adapter toward the pigtail .A s I got to the edge of the equipment adapter, I could see that

66



the loose prime r cord thatI had noted during the first standupE V A was not a s re a l l y ho se in tha t th e re wer e no tso manypieces around there to presen t a ny pr ob lem at all . I j u s t f o r -got about trying to pudd a n y o f thatoff. With m y right' hand Igot a hold o f the pigtail a n d made sure that it w a s s e c u r e and

locked and wouldn I t swing €reedy. From that position I pushed 3

little bit to t h e re a r of the spacecraft and made sort of a combin-ation turning maneuvep b y pushing to the rea r and then restra in-

ing my se l f fro m going fu r the rto the r e a r b y hold ing on the pig-tail. The n e t ef fec t w a s to turn me around the corner. Iturned around the corner and with right hand first, I got holdof the handrail back in the adapter. I found myself in pr et t ygood body position to ge t ready to thread the umbilical throug h thepigtail. Ar ou nd in this area it s e e m s to me that I did have tous e a little bit of tor que with one hand on the pigtail to p u s h m yfee t down a little f u r ther bec au se my head was tendingto float upat the time that I was going around the corner.

At this point in the time line the pilot exp erie nce d an interesting infor-mat ion crossover f r o m th e simulation. T h e original Gemini X I EVAmisrsion plan was to evaluate the astronaut maneuvering unit (A M U ) .

Aldr in wa s training f o r this mission when the AM U configuration wascancelled. The mission update included changes in the foot res tra in tposition. When preparing to enter th e adapter work station, Aldrinexperienced a moment of disorientation.

A ldr in - f f I then started moving toward positioning m yselt:in footre s t ra in t s . I guess that one becomes so used to .going from thisposition to the foot res tra in t d irec t ly as in the AM U opera tion thatI looked down f o r the €oot restraint and all I saw was a b lankre c e s s i n t h e thermal curtain where the AM U foot restraintswere going to b e . I thought , gee, what happened to the footre s t ra in t s . I can I t e v e n s e e t h e m . T h e y w e r e up the otherw a y so I had to yaw around to the right which meant that m yfee t now were going about where the umbilical w a s coming throughthe pigtail.

T h i s e m p h a s i z e s a n important asset of the underwater training simula-tion which the astronaut. comm ented on in the debrief ing.

A ldr in - ? ? T h e r e a re tw o wa ys that you can go through the um-bilical; You either find yourself going through it headfirst andthe umbilical would then be around you, or you find that the um-bilical i s in fro nt of yo ur fee t and you lve gotto step over it .Bo th of thes e situationsI had experienced under water and hadbeen able to step through it b y holding on the umbilical a n d with

its own stZness direct it with your hand aw ay from you r fee t .It t ends to m o v e a w a y a s you can bend you r legs alittle andmove them through. iY it is the case of moving it over yourh e a d , why that I s f a i r l y e a s y to do also. Then I moved so thatI had one hand on both of the handrails and sort of lowering m ybody down into the foot restrain ts.

67



Adapter Work S tat ion Came= P l a c e m ~ e- The flight time line contin-u e d to lag behind the simulation time line. The pidot spent considerabletime tryigg to Eix a broken dinkage in the camera- bra cket, and in t r y -ing to determine if the camera was operating in flight. T h k r eq uir edapproximately 142 s e c onds . Camera placement in the simulation took73 s e c onds . T h i s task w as follo we d in the simulation b y a period OE

neutral buoyancy aGustment .

Rest - A l dr i n res ted fo r 111 seconds after his rebalance break . Thiswas his fourth res t period in the underwater simulat ion. The res tperiod in flight lasted 5 7 seconds . Aldr in interrupted this fifth orbitalres t period to begin the foot restraint evaluat ion. The task sequencevaried from th e simulation at thi s point. I n f light, the astronaut placedthe umbilical in the umbilical clip before his rest period commentingthat it was more convenient at the t ime . I n the simulation, the pilotspent 2 0.3 se co nd s pr io r to the foot restraint evaluation placing the um -bilical. H e r e again the simulation exp erien ce streamlined the astro-naut flight pe rfo rm an ce .

Foot Restraint Evaluation - Th e foo t restr ain t evaluat ion took 2:5O inf l ight . This w as 83 seconds long er than the sa m e evaduation in thewa ter simulation. Astr ona ut Aldrin descr ibed th e orbital foo t restraintevaluation and its purpose in h is debrief ing.

Aldr in - ' A t this point w e went through an evaluation of the foot

r e s t r a i n t s a s fa r as total mobility g o e s . m a t I really intendeddoing was to compare in a subjective way the amount of mobilitythat a person ha s with thes e foot rest rain ts in comparison withthings that I had experienced both fr o m the z er o g airplane andunder water . I did this by moving from the lef t over the rightand standing m ys eE upa little bit and back down bending m y

body down to get to the top and the bottom of the work station.I wanted to s e e j u s t how well leaning back compared to under -water operation and in the airplane. Up to this point , evsry-th ing w as ve ry , v e r y similar in the w ay that the foot res traintsallowed me to move my b o d y a r o u n d . Ev en in leaning ba ck , its e e m e d as though I could do this quite well. I did note thatthere w as a little bit m ore leg tens ion required to lean back to

the s am e degree. Tha, t is, leaning back so that the axis o f m yback was essentially paral le l to the sp ac ecr af t longitudinal ax is.T o hold this position required a fair amount of force on the l e g s .When I released this I gradzady dr i f ted back up. I t is v e r ye a s y to hold a neutral position from 3 0 to 40" rodled fr om th efoot restraints to roll pight. You could also pitch back about 40to 4 5 degrees wi th very little strain 09 fo r c e and you could tu rny our body somewh at to each s i de . T h e r e a l tes t o f c our s e c o m e swhen you start to do torquing type operat ions where you exertforces aga ins t the top of the boots . This is the pr i m e pur pos eof them to k e e p y o u fr om floating a w a y f r o m t h e m . I think bothGene and I decided in Q U ~training that the foot restraints , if t heyoperated a s th e y had in training, that th e y would enable a person

68



to do just about any ta sk that he is able to do in 1 g . I f w eestablish that this w as .!x fact t rue , then we would mo ve on anddo things on the waist tether. I can say n o w that the bes t r e -straint system that w e have e v e ~s e e n for doing any EVA w or kis undoubtedly foot nz&Taints. We don I t want anyone to thinkthat jus t bec ause we l ye , concentrated on waist teth ers tha.t t h e yare bet ter . They are not. Foot restraints give you the best

f r e e d o m of action. T h e y give you the beet res traint sys tem foroperating and a fairly wide region with respe ct to the foot r e -straints. You can I t move too far af ie ld , jus t by the fact thatt h e y a r e f i xed . I think if I had to compare foot res traints loca-ted in a certain place for an optimum w ork station with a waisttether hookup that w a s also located in an optimum fashion forthat sa m e- w or k s tationI think that you have more freedom ofaction with the foo t res trai nts. I f

Station Preparation - Following the foot restraint evaluation, the wo rk statiolz pen ligh ts and tried to activate

e camera . These tasks took 38 and 40 s econds respect ively in

Th e pilot bega n his sixth orbital re st pe riod at this point . The2:09, and w as fol lowed by an ot he r attempt to activate the

This second activation attempt was also unsuc-e s s ful .n the simulation the foot restr ain t evaluation w a s 6okw ed immed ia t e l yy the fif th res t per iod . The task se qu en ce s difYered in the flight and

because Aldr in 1s simulation training allowed him to his flight time line. The fai lure of the camer a wa s an unex-

prob lem and cau sed fu rth er slippage in the time line.

W o r k T a s k s - Tab les XZV and X V are detailed analyses of

e adapter work tasks f o r the flight a n d the simulation. The f i r s t task per for med w as to rq u e evaluation. DifKcuKty in remov ing

e torque wrench from its pogch caused the t ask to extend f a r pas ts scheduled time. The torquing operation was to be per formed firstn a 1 / 4 and then a 1 / 2 f t f i x e d bolt shown on the bottom center of

e adapter work station, Figure 5 - 2 7 . T he torque w r ench w a s visual readout gauge a n d could operate in both clock-

directions. The astronaut evaluated torque fir st in cl oc kw ise and then in a counterclockwise mode at

e 12 , 3 , 6 , a n d 9 o lclock positions, commenting as he pr oceeded .he torque evaluation w a s f b s t pepformed using the foot res traints

In a subsequent per iod, he attached both wa ist tethers and r e - the task. H e noted no particular difficulty in exertin g torque

any of the posit ions evaluated fn either fl ight or prefl ight modes. des cr ibes th is orbitad ta sk in his debriefing.

Aldr in - IIGoing to some of the tasks in the adapter, the pouchopened up rather easily; the wren ch had a strap around thehandle and it looked like this wasn I t velcroed in; that it w a ssti tched in. Evidently there was a loop in this nylon strap that

69



w a s m a d e just the right size €or the handle to slide into. Wellthe heat must have gotten into this and sh ru nk it up becausewhen I went to pull it out, it wasn't about to come underneaththis strap . I looked to s e e if it w as velcroed and it didn I t ap-p e a r t o be at all . This cost ma ybe a minute o r so to t r y andfigure out just how to get that out. I pulled j u s t straight awayon the w re nc h; it didn I t line up the w ay the strap was on it.

It tended to be twisted which didn t t let i t sl ide freely. S o , Ihad to get two han ds in th er e and pull in the area where thes t rap w as and pull the wrench out, and it f inally came loose.The wrench looked like it was in good shape, so I proceededto the torquing operation, which consisted of looking at clockwiseoperation at four di f ferent places around the clock and then r e -verting to a counterclockwise operat ion. This was on the1/4 inch head bolt. I found that the second time I torqued thew re n c h up to what I fe l t w a s a near max imum level withoutrea lly straining my self; this w as in the vicinity of 200 to 250 inchpounds , the wrench snapped in som e fash ion . B u t when I

looked at the po int er , it w a s no longer zeroed . I t w a s sittingat about the half-way point . I didn I t think it was part icu lar lymeaningful to evaluate any torque numbers that I was able toread out from that point on. I tried to j u s t torque it around toreach about 180 d e g r e e s f ro m w h e r e I started out. I f iguredthat that wa s a near maximum torque. n

T h e se c o n d task w a s an evaluation of an electrical connector. Threeelectrical connectors we re available in the adapter work station; astarbo ard, a p or t , and a center connector . The starbo ard and por tconnec tors w er e attached b y a multi-strand cable. A center con-nector separated the cab le into tw o halves and requir ed a two handed

operation. T h e connection br ok e into units of approximately equallengths and diameter. T he tw o sect ions we re mated b y lining u p col-

ored index marks and p r e s s f it ting them into one unit. A l e v e r o nthe le& section was th en manipulated to tighten a n d lock the unit. Thedisconnect procedure w as the reverse of the connection Dperation.

Aldrin com men ted that the center connector was slightly more difficultto line u p than the o thers . T h i s w a s accentuated on waist te th er swhen restra ined by the foot restra in ts . Aldrin suggested the use o fonly one index mark painted with a light colo r to exp edite the con-nection. I t became difficult to distinguish and match the multi-coloredindex ma rks on the con nec tor in low light conditions in sp ac e. Using

a light color such as wh ite, and only one mark identification would besimplified.

A ldr in - n The center connector; there wa s no part icular problemin doing that. I had to unpack the Velcro f irst b e f o re I couldget it f r e e . I t I s a two handed opera tion. With two hands anda good restraint system there is no problem a t all in lining some-thing u p , because you hold it right in front o f yo u, both en dsw e re loose . T ha t kind of an operation is v e r y e a s y . P a r t o f

70



that made it difficult was that once you had them dined up , a n dwhile th e y w e re s till lined up a nd you were pushing them to-gether , you had to f i nd a f in ge r so m ew he re or thumb that youcould start turning this docking de vic e that on ly had one pin thatstood out on it. There m ay be another w ay to do it. Maybeyou could ju st gr ab a hold of that pa rt right t h er ea n d p u s h itinto the other one and tu rn it. Maybe I lve been doing the whole

thing a little bit m ore difPicult than it should have been. But ifthat Is th e cas e , then th e index m a r k s are useles s , because ingrabbing ahold of the thing, you would co ve r up comp letely theindex m ar ks . We ought to be able to at ford to put more prongsout th er e than ju st that one f o r that kind of a ta sk . Y ou jus tdon't hook something up and then take your hand off a n d find outwh ere this thingis. 1'

Love11 - ''Do you think the four pro ng , that w e had on th er eoriginally was bet ter than the one prong?"

Aldr in - " T h e r e i s n o doubt about it; fo ur a re bet ter , you don I t

have to pre-position the locking device. You can j u s t leave itwherever i t is and you can always get ahold of one prong o r theother . I f one of them doesn I t engage the f i r s t t ime you turn itaround, you can catch the next one a s it co me s around . Thesituation that comes up with the one prong is that you positionit where you think it is.going to be ok ay , you p u t the two to-gether , and you-find that yo u' ve got to push it all the way around .S o , now yo u'v e got to bring it back again and re ce n te r thethings. ' 1

the end of the center connector evaluation, Aldrin took a scheduled The t ime interval fo p the rest pe rio d in the simulation was tw o

the re st interval was 1 :35. Aldrin noted during this period that a cr ea se in his right glove was begin-

"give my hand a little bit of a pr ob lem. 11 He made no mentionthis problem late r in the flight o r in his debriefing.

e s econd sess ion of adapter work tasks began with an evaluation of

cutter tool. I n his debriefing the astronaut discussed this t a s k a n d com pariso n with pr ev io us training simulations.

Aldr in - 1' Th e cut ter s we re painted black. I t looked like a heavycoat of black pa in t. The res training system on the cutter s workedfair ly wel l . It takes a little extra time to open it up, put thefingers with your hand into it , a n d then tighten the strap on topof it, but I think that work is well worth the ef for t because d u r -

ing any subsequent operation with it you j u s t do n' t wo rry aboutwhere that cutter is because it is sitting right th er e on you r hand.The unlocking of the cutters was not too difficult. I think thats trap that was on them w as a little bit too long. Cutting thew i r e s . ..... I cut the medium one first a n d took a little bit moree ff o r t with one hand than I thought it was going to, but on the

71



s econd s queez e it cut through without too much difficulty. ThenI took the smaller s t r a n d and cut through that quite easily thefirst t i m e . T h e n , I went to the fluid Q D . I Id n e v e r been ableto cut one of t hes e be fo re in training pe riod s because the cut terswere ei ther rus ted from underwater operat ions or w e were maybsaving this for s o m e o t h e r w o r k . I had tried it with training

cutters , both one handa n d

two han d, and w a s unable to getthrough the wire. I tried that a couple of t imes and saw it justw as n I t going to make it. S o , then I moved over a little bit inthe foot restr ain ts and got both hands on it and squeezed hard anit cut it in two.

I think that this poin ts out that this kind of a task would havebeen impossible without a v e r y good re str ai nt s ys t em. I thinkthe waist teth ers would hav e handled that if you could have stayedin position, if the wo rk station w as up high en ou gh . T he tw ofoot restr ain ts enabled m e to ge t over th er e in good working con-dition to get both ha nd s to squeeze on it . *

The command pilot realized that their flight time line w a s falling behindthe water simulation flight plan, a n d f rom th is point on he attempted tokeep th e pilot on sch ed ule . The wa te r simulation cut ter task lasted3 :25. Aldrin used 3 :29 f o r t h i s same task in flight.

The as t ronaut stowed the cu tte rs and began an evaluation of the adapterwork station pip pin s and portab le handholds . I n the water simulation,Aldrin spent only 48 seconds on this evaluation. He noted that theportable handhold Velcro did not seem to be 11holding up in the watermode, and he felt that thi s w as the reason the to rq ue load capabilityof these handholds was l o w . His subsequent orbital evaluation showed

however , that the wa ter simulation had ,b e e n quite ac cu ra te in depictingthe torque capability of the portable handholds. Aldrin took 2 : 04 toevaluate this ta sk in flight

Aldr in - 1 1 Th e pip p ins ca m e out without an y problems andstowed in the star fittings, and I positioned them so that theywouldn I t get in the way of any torquing operation or the lefthand disconnect. Handholds were repositioned so that they w e r ein a slightly better location a s f a r a s not interferr ing with thewais t tether hookup . The Velcro on the portable handholds gavea ve ry sh ak y handhold real ly . I didn I t get a chance to fully

evaha te the handholds a s f a r a s how much torque you could pu ton them back the re, but it w a sn lt v e r y impr es s i ve a t dl. I

think you Id be better off grabb ing holdof just about anything youknow is s e c u r e . It may no t be a s good a handhold as the por -table ones ar e . O f c o u r s e , if you hav e nothing on a flat sur face

you have to put something on, but that Ve lcro j u s t didnlt appear tobe adequate at all to go into that kind of an operation. 11

I n o rb it , Aldrin began the Sa turn bolt ta sk with a 1 :49 evaluation inthe foot res traints . The task cons is ted of removing and replacing a

72



in the lower center of the adapter work station. Aldrintached his wa ist teth ers an d r em ove d hi s fee t f r om the foo t r es tr a inh

determining that bolt rem ov al wa s ext rem ely eas y wh en using the res traints . Aldr in spent 1 :5O removing the bolt f r o m its r e c e p - using waist tether restraints. The rubber retainer strap designed

capture the bolt when it w as r emoved did not function as w as ex- Aldr in descr ibes this ta sk and the problems involved in his

briefing.

A ldr in - 1 f . I took the wrench off the Velcro and started workingon the Saturn bolts; torqued it out to about a haE w a y positionw h e r e it waa obvious that it w as fa i r l y eas y to w or k f r om thatpoint on. A s in training, I found that in trying to rachet itback to the f r e e wheeling position it also tended to turn the boltback in again. S o , I had to p u t a s ide force on the bolt andwrench during this operation and eno ugh frictio n in the bolt a n d

its threads so that it would overcome the rachet friction so thatI wouldn I t lose everything I had gained in the pre vio us stro ke .m e n I got to this point, I decided, well, I l l 1 take it out the

r e s t of the way with my f i n g e r s . I said, well , it looks like thisoperation will be fairly sim ple so I Ill stop at th is point and s to wthe wre nch and do the re st o f it in the waist tether . I hookedup the waist tether to the low er attach points and took m y f e e tout of the foot restraints, t ightened up the waist tether to 3 to4 inches from full extension. The waist teth er attach poi nts relq-t ive to the Sa tu rn bolt operation is fa r fr om o p t i m u m . The waistt e t h e r s a r e fa r too close. The righ t waist teth er get s in the w ayof the wrench a s it Is turned and the left one is j u s t too f a r upto get a good spr ead typ e of stability for any differential bodytorques that you need . B u t w e knew that r ight fr o m the begin-ning. S o , I u s e d the wrench and loosened it up j u s t a little

bit more a n d put the wrench aw ay and started taking the bolt outwith my fingers , twis t ing it out, and I discovered that the r e -taining washer that had been p u t on there attached to the rubber ,w as n I t coming out with the bolt. I t was staying attached to theprotrusion in which the bolt w a s screwed into . S o , I got thebolt all the w ay out and w a s holding it in m y right hand and thenwith m y left hand I tried to loosen the rubber because this wholearrangement was covering up the other hole that I w as supposedto put the bolt back into. S o b y pulling aw ay at th e rubber itf inally came loose. T h e reason that it w a s s t u c k I t m s u r e againwas the heat problem melting a little bit of the rubber against themetal.

encountered with the retainer ring caused Aldrin to use the bolt . The use of tw o hands , close to the

is sometimes a difficult t ask in the G-4C space suit . The astra- noted that this particular operation was tir ing, an d, at this point,inte rrup ted the Sa turn bolt evaluation and took a1 :04 r es t per iod .

this eighth orbital rest per iod , A ld ri n continued hi s Saturnt evaluation f o r 3 : O l . During this period, he replaced the bolt inreceptacle, commenting that the # S at u rn bolt workspace is w a y

o close to the waist tethers. ' I

73



Aldr iq - I f T h e n I started trying to position the bolt to get it inand it didn I t want to d ine p r o p e r l y . I was us ing the left hand-hold, I think, trying to line it up. I started twist ing, trying tov e r y gently line it up so that it w a s lined up perp endicu lar to thehole. I twisted it , trying to engage it , h o w e v e r , t h i s t o o k , p e r -h a p s , f o u r o r f ive attempts before I finally got the threads toengage. I tightened it up with m y fingers to about the half way

point and picked up the wrench and changed the setting on thewrench and started torquing it up again. A n d again I foundthat I was unracheting about everything I was putting in tryingto tighten it up so I had to use that technique of either holdingthe socket with m y lef t hand, so that it didntt undo what I w a stightening up, or to put a twis t on th e bolt creating a torqueagainst the threads, while I was in the rec ov ery pos ition f r o mthe tightening operation, I t finall y tightened all th e w a y up andgot it to a reasonable high torque leve l and the n w e forgot aboutthat operation.

I n the wa ter simulation tim e line, Aldrin did not take a res t per iodduring the Sa tu rn bolt evaluation. A f t e r a 1 :43 evaluation of the boltusing the foot restraints , Ald rin attached his waist tethers and spen t6:47 removing a n d replacing the bolt. It is interesting that the sa m ediff iculty w as enc ou nter ed in the simulation with the rubber reta iners t ra p . T h e pilot commented that he Ifbroke the retainer strap I I d u r -ing the loosening operation.

T h e next scheduled task w as an evaluation of the prop er s i ze hoo kand rings to be used for semi-permanent equipment retent ion. Thehosk a n d ring evaluation took 3:23 in space and lasted 3:20 in the wa

ter qimulation. In his debrie f ing the pilot des crib es th e details of this

orbital evaluation. Except for smal l variation in th e hardware the simu-lation task w as essen t ia l l y the sa m e .

Aldr in - IrWe wen t into the hook and ring conne ction and thi soperation was quite similar to the underwater operation. I thinkunder water the hook and the ring both , of course, don I t floata s the y do in spa ce . I took the big hook a n d hooked it to thebig ring a n d the little hook to the little rin g a n d then a modestcombination of hooking them all together. I could see that ther ings w e re bi gg er in this flight item than they w er e in the train-ing item and I w a sn I t going to be succ ess fu l atall in getting thebig hook around the big and little ri ng a n d little hook also aroundthe big and little ring because the little hook w as too small to putboth rings in. S o I le t it g o . I actually dec ided at that pointto disconnect everyth ing and hook it back up to the original pl ac e.T h e operation would hav e undoubtedly been simpler in the footr e s t ra i n t s . But again it was a two handed operation and you hadres t ra in t s - g r o s s re s t ra i n t s - with the wais t te thers . You wereqconcerned about where the b o d y was going a n d as expected , thebo dy just had a tende ncy to rise up a s you started doing an operation with your ha nd s, positioning the wais t teth er attach points

74



down f r o m w h e r e t h e y were attached t p your body . Then youju st had a natural tendency to d r i f t to a place where the lines-andthe waist tether attach point to your wais t to structure was in adownw ard direct ion to. your body."

N d r i n w ~ sasked whether the big rin gs w er e bet ter than the smallringp .

Aldrin - ? I I think the b ig d z er enee is not the size of the ringa8 much as it is the big ring has the rigid bar attached to it e--abling you to get your hand aw ay f r o m the ping a n d hold it. with.the little ring you pve got to get you r finger s right on top ofit tok e e p it fr o m flipping back and for th . I think we can deal withlittle hooks about as well as big hooks.

A f t e r completion of the hook and ring evaluation in the water simulation,Aldrin took a 2 minute rest period on waist tether restraints only.Th i s w as the pi lo t ' s 'seven th water simulation rest . I n f l ight , Aldrinbeg an his ninthrest period imm ediately following the hook and ringevaluation. The period lasted 1 :3l. During this time, the pilot andcQmmand pilot reviewed their check lis t for the subsequent task pro-c e d u r e s .

Th e f ina l group of orbital ad ap te r work tasks included the velcro stripand electrical connector evaluations. The orbital Ve lcro strip evalu-ation lasted 36 seconds . Aldr in used this task to evaluate the overallwork station position with respect to the foot restraints , a n d also tocompare the various simulations in term s of task dif f icul ty .

A ldr in - t?Pulling the Velcro strips dow n in one g takes a con-s iderable s tre tch . In the airplane it 1s convenient to d o and un-d er the water it is fairly convenient . It was a s ea sy to do inzero g as i t was in both of the training situations, water and theairplane. S o , that kind of a height is access ible from the footres t ra in t s . It is not one where you Id like to d o a lot of ef for t .A s I recal l , I worked across the Velcro strips fro m left toright a n d did them all with the left hand except the last one onthe right which was the big Velcr o strip.

Com mand Pilot Love11 noted that the orbital time line was ?Ifour min-utes behind schedule t? at the beginning of the Velcro strip evaluation.The Velcro strip evaluation took 30 s e c o n d s in the Simulation.

I n F igur e 5-28, Aldr in is seen during an evaluation of the centerelectr ical connector . The adapter work station contained three elec -tr ical connectors . The ??starboard t ? connec tor was not available for

the preflight water immersion simulation. Astronaut Aldrin used the also on the right side of the work station pa nel , to

simulate operation of the Itstarboard I? electrical connector. Comment@A l d r i n Is orbital E V A indicate that he had no difti'culty wha tsoever

with the ttstarboard connector while in the foot res traints or on thewaist tetherB. Table XLT summar izes the per formance of the electr ical

7 5



_" ._

co nn ec tor evaluation and details the time intervals f o r the f l igh t .a nd

hater simulation . Connector evaluation w.as pe rfo rm ed with teth ers Qnly

Aldr in , descr ibes the overal l connector task in his debrief ing.

A ldr in - The center connector w as a good bit mo re difficult'this time than it w a s in the foot restra in ts . M y body tended to

rise up a little bit. Aga in I think it w a s mo re a problem of thebar that was on the locking device. T h e left connector in thewaist tether configuration is a dzicu l t connector to make be-cause the only place you ca n hold on with the right hand is agood ways a w a y from th e co nne cto r that your re making . Thewaist tethers cannot give you enough stability to line up the con-nector perpendicular to the sur face and at the sa m e timelet youplay with the finger oper ation to get the locking ba r into positionso that you can twist it in . Th i s requ i res pushing against thes u r f a c e . N o w it m a y be that 3 you real ly take pains and cinchup the tet he rs fai rly tight with this special ope ratio n that thi s could

be done in an e a s i e r f a sh i o n . T he big point to m a k e h e re isthat two handed operat ions, where you ca n hold on to both end4of the connectors a n d then line them up right in fr on t o f y o u , are

simpler to do than ju st a one handed ope rati on where the othersu r f a c e is f i x e d and you now have to posi t ion your whole bodya n d everything with re sp ec t to th e sur face . An o t h e r factor thatI think had a bea ring on this is that I Im right handed and thisw a s a l& handed connection. I think that tended to make it alittle bit more difficult. I would have f a r p r e f e r r e d t o have donethat with the right hand. I snuck in a quick evaluation of theright hand connector because we didnrt have that on the check-list a n d it is a fa ir ly e a sy connec tor to m a k e . W e had them up

in the nose , and I wanted to compare that . This air lock con-nector on the right side is a very n e a t conn ector , quite ea sy tohook and to connec t and disc onn ect. I t r s a right handed op er a-tion. It )s a straight twist to disconnect a n d f a i r l y sm a l l f o rc e -inward force-required to get it lined up and the alinement marksa r e s i m p l e . T h e r e is no preposi t ioning of the bar required.The alinement to engage the pins se e m e d to take c a re of itselE.T h e on ly thing you have to do is position the conne ctor in theright place and twi st and p u s h in at the sam e time and ju st ke epdoing it and you Ire bound to line them up.

Upon completion of the adapter work ta sk in f l ight, Pilot Aldrin began

h is wo rk station cleanu p. This cleanup task lasted 2:14, duringwhich time Aldrin retrieved his wo rk station ca m er a, re t r i eved h isportable handholds and made a quick evaluation of the one foot r e -straint configuration. It was at this time that the astronaut discoveredthe faul ty wo rk station ca m er a. Aldr in descr ibes hi s actions in thedebrief ing.

Aldr in - ? 'I hooked the waist tethers to the portable handholds,slapped them on the chestpack and th ey held fair ly wel l . I took

76



one foo t out of the foot restraint, moved around a little bit , andthen went to picking up th e camera . I found that the cameraw a s n I t going to come ofE, ve ry easily. Incidentally, a littleearlier in the operations when I discovered the camera wasn I t

working, during the rest period I decided to go eyeball to eye -ball to the len s to see if I could see it clicking and I couldn I t .

S o , I thought, well, I haven I t s e e n it g o be fo re in training, so

ju s t to m a ke sure that it is operating, I put m y hand on it andcouldn I t f ee l anything moving at all. T h i s is f a i r l y ea rly in theoperations. S o I asked Jim to check the switches to see iE t h eyw er e o n . I hit the button again, which should have stopped it ,a n d I checked it again and it wasn ' t work ing . S o w e recyc ledth e procedure . I checked the plug s and at that time I got thedefinite impression that the ca m er a w a s w a r m . I w as feel ingthis through the gloves and th er e is no doubt that I had the sen-gation of heat going into m y g lo ve s f r o m th e camera . I couldn Ittell whether this was due to the camera ope rati on and slipping,jus t not engaging the mechanism, or whether it w a s d u e to thes u n . This ch eck wa s done befo re sunse t . . .I w as trying to do th is ( ca m er a removal) initially with one foota n d when I had a little difficulty, I thought, well ge e , let I s s e ehow getting the problem done with on e foot is going to b e . So,

I spent a little tim e tryin g to do it and decided that the be st ideaw a s to put both fee t ba ck in again and go back after the task.Finally, b y again sticking m y fi n g e r s into the latching me ch ani sm ,I was able to dislodge it and eventually to b r ea k it f r e e . I theqpot the plug undo ne and attachment on . I attached it to theE L S S .

Aldrin commented on suit heating d e c t s while in the adapter area.

Aldr in - ItJust before sunse t also, I might add, the spacecraftwas held inertial and the su n orientation w a s su ch that a s it w assetting it wa s shining directly into m y buttock s region. The co-vering on the sui t , of course , covered the zipper down to afa ir ly low poin t in m y b a c k , but below thatI could feel a definitewarmth along the zipper line, in the crotch area . A s I nestleddown against the suit, just to check and se e h o w w a r m it w a s ,I could feel v e r y localized heat and it was obviously coming fromthe metal zipper . I t wasn I t objectionable. I didn f t notice anytotal heating resulting from th is . T h er e w a s n o work that r e -quised your, body to be position ed in the suit su ch that yo u we re

forced agains t this fo r a n y amount o f time. I t tends to confirmthe res ults that w e had fro m G em in i X I : that when those zippersare exposed to heat it absorbs a tremendous amount of solarradiation and transmits it directly to you.

Fsllowing the adapter work station cleanup ta s k s, Pilot Aldrin movedout of the foo t res trai nts and moved back to the spacecraft hatch.This movement task took 31 s e c o n d s in f l ight . Figure 5-19 depictsbhc pilot ' E position a s h e Itroundedt' the adapter pigtail.

77



Aldr in - "I clipped the umbilical and stood b y to maneuver a-round to the front . W e went through the necessary steps to turnth e c a m e ra of f . I don I t recal l feeling at all t ired at this point.N o r w a s I w a r m . T h e su n ca m e up and the re was nothing thatprompted m e to think in t e r m s of changing the flow setting. Ijust left it w h e r e it was and started maneuvering around. I gotm y feet out of the foot restraints and came around the edge and

jus t before coming around the edge unhooked the umbilical fromthe pigtail . This was nominal . I got it f ree f r o m t he area andin coming around ther e wa s a slight t en de nc y fo r m y head todr i f t toward the edge. Again I used th e pigtail to torque m ybody down a little bit.

I n the water simulat ion, Aldrin res ted fo r 3 : l O immediately after hiswork station cleanup. This w as the ninth rest period in the simula-tion run, and was fol lowed by an attempt to sec ure the portable hand-holds to the E L S S . I n the simulation, this rest period and the sub-seq uen t res train t evaluation task. were prolonged to ??eat up time ? ?

because the command pilot fel t that th e y w er e ahead of their flight planschedu le . Th e se pro longed res t and restraint- periods were fol lowedimmediately b y a movement to the spacecraf t hatch, which required64 s e c o n d s .

At the hatch area, Aldrin stowed the wo rk station ca m er a and acti-vated the retro adapter camera . In orbi t this task took 2:34. I nthe simulation the same task took 2 :33. The t ime variation can beattributed to the fact that the wo rk station cam era stowage was partially:simulated in the water m o d e . Aldr in res ted for 45 seconds at thispoint in the simula t ion . This w as the tenth rest per iod in . the simula-tion. Immediately following the camera task in flight, Aldrin moved

f o r w a r d f ro m t h e hatch to the Agena work station. At this point inthe flight, film is again available for c o m p a r i s o n . In orb i t the move-ment took 1 : l 4 . I n the simulation the sam e movement took 1 :O5.

T D A Work Stat ion Tasks - I n both orbital and wa ter simulation,Aldrin began h is T D A w o r k t a s k s with an initial pla ceme nt of the pippins and portable handholds carried on his chestpack from the adapter.I n the water simulation, Aldrin spent 2 : l O on this initial pla cem en ttask . H e then rested f o r a scheduled 2 minutes. I n his orbital E V A ,A l d r i n s p e n t 2 : l 3 o n basically the same placement task. A t the endof this time, the pilot req ues ted a rest period . H e rested 3 :07. T h i swas Aldr in)s tenth orbital rest period .

It should be noted that th is was one of the few t imes Aldrin reque stea rest period. Using the onboard voice recording as an indication, anote of trtiredness ? I w as detec ted as Aldrin reque'sted this res t . Itqppea rs that skb ping the rest periods at the spacecraf t hatch areaprQved unwise, and the cumulat ive effect of movement , camera place-ment a n d another mo vem ent caught up with the pilot as he began hisfirst T D A w o r k task . Subsequent biomedical analysis t ends to sub-etantiate thiq. Variation in the task procedure between the orbital an#simulation mode@ could also partially explain the marked separation be-tween the work load rates duringthis f in al ph as e of the umbilicalEVA .

78



T h e pilot began his eleventh orbitalrest period immediately after thiss eco n d T D A w o r k sta tion task , Group B . This orbital rest lasted1 :54. F r o m the onboard voice transcript it appears that Aldrin didnot really rest during this perio d, but wa s working on the T D A w o r kstation. I n the simulation, Aldrin Is f inal rest period followed the T D A

wo rk tas k and las ted1 :55. This wa s the p ilo tI s twelfth res t periodin th e simulation.

Th e final T D A w o r k station task group (Group C ) in space variedslightly from th os e in the water simulation. H e re again, the simulationtraining allowed the astronaut to streamline his orbital ta sk and m ak ethe most of each evaluation. The variation between the flight and sim u-lated performance of this task group reflect this advantage. I n thesimulation, Aldrin moved aft f r o m th e Ag en a to th e s p a cecr d h a tchfollowing the TDA w o r k ta s k . T h i s movement took 1 : 0 4 . A l d r i n r e -trieved the retro adapter camera and handed it into the command pilot,making use of the portable handrail. He also handed in the Apollotorque wrenoh, which he had re tr i ev ed f r o m t h e T D A work s tat ion.Th is took 2 :40, after which Ald rin ingre ssed the epa cec raft and s tood

e r e c t in the cockpit . Ingress requ ired 27 s eco n d s . Aldr in p r o ceed edimmediately to detach and jettison the portable handrail (28 s e c o n d s ) .

Th e f ina l task in the simulation w a s hatch closure preparation lasting29 seconds. During this time Aldrin checked the hatch seal for d e -bris , deployed the hatch hoiding de vi ce , and positioned and re c o v e re dhis umbilical. Of these three final subtasks , only the umbil ical re c o v -e r y was ac tua l ly per formed .

During the orbital umbilical E V A , Aldr in w a s a s ked to o b s er ve th ele f t hand spa ce crd t th r u s t e r sy ste m at the end of his last T D A w o r kstation task group. Aldrin made this observation while completing his

work station cleanup task. The ent ire task took 41 s e c o n d s .

Following the cleanup t a s k , Aldr in moved from t he T D A to t he s p a ce -craft hatch. This movement took 51 s e c o n d s . T h e pilot stopped onthe portable handrail and pe rfo rm ed th e optical su rf ac e evaluation. Th isevaluation was p er fo r m ed a t 4 :55 ( E T ) in the water simulation. Aldripspent 55 seconds attempting to clean the command pilot I s hatch window.Aldr in d es cr ib e s th is operation in his debrief ing.

Aldr in - I t I wiped off the window on J imts s i d e . T h e h a n d k e r -chief cam e out quite ea si ly . T h er e w a s n I t any particular ten-dency to ha ve it f loa t away . This is obviously a one-handed

operation. I held onto the handrail again with an ar m and ahand . I n o ther words , the arm w as along-s ide of it. and th ens o m eh o w I used my fee t agains t the handrail because it wentback along the spacecra&. This gave m e enough action with anelbow against the side of the spacecraft , so that I could pushagainst the window fairly well and w a s in a good position to ru b .I could see that I was obviously rubbing the film off the surface.I g u e s s I got it o f f , ex ce p t for that one square tha t heated up. *

79



T h e close agreement between the flight and simulation for m ov em en tt a s k s is also important. This data tends to substantiate subjective ob-servations and measurements that motion in space and water simula-tion are close ly related but ar e indeed sl ow er than motions simulatedin the zero gravi ty aircra f t . Compar i son of the rest p e r i o d s s h o w sthe total orbital rests to be longer than the res t periods in the simu-lat ion, ev en though t he re w er e a grea ter n u m b e r of res t periods in thewater simulation. Although th e flight res t p e r i o d s w e r e l o n g e r , t h e ywere more unevenly spaced throughout the mission. A t the beginningof the flight E V A there appeared to be too many rests . To w a rd s t h eend of the mission, it appears that more rests could have been used .

5.3 - W O R K L O A D C O M P A R I S O N - The performance of theGemini Ix and X E V A emphasized the question of the exact determi-nation of the efEects of weight lessness on -human performance . Lifesupport equipment designed f o r the Gemini missions had , f o r the mostpart , performed according to design speci f ica t ions . However, i tappeared that these design specifications did not adequately encompassthe range of the Gemini E V A task complement . The close approxi -mation of water imm ersio n simulation to the kinematic aspects of theGemini =-XE V A supported the pre mis e that extension of the simu-lation to measurements of certain physiologic par am eter s would bewarranted .T h e wo rk load measurement techniques ev olv ed along with the simula-tion techniques, startin g with th e initial prefligh t simulation ru n of theGT-XU E V A . The initial instrumentation system utilized the Geminibiomedical harness and sensors. R F in ter ference precluded the useof this system a n d the ultimate technique employed the biomedical har-n e s s developed f o r the Apodlo pro gra m. Th i s sy s t e m was utilizedsuc ces s fu l ly throughout the subsequent simulation pr og ra m and the r e -su l t s presen ted . A functional flow diagram for the instrumentat ions y s t e m was shown in Figure 2-1 . H a rd w i re sens ing l ines w e re ru nthrough a modified dual-umbilical line , which served a multipurposefunction : (1) air intake and exhaust , ( 2 ) instrumentation, and ( 3 )

two-way communicat ions.

Table X Tm details the components of the final version of the instrumen-tation system used during the simulation. Physiological variables moni-tored were body temperature , respira t ion rate, and E K G . Informatioqpertinent to the suit inlet flo w and sa mp led gas measurements were madeon a discontinuous basis in tabular for m . Measuremen t s were madeo f .hear t ra te , resp i ra tory ra te , b o d y temperg ture , su i t carbon dioxideand oxygen concentration.

81



Breathing quality air (water pumped) was supplied to the G4C fullp r e s s u r e s u i t st 8 -1 0 d m at a p r e s s u r e of 3.7-4.0 p s i a b o v e the am -bient pressure relat ive to the depth at wh ich the subject was working.T hi s p re ss ur e gradient wa s controlled by me an s of the suit-mountedrelief valves descr ibed previous ly . The oxygen conc entratio n in theexhaus t gas w as de ter mined b y a B e c k m a n E - 2 oxygen me ter with theB eckman mode l D-1 serv ing as an auxil iary monitoring backup. Cas-bon dioxide concentration in the exhaus t gas w as primari ly determinedwith a Perkin-Elmer analyzer (Apol lo sys tem ) with a Lis ton -Be ck erme ter se rv in g a monitoring back up function. Respiration rate was d e -

termined from the output of an impedance pneumograph . EKG r e a d -ings were accumulated using skin mounted ele ctr od es . B ody tempera turew a s m e a s u r e d b y m e a n s of an ear thermocouple f o r the astronaut andby a r ec ta l thermis tor pr obe for the E R A subject . Biomedical mea-surements were made under the direct ion of D r . E . L. B e c k m a n ,M S C , with support of C dm. L. J. Greenbaum, M S C , NMRI.

Initially, metabolic rates were calculated by the de Weir technique.

Later , es t imates of the metabolic load w e re m a d e b y m e a n s o f p r e -f l ight ergometric-heart rate correlat ions . These later determinat ionsproved more useful for simulat ion-space per formance compar i son .Particular attention was cente red on determining the effect iveness ofthe res t per iods interspersed throughout the time line. Also, a deter -mination of the produ ction and accum ulation of carbon dioxide in thefu l l pressu re su it wa s mad e since there w as s ome ev ide nc e that thism ay have been th e limiting fa ct or on the Gemini X. T o a s s e s s thisfac tor , air with 5.0% carbon dioxide concentration was metered to theE R A subject during one of the checkou t runs for a shor t per iod and

appropr ia te meas ur emen t s w er e m a d e .

The main purpose of the phys iological measurements dur ing the simu-lation was to develop a biomedical baseline of sufiicient credibility toper mit rea l-tim e monitoring of the astronaut ts flight pe r fo rm an ce . Th esedata were used to establish a heart rate limit f o r the fl ight perfo rma ncThe limit established corresponded to a w or k load of 2500 B T U / H Rf o r s l o w d o w n and approximately 3000 B T U / H R for cessation of w o r k .

Concommitant with the development of these physiologic guidelines, itappeared that signiEicant benefits could be d e r i v e d f r o m th e comparisonof the preflight biom edical data with that accumulated during the flight.I t w as reco gnized that direct com parison s would be difficult since last

minute changes to the flight plan and flight contingencies could a ri sewhich would SigniEicantly alter both the duration and seque ntial orderingof the E V A t a s ks . T h e s e c h a n g e s p r o v e d to b e of a minor natureand , for the most part , the time line res ultin g from the find pref l ightwater im me rsio n simulation run w as followed during the flight.

T h e N A S A pr imar il y utilized the physiological information fro m th esimulation f o r c r e w monitoring p u rp o se s and to evaluate post fl ight r e -s p o n s e s . The following instrumentation was used during umbilicalE V A: one electrocardiagram lead, one respiration rate lead , and onelead for sui t pressure. I n th e la t e r f l i gh t s , =-XU, the pilot monitoredh is ow n sui t pre ssu re and this measure w as deleted.

82



Fig u r e 5-22 p r es en t s th e r es u l t s of the measurem ent of physiologicalp a r a m e t e r s of the Gemini XU E V A . 4 s ment i sned previous ly , prob-lems developed as the E V A task l ine became more complex . Resul tsf r o m G T - X I indicated that excessive thermal loads due to the function-ing of the ELSS and carbon dioxide buildup due to high respira tionra tes m a y h a ve co m p r o m is ed th e p er fo r m a n ce . Direct determinationo f th es e fa ct or s w as not possib le for the f light s ince data on thermalconditions a n d carbon dioxide level w a s not collected. A l s o , no direct

mearsurement of metabolic load w as m ad e.

I n the absence of direct calor imetr ic measurements , the N A S A reliedon extrapolation of the preflight a n d postf l ight ergome tr ic measurem entsof the pilot to estimate work load levels. Recogniz ing the factors in -volved , the feasibil i ty of using hear t rate as the primary indicator ofw or k load was invest igated. Physiologic, psychological , as wel l aspathological f ac to rs , p la y an important ro lein determining th e r e s p o n s eo f the hear t rate to various work loads and w o rk r a t e s . S e v e r a lfactors mitigate these considerations ( 1 ) the speci f ic wo rk load det er-mination did not require generalization from a small sample populationto a large sample population, in fac t, a prefl ight a n d postflight calibra-

t ion was done for each p i lo t , ( 2 ) the hear t rate parameter w as oneo f th e tw o exis t ing fo r th e m ea s u r em en t , th e s eco n d p a r a m e te r , res -piration rate-energy correlation w as cons idered but rejecte d d u e tovoluntary control fa c to rs and equilibrium res po nse cons iderat ions .

He art rat e-w ork load correlations were determined fo r ea ch E V A p i -lo t by b icycle ergometry. During these tes ts , the astronaut per formeda mea sured amount of work on a bicycle ergometer at no rm al pressurgand temperature. P r e s s u r e su i t s we re not worn during these tests.T h e w or k load wa s incremental ly increased, (+16) watt for ea ch o n eminute increment and heart rate , respirat ion rate , blood pr es su re w a smeasured on a continuous basis. S a m p le s o f exp ired g a s w er e p e r i -

odically collected for subsequen t analys is . Figure 5-23 p r es en t s t h eresu l t s of the pref l ight ergometry tests. The data from t h e s e t e s t swere conver ted to the oxyg en utilization cu rv es give n in Figure 5-24.

T w o m e th od s were employed to determine the work load of the GT-XUtask l ine during the water immers ion simulation; the deV. Weir method,and heart rat e-w ork load correlation using the preflight ergometry. I nthe d e V . Weir method , work load is determined by measur ing the p e r -centage of oxygen in the expired air and deter min ing the respiratoryquotient ( R Q ) . I n direct calorimetry, utilizing open loop respiratoryga s analys is , e.g . , the Douglas -Haldane techn ique , the energy outputis most simply determined as the product of the volume of expired gas

b y the caloric value of the expired gas . Genera l ly , formula ( 2 ) canbe used to determine the metabolic outputE -kg. cal.

( 1 ) E = 3.941 + 1.1 R Q

J. d e V . Weir has proposed a modification of the above to account f o rth e p r ec i s e O2 metabolizing mechanism involved. T h e d e V . W eir

83



form w a s used during this experiment and is given in equation (2),using a standard prd ein co rre ctio n(12-112%).

( 2 ) C E = (3.941 Vo + (1.106) V . - (prote in correct ion)2 c02

S in ce o n e l i t e r of expired air contains 0 / 2 00 l i ters of o xyg en , w h er e0

is the oxygen concentration, the (V e) oxygen consumed is givenb? ( 3 ) . O 2

( 3 ) vo = + (1 - (RQ))vo ] O. / IOO - o e / l o o2 2

1

Oi = oxygen concentration in the inspired air

Th er e f or e , equation (3 ) m a y b e g iven b y ( 4 ) .

Combining equation ( 2 ) and ( 4 )

F i g u r e s 5-25 a n d 5-26 prese nt the results of the wo rk load determination b y this technique, of the s imulation r u n s b y the astronaut, Col. E .Aldr in . Table Xrmr sum ma rizes th e resu l t s of the determination of thew o r k r a te s fo r A l d r i n Is simulation run. Fig u r e 5-27 and 5-28 andTable x7x present comp arat ive data fr o m the simulation ru ns pe r fo rm edb y the E R A subject, including the ef fect of altered carbon dioxide con-centrations .

While the most consis tent indicator of stress response proved to berespiratory frequency, when compared to the calor ic changes computedb y th e d e V . Weir techn ique , there appeared to be a grea t dispar i tybetween the actual level of activity and w o rk load computed in this man-n e r . I t can be se en in Table xc/sm that the oxygen utilization methodindicates that maximum work levels occ urr ed at periods of low activity(res t) while periods involving maximum suit-flexure and fo r c e outputyielded low work levels .

The dispar i ty between th e calculated w or k load , body tempera ture , andexpired C 02 concentration was e v e n g r ea te r . T h e s e , h o w e v e r , c a nbe readily explained. The body temperature w as measured at onepoint only (rectal ly f o r the E R A eubject, extern ally behind the e a r forthe astronaut) . N o rel iable measure of metabolic act ivity has been ob-tained so f a r using single point tem pe ratu re measurements since therelationship of the time response of temperature to work load inc rea sesisr exceedingly complex . CO measurement dur ing the sirnulation pr ov edunreliable since measurement took place at the exit of the exhaust line.

2

84



o effective determination of the system time co nsta nts could be madeue to the variability of the sy ste m and sin ce absolute control of water

( C O is readily absorbedw a t e r ) . T h i s w a s due , in pa r t , to the unavaizbility of the space

until clo se pro xim ity to the test.

there w as no compar a t i ve meas ur emen t of work load in space.n the absence of' direct measurement of metabolic load in space, the

A S A placed maximum reliance on electrocardiagram and impedan ce meas ur emen t s of the astronaut during the E V A . S e v e r e

reco gnize d in the use of this information a s mentionedNASA indicated that the acc urac y of the se data should in -

crease wi th increased ox yg en utilization, and sin ce the area of consid- w or k loads , a ny er ro rs would tend to

the heart r ate f o r a given condition. Th is would yield a mar -in of safety when us ing the hear t rate-ergometry correlat ions for a

indicatoz.

pre fligh t altitude ch am be r r uns , corre la t ions from resul ts o f flig ht s, and the initial re su lt s of the underwater simulationsto derive a quantitative m ea su re of the work expendi ture .

N A S A concluded that the use of hear t rate and respira tion rate data by continuous onboard voice contact proved to be an e x -

m el y important and reliable method fo r r e d - ti m e monitoringof thecrew act iv i ty particularly wh en coupled with a complete knowledge ofhe tasks involved.

Using the foregoing as a basis for compar i s on , F igur e 5-29 w a s d e -veloped which details the cumulative w or k load of the time line f o r the

and simulation . Th is relationship was derived b y developing anexpress ion for the relationship between heart rate and w or k load fr o mhe pref l ight ergometry for the pilot . The figure w as developed by

using this relationship and th e hear t rate versus t ime for the flight a n d

he simulat ion. The curves were developed b y applying the heart rata-ergometry rela tion ship and integrating with re sp e c t to t ime . This tech-

yielded a much closer correlation between observed activity level load.

This correlat ion is not intended a s an absolute determinate of w o r k but , rather , is intended for comparative purposes . It d o e s , h o w -

v e r , o ff e r dis tinct advantages fo r tas ks o f th e n a t u r e of the GT-X11:

V A tasks . Convent ional closed a n d semi-open venti latory measure-

t techniques general ly require cons iderable response timefor theto re ac h equilibrium ( f ro m 2 - 5 minutes) . This timeis gen erally grea ter than the steady state task time of the indi-

vidual tasks and, therefore, direct analys is of oxygen utilization data is dif f icul t . Hear t rate mea suremen ts , on the other hand,

in work load .

Comparative evaluation of the hear t rate data indicates an av era ge 37% hear t rate for the fl ight . This m ay be due to se v e r a l identiEied

First, t h e r e is the effect of the variation of ambient pressure

85



and breathing medium on he ar t rate-ergometr ic corre la t ion . This ef-fect is probably related to the density of the breath ing gases but m ayalso be related to variation in alveolar oxygen t ransport . Figure 5-39preseq t s the resu l t e of para l l e l research w hich ind ica tes the ef f ec t ovariation of gas den sity.

The second mqjor factor causing the di f ference ' in heart rates isprobably the most important. In space , the astronaut w as subjec tedto a vapor saturated oxygen env iron me nt with limited heat transfer c a -pabili ty. I n the simulation, the water acted ag an infinite heat t rans fers ink . Further , the the rm al load chara cterist ics d i f f e r e d great ly . Fzw-v ious research h a s ge ne ra lly identified the effects of changes in thethermal environment on heart rate, Figure 5-31. I n th is p ro g ra m , astandard work level rest cycle wa s obtaiqed and the thermal load ch ar -acter i s t ics were varied . I t can be see n that increa sing thermal loadtends to increase th e h e a r t ra te fo r a given w o rk level and this re la -tionship increases with t ime.

A third factor iF that of psych ologica l effects on the heart rate due tooperations in the space environment . I f psychological involvement wemea first o rd e r fac tor , th e h e a r t ra te in the initial p h a s e s of E V A wouldbe grea ter in space than in simulation with a gradqal tapering off if nop ro b l e m s w e re ev idenced . Analys i s of data shows th e oppos i t e . T h eperiod where a large psychological involvement wa s thought to occurwas dur ing the time of the m es sa ge s t9 Houston a n d even in this, themais strong reason to beli eve that the astronaut was engaged in moder-ately qtrenuous work of placing penna nts on the E L S S .

T h e r e is other paral le l resea rch which supp orts the use of the singleparameter determination of energy cost f o r ca librated individuals.

M d h o r t a e t .al., have repor ted on the feasibili tyof using pulse rateduring work a s a m e a su re of energy cos t . Stud ies w e re made usingbicyc le ergom etry with work loads varying between 50-600 k g - / m i n .Cross-corre la t ion of the results with oxygen uptake methods was madeand regression correlat ion lines were calc ula ted. While a significantd i f ference w as fou nd in the coef f icient of variat ion between subjects , alinear correlat ion wa s obtained betw een the p uk e ra te and energy cos tf o r all sub jec t s . Ty p i c a l resu l t s o f this research s t u d y are given inF i g u re 5-32.

Figure 5-32 also p r e s e n t s t h e resul t s OF a s imi lar study by N . L.

Ramanathan, Reliability of Estimation qf Metabolic Levels f ro m R e s w i r a -t o r y Frequency . Ramana than has demonstrated the reliability of esti-mating task e n e rg y c o s t for rela t ive ly high ener gy metabol i sm. A

corre la t ion of E(kca l /m in ) = - 3.06 -+ 0.198 R F ( n o . / m i n ) w a s o b -tained between energy consu mption and breathing ra te. Th i s corre la t ionwas h ighly significant (€YO. 01) with a correlation constant of 0.93 andstandard error o f 0.46 k c a l / m i n . T he se data ar e included to indicateth e fa ct or s involved in using the hear t rate-ergometry corre la t ion tech-nique. A m o r e exteqsive r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m is required to evaluatethe exac t numer ica l corre lq t ion factors involved .

86



X X pr es en ts th e data derived through heart rate-ergometry cor- th e resu l t s o f th e sp a c e perfo rma nce with the

These rdsu l t s are depicted in Fi g u re 5-33. It can b ethat, in m o s t c a s e s , th e e n e r g y c o s t s OE t h e t a sk s w e r e g re a t e r

r t he sp a c e p e r f o rm a n c e . Fi g u re 5-34 p re se n t s th e s a m e re su l t s to sh o w re la t i ve ra tes o f e n e rg y expend i ture , s ince th e

t i m e s w e r e also genera l l y grea ter fo r the orbital ca se , T h e r e -OE thils comparison show that th er e is a relationship between simu-

p e r f o rm a n c e . T he ra t io o f e n e rg y c o s t b e t w e e n sp a c e approximately 1.57 and varied between

and 3.44.

this stu dy it had be en con side red that drag efEects and other prob lems would res ult in a hig her enekgy expendi ture for a

task in the water immersion simulation than in actual s p a c e p e r - S i n c e t h i s h a s b e e n s h o w n to be not nece ssar i l y t r u e , it

to properly ident i fy the elements of th e simulation and the o f each on the en erg y co st in task performance . These elements

viscous drag ( d ) ; g ra v i t y e f f e c t s (g ) ; b u o y a n c y e f f e c t s (b ) ; (p ) ; and hydros ta t i c ef f ec t s (h) . Th e se elemen t s m a y

o r d e c re a se the e n e rg y c o s t ( a ) fo r a n y g i v e n t a s k . T h e th e e n e rg y requ i red fo r t ask performance in simulation ( E )

( E takes the fol lowing form ( 6 ) .W

S )

f the agregate of the a t e rm s is negativefor a particular task the task

q ui re s le ss en er gy in the simula tion than in sp ac e i. e . certain fa c t o r s water have acted in suc h a ma nner as to reduce the total en er gy

for that task. S i n c e t h e su i t p ressure is regulated at the level , port ions of the suit above this level have a gre ate r di f f e r -

below this level have a di f f e ren t ia l pre ssu re than in sp ac e. A s an example , tasks that

ar m and hand motions re su lt in a positive a t e r m f o r the up - subject a n d a negative a f o r the inve.rted sub Jec t. In like fashion

e other elements can exhibit both positive and negative e ff e c ts .

hh

h e r e s u l t s of the Gemini XU ana lys i s sh o w s E > EW f o r the mqjor-

y of the EVA. T h e r e f o r e 9 the combination of % e elements acted to th e e n e rg y c o s t o f these spec i f i c task s in the water over the o f th e sa m e tasks in sp ac e .

(+ ad + a ) are related to the subject 1s motion in the medium and-c& be explicitly d e r i v e d as a function of the velocity

of the sub jec t. I n genera l , t he speci f ic terms relationship can be uniquely determined f o r one suit and b o d y

i .e . changes in the body configuration affect the drag of the whole body as well as th e individual lim bs .

87



T h e predominating element as the veloci ty increases is the ad t e r m .This relationship can be seen f r o m F i g u r e 5-35, w h i c h presen t s cal-

culated values of drag for several suit attitudes. F o , ~the Gemini X Utasks the velocit ies of movement were general ly < O t . 5 f t . / s e c . andthe num ber of mov eme nts wa s sma ll in condderat ion' of the total E V At i m e . T h e r e f o r e . th e t e r m s o f ( 6 ) f o r the Gemini XU E V A a r eapproximate ly given b y

(7) E W = ES +-

(7).

a + a + ab - g - h

King et.al. , has calculated the gravitational w o r k f o r limb motion OF

man u ne nc um b ered b y a p r e s su re sui t . Gravitational work e x p r e s s e das percent of muscle work ranged to approximate ly 15% in the studies.Transla t ing these factors to p r es s u r e suited man would tend to red ucethe gravita tional wor k factor since the wo rk requ ired to over com e th

p r e s s u r e s u i t is f a r g re a t e r th an the work required to move the limbsunsui ted . Gsn.era l ly the a element is a posi t ive term.f f

I n s u m m a r y , although the water imm ers ion simulation of the GeminiE V A was no t intended to p ro d u c e data f o r p u rp o s e s OF comparisonwith space flight E V A , t h e re wa s, in fac t , much data available fromwhich comparisons have been made. There are also elements whichh a v e b e en identified and which ar e unresolved as to their contributionto e n e rg y cos t . Th e se unreso lved elemen t s am the hydrosta t ic effects(a J and the buoyancy (a,) term both total body and specific limbs.Hydrostat ic and buoyancy e ff ec ts cannot m w be evaluated f o r theGemini XU simulation and indeed would be extremely di f f icul t to deter-

mine for subsequent simulation since the suit buoyancy characterist icschange rela tive to time during any part icu lar run. I t is important,however , to determine the range of this effect in fu tu re w o r k .

.h

I n addition, the effedts OF heat load and breathing gas densi ty mus t beevaluated. A determination of these factors can be made experimenta l lyand a more exact relationship governing the comparison can be deter-m ine d. Until this is done the etttnulative work loads determined by p r eflight ergwmetry should be use d as a relat ive compar i son parameter .

.4 - E V A L U A T I O N - O F T A S K S B Y CA.TA-GO-RIE.S -- Table X X I& a compilation b y categories of the E V A - tasks identifying specif ic t4bob jec t i ves . T h e f i r s t ca tegory , E V A evaluation tasks, a r e tasks de '-signed to directly evaluate man Is per formance in the extravehicular

"

88



The design of these experiment-tasks wa s intended p ri - to yie ld subjective data. Comparative film and motion an aly sis

as applied to these tasks wh ere poss ib le .

V A Evaluat ion Task8

of the E V A evalyation tasks included the determination

f restra in t modes , suit mobility, torque Capability a n d the feasibility Q f maintenance tasks. T h e E V A evaluation taska were comprised

f various subtasks . Table X X l I l is ts the task evaluation objectives f Q rhe various E V A sub tasks .

Evaluation - Restraint evaluation comprised the performancef various representa t ive E V A tasks using foot restraints, a4ustable

tethers and a system of portable pip pinsa n d handholds f o r r e - positioning. Both portable handholds and pip pins w e re c o n -

ructed with l q g e rings to accept the wais t tether quick re lea se m e c h - The astronaut wa e able to evaluate qany d z e r e n t restraint

a relatively short time period using the pip p in arrangement@.

5-36, Astronaut Aldrin is shown placing a restraint attacheda pip pin into the star receptacle on the Ag e n a wo rk station. F ig-

r e 5-37 shows the astronaut aGusting his pos itionin g with a restraint a portable handhold. Stationary attachment points were al-

o used in restraint evaluation. T h e se took the form of small r ing sto the target docking cone a n d a single stationary ring on the

o s e e nd n of the portable handhold. T h e s e supplied ample attach t a s k s s u c h a s t h e A g e n a t e t h e r , S-010. T h e first rest

te thers , w a s performed while attached to these sta- posi t ions. Similar attachment points were supplied on the adap-

er w or k station. Astron aut Aldrin used these sta t ionary rings almoBt

hi8 I f waist tethers only adapter restraint evduatjoqs.he portable handh olds, while show ing some meri t on the T D A , p r o v e #

adapter work station. Aldrin noted that on ly minimumquing fo r ces we re req u i r ed to break the handholds f r e e f rom the i r

The T D A handhold posi t ions proved adequate primari ly be- no excess i ve torques w e re placed on these uqi t s . In m o s t

it appe ars that the T D A waist te ther con figur ation aided in main-f s g r o s s posit ion on th e A ge na , but w a s not particu-

usefu l to react torques . During work tasks the astronaut employedis art;ns t9 reduce the forces transmi t ted f q the tethe rs and portable

5-38 shows the effect of res tra in t mo des for both the adapterd T D A work stat ion tasks. T h e res t ra in t m o d e s ar e indicated b ye legend at the upper I& o f the figure . The crops-hatshed areas

rest per iod&. Number (1) indicates t a s k p e r f o r m e d b y thefeet in fbe m d d e d f9ot restrqintls.

t a s k s p e r f o rm e d w hilein the foot restraints w e r e restricted to the where the foot restraints w ere 1Qcazted. While in tbe adapter,

repeated the task performance wi th wais t tethers only.e n t s f r o m the astronaut indfcated a s t rong pre ferenoe for thefoot

mode .

89



The foo t res tra in t mode requiped sl ight ly largea , performance t imes the waist tether mode both in s p a c e and in the simulat ion, however, thera t e of energy expendi ture was significantly less . This esnt8.adicts theresu l t s previously descpibed f o s the Gemini Ix AMU donning task. A

f i x e d res tra in t posi t ion suchas evidenced with the foot restraintsp e r -

mits a greater envelop of operation in the suit , particularly f o r two;handed tasks, whi le decreasing the level of energy expendi ture .

The Gemini sui t afforded easy controlof the rest posi t ion 06 the suitdue to th e rrstiErr leg and torso components . In later space sui t ver-sions, having greater mobil i ty , th is wild not be true and ex tra e n e rg ywill need to be expended to keep the astronau t in th e p ro p er orientatiofor w o r k t a s k s for fixed res tra in t modes .

T h e res tra in t modes evaluated while on the T D A included two waisttethers, one waist tethe r, and no res t ra in t s . Th e re w a s a g re a t e rvariation between space and the simulation f o r these t a s k s . T h e re-

sults of the evaluation of restrain2 modes for the dz er en t w or k s ta tiont a s k s is.given in Table Xxm.Suit Mobility Evaluation - The mq'or suit mobility evaluation was p e r f o r min the ad3pter sec tion while the astronaut was restra ined b y th e foot r es t ra in t s . Th e pilot pe rfo rm ed a task in which he leaned backward a-w a y from t h e s p a c e c r a w h i l e in the foo t res t ra in t s , Figure 5-39demonstra tes tw o aspects of this task in which the pilot attempted to d e -termine the angle and ra diu s of action of his G-4C s p a c e su i t . Ingeneral , suit mobility evaluation w a s a continuous aspect of the overalltask evaluations.

T he l imb f lexure ana lys i s d e r i v e d f r o m f i l m analysis for the lean back

During the flight, the pilot comm ented that the lean back task was moredifficult than in .the prdl ight water simulation. He noted in thi s post -f light ru n that the task wa s v e r y much like that pe rf or m ed in the orbitalm o d e . T he increased force requ i remen t s f o y the flight a n d postflightsimulation we re cau sed by the use of the mo re rigid extravehiculsuit ( F P S ) . T h e ex t ra pro tec t i ve layers caused a n increased .sui tr igidi ty . This factor required the astronaut to expend extra energyusing the E V suit over that eqperienced in the prefli gh t simulation withhis training suit.

t a sk in the preflight a n d postflight simulation is presen ted in F igure 5-40

T o r q u e T a s k s - The evaluation of the astronaut ?R ability to exert tor-quing for ce s w ae pe rfo rm ed in the equipment adapter and Ag en a w or kstation. T or qu e capability of a restraine d and unrestrained astronautis considered of pr ime importance for f u ture space miss ions . T headapter wo rk station tor qu e evaluat ions were perform ed on a fixed boltconfiguration located at the bottom ce nte r of the work pane l . I n bothth e flight and simulation m o d es , Pilot A ld ri n evaluated clo ck wi se andcounterclockwise torquing operations . Aldr in firs t per formed the adap tertorquing operation while in th e foo t res t ra in t s . H e th en attached hisleft and right waist tethers and re-evaluated this task with tethe rs only.Table X?CU ' sum ma rize s the tim e allocatedto torque evaluation an$ theenergy expendi ture involved'f o s the orbital and' simulation m od es .

90



The astronaut used a special torque wrench fog, $ he A g e n a wo r k stationportion of hie torque evaluation. This tool was xnwually ac(fustable anddesigned to ??breakf ree" if the qet value of torque w a s exceeded and

was des igna ted the Apollo torque wrench. The Apol lo torque wrenchsh o wn in Figuse 5-41 employed a male * k e y type drive. The boltreceptacle on the Ag ena wo rk s ta tion wa sfixed mounted iq a torquebox .

The adapter torque wrench malfunctioned during both the flight and the

simulation tqrque tasks . In both ca.ses the visual readout gauge f+f led .It i4 also worth noting that in the water simulation, Aldrin broke the

"fixed bolt free when us ing the maximum torque qetting on, th e wre n c h .

Quantitative data on either the flight or simulation cannot be derived dueto equipment €ailure. However, Ast ronau t Al d r i n noted in h is d e b r i d -ing that a y torque task found practical in the water simulation wouldalso pnove ' practical in space .

Maintenance Tasks - T h o s e tasks, specifically designed as an evaluation

of propoged future space maintenance, included bolt remo val andr e -placement, electrical m d fluid connector operationst cable cutting gpe ra-t ions, hook and ring connection, and the Velcro strip evaluation. Theinitial cam era pla cem ent and the wo rk station preparation and cleqnuptargkrs w e r p also included in th is task category .

.

The first cam era placem ent task was an evaluationto determine an op-t imum mode of camera. handling. The re su l t s of this evaluation shpwedthat camera placement and re tri eva l wa s optimized when the pilot utilizeda semi-unrestrained positioning technique requiring only the use ofhisf r e e hand to place his body in the proper relat ive posit ion.

Maintenance task evaluation was per€o rmed on the Ag ena wo rk station.A n e lect ri ca l connector, similar to the connector in the adapter workstat ion, was moqnted on the side of th e A g e n a wo rk station panel .

Aldrin noted that he found no proble m in connection o r disconnection ofthis unit in his pre€light or orbital E V A .

7n general , .the task periormance was very s imi lar , both from a timeend work leve l basis . The astronaut did not experience any dBicultiesin per€orming the tasks . as prescr ibed . W o r k loa ds and time allocationsw e r e ~ u c c e s s f u l l y p r e d i c t e d in the simulation. The evaluation of re =straintp proved to be. highly amenable to water immersion simulation.

E V A S u p p o r t T a s k s

Camera Placemen t and Retrieval - Astronaut A l d r i n Is first umbilicalE V A camera placement task in both orbital and simulation time lines

w as categorized as an E V A evaluation task. All subsequent cameratasks were ent ire ly support tasks designed to produce a 16 mm color€ilm re co rd of the umbilical E V A . Excep t fo r the camera mechan i smfa i lu re .in the adapter section, Aldrin noted no problem with the camena

91



placement tasks in orbit. He did comment that his initial camera placc-men t seemed even e a s i e r in flight than it had been in the Bimulatione.This fac t may certa in ly have been the resul tof training experience.

Movement - Movement d o n g the Epacscraft and from the Bpacecraft to

the Agena target vehicle in previous Gemin i miss ions w as consideredan important task objec tive . F o r the Gemini A Z E V A mission, a sys-

t e m of motion aids was designed to expedi te this movement . The utili-zation of the motion aids provided increased time f o r the subsequentE V A evaluation ta s ks . Movement fro m the spac ecra f t hatch ar ea to theA ge na w as aided by the installation of the portable handrail , Figure 5-42

An a l y s i s of the f i lm reco rd from the wate r simula tion show s this fomovement to have the greatest velocity among all the gros s mo vem entt a s k s of the GT-XU umbilical E V A . The veloci ty of this movement w asapproximately 0.3 f e e t p e r s e c o n d . Th i s is less than the limits estab-l ished f o r drag-degrada tion d e c t s , 0.5 f e e t p e r s e c o n d . T h e m o v e -m e n t from hatch to T D A w a s 10 seconds longer in flight than similarmovement in the simulation. From analys is of the flight film, the m 9-

t ions appear to be identical, although the velocity was slight ly l e s s thanthat of the water simulation. It is significant to note that e v en thoughthe ve loc ity in the simulation w as hig her and the time sho rter , that theenergy cost w as higher for the orbital movement task . This fur thersubstant iates the absence of percept ible drag effects in the water simu-lation for movemen t tasks of velocit ies under 0.5 fee t p e r s e c o n d .

Rests - Fi g u re 5-43 compares the rest p e r i o d s for the flight a n d watersimulafion mades. C ro ss -h a t c h e d a re a s on the fig ur e indicate th e reqtp e r i o d s . The single reversed cross-hatch area indicates the durationof the wa ter simulation re ba lan ce break . A comparison of the individual

res t p e r i o d s , fro m a t ime and ene rgy c o s t b a s i s , is given in Table XX$T he m os t significant variation between sp a c e pe rfo rm an ce and simulationis the number and f r e q u e n c y of r e s t p e r i o d s . T h e r e w e r e t w e l v eres t s in the wa ter simulation and on ly eleven in the flight. T h e totalt ime of the rest p e r i o d s , h o w e v e r , w a s lo ng er in f light than in th e simu-lation. Although the total orbital rest t ime was in ex ces a of the simula-tion time, it appears that the r e s t periods dur ing the simulation w e r ebe t t e r sp a c e d , th er eb y contributing to minimum energy expendi ture .

T w o flight rest p e r i o d s , n u m b e r s ( 4 ) a n d (10 ) , a r e of part icular sig-ni f icance. Rest period ( 4 ) w as part icu lar ly long, yet the rate of e n e r g yexpendi ture increases rapidly through the half of the duration. Although

this time period was designated as a res t , Pilot Aldrin used this timeperiod to del iver messages to the wor ld . The detailed activity duringthis rest period w as discussed in a prec eding sec t ion . Analys i s h a ssho wn that this rest perio d included per iod sof relatively high physicalactivity. The e n e r g y c o s t is probably misleading, however , since miti-gating psychological factors m ay be involved. Mission Control waswarned of the increa se in heart rate to the 140 bea t s /min . leve l by theteleme try read out and Astronaut Aldrin w as advised of t h i s increase .I n the middle of this rest period the pilot wa s advised to slow down hisactivity and complete the period in a resting posi t ion. The resul t ot; thiss lowdown w as eviden ced in the decreasing energy expendi ture rats to -war ds the end of the rest per iod .

92



Orbital rest per iod (15) wss ~ S Oa n extended rest p e r i o d . R e f e r e n c eto the cumulative energy expenditure dine s h o w s a marked inacsea~e.inthe ra te of energy expenditure ju s t pr ior to thie Pest period . F O P anexplanation of thi s Fate incpease and the subsequent extended Feet period ,the following correlation between the sirnulation and orbital t h e lines ispostulated. Immediately folhwinng the qdapter work station .taskB in thesimulation, Aldrin moved to the spacecraft hatch. A t this point he ex -

ecuted a camera change and r e s t e d f o r 45 seconds . After this r e s t ,Aldr in moved forward to th e Ag e n a w o r k station to begin his T D Awork tasks . Fol lowing his first work station task group, the pilottook his scheduled 2 minute rest per iod . Fro m th e voice record , itdo es not appear that the astronaut w a s excessively ? ' t ired f P at this poin t.T h e r e w a s a slight increase in energy expenditure during the movement

f o r w a r d f ro m a d a p t e r to Agena . In contra st to the perform ance in thesimulation, after Astronaut Aldrin completed his orbital ada pter workt a s k s , a n d moved to the spacecraft hatch, he did no t take advantage ofa rest period . Instead , he made his camera ch ang e and activation andcontioued immediately to the Agena w o r k station. On the A g e n a, Aldrinimmediately began his first T D A w o rk task . Af ter approx imate ly th e

sa m e task t ime interval a s in the simulation, the pilot completed thisw or k tas k group and rrrequestedrf a re s t p e r i o d . Fro m t h e vo ice re -cording it appears that the astronaut was ready for t h i s re s t . T h i swas the extended duration re st pe rio d(10 ) . It lasted 3 .-O7and w a s thelongest actual resting period in either the orbital or water simulationm o d e s .

I n s u m m a r y , theres t per iod s gen era l ly pro ved suc ces sful in maintainina relat ively normal energy expendi ture f o r both the flight and the sim u-lation. T h e only difficulty pertaining to interpretation of the res t s is thatthe astronaut performed minor tasks dur ing h is res t ing sess io ns .

Ex p e r i m e n t S u p p o r t Ta sk s

T he f inal task category includes those tasks which we re not direatlyrelated to EVA but which required support b y the EVA astronaut.T h e tasks included the Agena tether and S-010 activation, a n d t h e r e -trieval of the GL V strips. Figure 5-44 p re se n t s t h e cornparkon of theexperiment s u p p o r t task category .

Th e Ag ena teth er activation was a preparat ionfor the gravity gradientexperiment later in the Gemini X U miss ion . The Agena tether tasktook 40 sec ond s mo re in f light than the same task in the simulation.T he energy expend i ture w a s also g r e a t e r for thg orbital mode. The

inorease w as due to time the astronaut spent evaluating the loose rrtoad-Btoolff on top of the docking b a r . This in itseE would not appear tojustiry the increased energy expendi ture. The astronaut f~ motions wereessentially the same for both modes of this tether task. T h e d i f f e r e n c ein energy ao st could be attributed to either variations induced b y the

93



aimulation o r actual undefined variations due tq work in a grgvi ty freeenvironment . The dserence noted could easily be attributed to thisl a t e r f a c t o r a sd i s cu s s ed in the preceding section.

T h e r em a in in g tasks , the S-010 activation a n d the GLV &rip removal ,will not be dis cu ss ed since the actual S-010 hardware was not avail-able fo r th e simulationand since the G L V s t r ip removal proved to be

negligible from a t ime and energy standpoint .

94



WUI

TABLE X SIMULATION T IME LINE - FINAL ITERATION Page I of 6

Task

F=sitioning/.?estrainn

Came.-a Plecement-.?etrieyal/F'iimC . h g e

Positioning/Restrain

Rest (1)

Optical SurfaceE valu'ation

Eubtask

Star.5x.a familiarization

Selectian of optimum carneriplace.-xent mode

Seiezt 'zn of optimum ca:ne-:

placsnent mode

Preparation f o r cameraplacement evaluation outsidehatc.? zr ea

Selezric.7 oi aptimum came?#pla=e.zent m o d e , spzcecra!!exteriorbodyposition

Preparat fon for r e s t onhandrail

Attempt t o c t e a s / c windonwith wiper cloth

Position

."- "-7Standing in spacecraft hatch

Standing in spacecraft hatch, le gtethered

Standing in spacecraft hatch,untethered

Spacecral? exter-ior, hatch area

SpececraEt exter-ior, hatch area

Spacecraf t exter-iop, OIL handrail

I t

cnc.-ii

-:50

1 :5 0

2"55

3:20

.IC :25

4 : 3 5

4 :5:

,5:5c

6 :2L

EHYll--m>i)..

1:

V--:50

:60

:65

:25

:65

:10

.si5

"55

t3C

INMENTAL RFlSEARCH ASSOCIATE!

Camments

Commandpilot marks begin-

' 8 minut es into umbilicalE V A )ning of standup familiarization

Pilotsf tethered position incockpit was simulated in thistime Iine, Pitot attempted to"b r a c e himseE.* in the cock-Dit.

PilotsL6ody drifted 80% out ofcockpit while attemptingc a n e r a installation untethered

Pilot posa'fions his body out-side and over the s p a c e c r d thatch - p d l e l with the f o r e -& axis of the spacecraft.

Pilot moves from r e t r o adapkcameraposition to handrail

using both hands to maintain

a resting position with hi;s

torso and Legs eatendcd ov e r

command piIoL hatch.



TABLE X - Cont'd. Page 2 d 6

Pssitioning/Restraint Un5:il icd extenaior: prior toforward translation toATD-4

Posikioning/R&raint Evalxation of tether dynamic

PI Preprat ion f o r Agenat e ther task .

Ag e n a Tether

Positioning/Restraint Repcsitioning on A TD-4 p r bto S-10 deployment

Communications

j5-10,

Positioning/Restraint Repositioning on A T D A prioto Velcro strip removal

A T D A Work S t a -tion Preparation

Initial pip pin placement

Position

5pzcecraf t exter-or , on handrail

I1

Spacecraf t /ATD/hter face

N

I1

I1

A T D A workstation

I1

Pilot simulated this task sincermbilical was already extend

During rest an d umbilicalextensio n tasks pilot mu leu -vered par t ia l l y up handrail.A t beginning of movement ta s

>f hatch.pilots-positron was forwardiPilot tethere d to A T D A ringswi€h both waist tethers.

Pilot repositionrr both waisttethers to S-10 a r e a loca-tions.

:

Pnot tethered to A T D Awith both waist tethers.task simulated &cause of

lo w ETdelity mockup character

istics.



TABLE X - Cont'd.

k tk

Rest (3)

Positioning/Restrait:

Movement

Camera Flacement-Retrieval/FilmChange

GLV Strip Retrievd

Retrieval/FilrnCamera Placement-

Change

Movement

Positionmg/RcstraiJ

2amera Placement-?etr ievd /Fi lmShange

Page 3 of 6

Preparation for translationa€t to hatch

Translation along portablehandrail f r o m A T D A tospacecraft hatch

Retro adapter camera filmchange

Unstow work station camer.

Translation on adapterhandrail to adapter workstation

Evaluation of work stationand initial body positioning

Work station camera instal-lation

Position

4 T D A work

station

Spacecraft exter-:o r on handrail-spacecrd ha tch

Standing in spacec r a f t hatch

ll

II

Adapter handrail

I n foot restraintsin adapter

I1

Zommand pilot notesttat end>f rest period , flight planh e is 28 minutes into day-'ight perio d ' 1

Pilot notes that hook up oE

w a i s t tethers to E L S S wasmade dzicult because of! y g e I'D ring catching on

JIP pin.

Pilot secures work stationcamera to E L S S .

Pilot pauses twice to positionumbilical during af? translatiolTda l interval of'umbilical wa

30 seconds



TABLE X C on t 'd . Page 4 d 6

Task

Febalancing Break

!?est (4)

4dapterWorkStation Preparation

Positianing/Restrainl

Res t (5)

Adapter Work Task

(A )

Res t (6)

Adapter Work Task

(E)

Rebalance Break

R e s t (7)

Adapter Work TaskfC)

Cubtask

Foot restraint evaluation

a1 - A,?

E1 - E 5

c1 - c 4

Fositian

~~

rn adapter

II

W

rn footrestraints'n adapter

I I

II

II

In adapter

Waist tethers onlyin adapter

II

-tI-

UYn

mm

UI-

-1O:Ol

I1:01

12:52

?4 :35

36:02

37:55

14:45

46:4!

@:4€

69:52

71:52

U

L

m

z

"-'0:01

f1 :01

32:52

34 :3f

36:02

37:5!

44:41

46:4!

e:44

69:5.

71:5.

IE W f

36:02 1:27

37:55 1:53

44:45 6:5Q

46:45 2:OO

6.?:4816:03

3lot undertakes short unas-sisted neutral buoyancy:heckoat.

Cvaluation of resting withrarious restnaint points.

Sommand pilot notes missiontime as 44 :15at elapsedh e of 36:20.

Pilot switches work station,amera to 6 F P S at beginninof these subtasks and returns:amera to 1 F P S at end af

subtasks. (simulated)

Subtasks El - B3 in footrestraintsS u b t a s k s B4, B5 on waisttethers only.

6'

Velcro strip and connectore valuations



Tar k

Positioning/Restrainf

Re s t (8)

Adapter’ WorkStation Cleanup

Poaitioning/Reatrainl

Adapter WorkStation Cleanup

Reat (9)

Pos;tioning/Restrainf

Movement

CameraPlacement-Retrieval /Fi lmChange

Rest (10)

Movement

A T D A WorkStation Ta s k (A)

Page 5 d 6

EuStask

Return to footrestraints

Preparation to return tospacecraf? hatch

One foot restraint evaluation

Translat ion forward tospacecraR hatch area.

S t o wa g e of adapter workstation camera and activatiolof retro adapter camera

Translat ion forward toA T D A wo r k s ta tio n

A1

Fositim

5 foot restraintsn adapter

tt

4dapter handrail

5pacecraR hatchc e a

Portable handrailand A T D A

A T D A w or kstation

IFJ

Yul

W

rJn-

-

77:08

77:30

3 1 :03

33:15

95:32

98:42

99:42

90:46

92:15

93:04

94:OS

ErIrl’-I244

L

0

I:--:22

2:00

1:33

2:12

2:17

3:lO

:60

1 :Oh

1:33

:45

1:05

2 : l O

)NMEHTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE!

Commcnts

Pilot secures handholds toE LSS

Camera and penlight retr13val

Command pilot req ues ts pilotto extend his rest periodbecause they ar e ahead OC

achedule on their task/ t imeline.

Pilot m.&es several attemptat~ Velcro portable handholdato E L S S . Low fidelitymockup prevents aucceaa.

Initial portable handholdplacement.



TABLE X .Cont'd

Task

?est (11)

i T E A W or k S ta ti o?ask (E)

?est ( 1 2 )

1T D A Work Statiorask (C )

1T D A Work Stat ic3leanup

9T D A Work. StaticT as k ( 0 )

Wovement

Samera PlacementFetrieval/FilmZhange

[ngress

Handrail Jettison

Hatch Closure.Preparation

Hatch !Closure

P e e 6 of 6"

8uStask

El - E 3

Cl - c3

Jettison of pi p pins, waisttethers and portable hand-holds

D l - 0 2

Translation aft to .spacecr&hatch area

Retrieval and stowage ofretro adapter camera

Umbil ical recovery, hatchholding device deploymentand hatch seal checkout

Assuming seated position incockpit

-

Posirion

~ ~~

4 T D A w or kstation

I f

11

Portable handrailand spacecrd

Spacecraf t hatchare a

Standing in spaclcraft hatch

I f

I f

Seated in cock-pi t seat of spacecraft

ENVll--0

0

u

2c.--2:00

3 :40

1 :55

6:lO

:35

3 : o o

1 :04

I :40

:27

:26

:2 s

NMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE!

Comments

Pip pinlhandhold connectorm d torque evaluation

Torque and connector evalu-stion with single and bothLethers

Connector and torquere-evaluation using no tether,

Torque wrench stowage

Hatch not closed in simula-tion time line



1

PositioninglRestraint S t a n d u p FamiliarizationTask

Communications I

S / C hatch i 0 :oo

I'

Camera Placement-RetrievallFilmChange


Camera Placement-

Retrieval/FilmChange


Rest (2 )

Positioning/Re&aint

Movenient

Selection OE optimum cameraplacement mode

Preparation Eoor cameraplacement evaluation outsidehatch area

Selection of optimum place -

ment mode

Preparation Eoor rest period

Umbilical exte nsion priortomovement to docking bar

Translation f ro m s/ c hatchto docking bar along portablchandrail

Standing in s/ chatch

S / C hatch. area

It

If

S /c exterior

If

1 :40

1 :52

3 : 01

4:40

5:25

6:20

6:54

8 : 3 i

9 :4 i

-I"

42 : 1 42 : i 1 :40;Pilot evaluates fr ee floating 151 :O$. 52:441 tendency while standing in '

! S / C hatch. Pilot states that1

,he cannot percie ve any forceslarge enough to cause floating

1 {of large objects

it!,

j!

42 : /I 42 :52: 4352 :54

42 : ; 42 :52:52 53:49

42 : I

55:4554:0642 :

42 :56:30 55:442 :

56:3042: 42:57:25

42:57:52 57:2542 :

42: 42:57:59

4 3 :42 :

59:42

01 :3300:5243: 43:

00:4759:42

.A

:09' CP calls for a 2 minute rest

Periodi

:52 Pilot commented that this re st :

no r e a l activity had occurrecdid not appea r nece ssar y as'

1 :39mode- utilized a combinationOptimum (time) placement

of positioning aid fr om s / c

movement while outside s / cwith increased freedom of

:45hatch

1

:27 Pilot stated that he had toget proper position and'holdon to something 1' to getcomplete rest

to handrail1 :43 Pilot rests while holding on

1:05

:41 Pilot noted slight tendency to'g o head o ver heels 1 , count-eracted by light torque .I". . . - ".. .



TAKE P - -Cont'd.-

Task

?ositioning/Restraint

4gena Tether

Dositioning/Restraint

PositioninglRestrain

A T D A 'Work Statioj

Preparation

Rest (41

Page 2 of 9

Eubtask

Tvaluation oP tether dynamic2

Preparation i s r res t

Repositioning on A T D A prio;bo work station setup

Initial evaluation - se tu p oEA TD A wo rk s ta tion

Position

S / C e x t er io r ,:ethered to hand.

rail

S / C e xt er io r,Lethered to A T Drings

S / C - A T D Ainterface

11

I f

A T D A w s r kstation

I1

ti=U0)

ula4

w-

-

10:3:

12:2-

14:5:

15:5,

18:O.

21:4

22:4

23:5

YL

m

5;

43:01:4r

43 :03:21

43 :06:03

43:06:5

43 :09:0

43:12:5

43:13:5

43 :15:c

43 :08:2f

43:05:4C

43:06:52

43 :09:01

43 :l2:4:

43 :13:3.

43 :14 :c

43 :20:l.

Concomittant evaluation OE

E L S S cooling capacity.

Evaluation similar to eEEectsduring standup E V A . Slightcooling of extremities.

2 :20 Slight disturbance to Agenaduring task due to speed ofmovement . Slight problemtr

:38

2:07

3 :39

:40

1:06

5:08

lith hookup of dockhg barlamp.

I:

Zommand pilot states thatpexbrmance so Ear is Easterha n target an d calls Eor re s>eriod.

Pilot notes rough edged mst-rid on s/c s e p . p l a n e .

So me ' difEiculty evide nced dueio; requirements for fine hanDperation, a nd to avoid touch

ing experiment surEace .C P photographed pilot tetherrestrained position

Pilot commented on possibiiity d kicking L band antem

43:16:05 - 43:17.:45 (mea,sages to Houston) 43:18:21

CC suggested slow down duto elevated heart rate



TABLE - Con1 Id .

Task

Communicatiszs

Movement

Camera Placement -Retrieval/Fi!mChange

G L V Str ip lelr ieva

Retr ieva l lFi in

Camera Plasement -

Change

Positioning/.?ascraint

Movement

Subtask

Initial A T D - 4 work stationsetup

Evaluation of ice form.ationGI: H2 vent

Peturn to s/c hatch

Zilm change f o r 70mm

h k u r e r .

S towage of adapter work

station camera on E L S S

Umbilical fe ed out pr ior tomovement to adapter

Translation from portablehandrail along retro-handrai,to pigtail

Position

A TD.4 workstation

S / C exterior

S /C exterior onportable handrailstanding in hatch

S / C hatch

If

S / C exterior onportable handrail

Along retro-equi,

exteriorment adapter

YL

(0

3;

-

43:20:l

43:21 :o

43:22:2

43:23:2

43:24:O

43:

25:4

43:27:1

43:27:4

;IiEE -c0E

1-I

43:21:03

:4:

43:2i':22

1 :1 ,

43:23:08

:4,

43: :223:51

43:25:43

1:3

26:59

1:l.43:

43:27:36

:2

43:29:44.

2:0,

Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE!11

Initial evaluation of Velcrohandholds and placement of

handholds f or lat er wDrkstation tasks. C P ordersreturn to hatch at 41 :21:03

Pilot comments that dockingdamp should not beused ashandhold since it might comeloose.

Pilot asks CP to check umbiiical condition

S t o w e e of 4 strips slightconcer n to pilot

Required pilot to connect

auxiliary tether then Velcrocameras to E L S S .

Includes routing umbilicalthrough pigtail a n d initialen try into the foot restrainta.C P comments th& pilot isperturbing entire E / C due -to-motions



TABLE P - Con1 'd . Page 4 of 9

Camera Placement -Retrieva!/Film chacg

I

1Communications

W ork Stat ion Pre -paration

Work Sta t i on Pre -

Subtask

rnitial setup and checkout of2dapter work station carnerz

Foot restraint evaluation

Penlight deployment

Camera activation

Camera Activation

Position

Foot restraints-facing adapter

wsrk station

In footres traintsin adapter

In foot restraintsin adapter

In foot res traintr

in adapter

In f oo t restraintsin adapter

In foot res traintrin adapter

I f

If

38 :4 0

$1:02

4 2 : 0s

4 5: 02

4 5 : 4 :

4 6 : 2 :

4 7 : l '

4 9 : 3

-

U

L

rn

3;

-

4 3 :29:4.

4 3 :32: 0

4 3 :3 3 : 1 #

4 3 :

3 6 : 0

4 3 :3 6 : 5

4 3 :3 7 : 3

4 3 :3 8 : ;

4 3:40:4

5,.-E

ir

-4 3 :32: 0

4 3 :33 :0,

43 :3 6 : 0,

4 3 :

3 6 : 4

43 :3 7 : 3

4 3:3 8 : .

43 :40: .

4 3 :4 3 : -


1Comments-0>

CI

L

E

0--2:22

:5 7

2:50

:41

:3 E

:4 (

2:05

2:3t

Pilot observes that l inkageon camera bracket is brokez

(push ba r mechanism whichoperates ball detent)

Piiot com me ds that his leftheel seems to be riding alittle high in the foot restrair

Pilot observes neutral suitposition, movement in foreand a f t direction return toneutral position. Pilot leansback parall el to longitudinalspacecraft axis (similar toexercise in water immersiorsimulation). Pilot commentc

little bit harder 11 than thethat this maneuver is Ita

same maneuver in the watel(g rea t e r leg force ).Pilot a n d C P d i scus s adaptecamera condition and umbili.cal condition

Pilot observes that one pen,light is Itbulged I f apparentlyf rom hea t .

Pilot observes that camera'appears to be working

tttempt to activate work statio.camera not success ful




~

I

TaskI

I'Eubtask Position

Adapter Work Task( A)

ldapter Work Task

(B1)

( 8 )

Torque evaluation , In foot restraintsConnector .operation ~ in adapter

Cutter evaluation

Pip pin and portable handholcevaluation

Saturn bolt removal

Remove right waist tethe rfrom E L S S ; attach to workstation r i n g . R em ov e l atether from E L S S a n d attachto work station

Saturn bolt evaluation

I t

tt

I t

Waist tethers onlyin adapter

.5 2 4 43 :

~ 43:2I

59:38 43:

7 2 : l l

50:4,

t 3 :j2 :22

14 J

?3:1t

$3:50:43

43 :52:1~

4 4 : :03:15

54 :04:2 C

7: 21

1 :35

.0:53

1 :04

Comments

Pilot notes that he had diffi;culty removing wrench fromwork station pouch.

Pilot notes cutting wir es is e

one handed ta sk ; cutting fluiddisconnect is relatively diffi-cult- a n d is a two handedoperation

ELSS flow with monitoringPilot comments Ifmedium

is adequate 11 f o r wo rk ta sksaccomplished so f a r

Pilot encounters difficulty wit1melted rubberretainer onSaturn bolt causing increasework load because of needto use bothhands t o r e m o v ebolt.



TABLE X- C m t ' d . Page 6 of 9

Task

9dapter Work Task

(BPI

4dapter Work Task(C )

Adapter Work Sta-:ion Cleanup

Movement

Pubtask

Saturn bolt evaluation

Hook a n d ring evaluation

Velcro strip evaluation

Center connector evaluation

LeEt hand connector

e valuation

Right hand connectore valuation

Retr ieve work stationcamera

Translat ion along retro/equ~ment adapter to s / c hatch

Position

W3ist tethers onlyin adapter

If

If

In foot restraint2in adapter

Adapter handrail

UL

m

J

-

44 :04 :3 (

44 :10:5<

44 :12:3

44 :16&

44 :19:4

cu1

E.-ii

-

64 :20:54

44 :1 2 : 2

44 :16:l:

44 :18:X

4420:l

EHVll

2L

0.L

E-

6:24

1 :3;

3:4;

DNMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE5

Comments

Pilot notes that IfS atu rn boltworkspace is way too close

to the tether' 1 .

Pilot comm ents that flsmallring requires more delicatehandling to get prop er positiori n h a n d f f .

C P a n d pilbtconsult theirrespective task check lists.Pilot notes rfeet ar e actuallychilly 1 1.

minutes behind scheduleC P comments Itrunning 4

beEore this task begins.

Pilot notes that bod y positionis not aproblem Eor centerconnector.

Pilotnotesthat left hand con-

nector task is Ita bit more1. diEEicult 11 because of lack of'j handholds.

Pilot notes that right hand

o n e l f'1 connector is Ifquite an easy

2:14! Pilot reports ,difficulty detach-:;ing camera from bracke t . .i

~ Task completed after only I,

.I slight delay.

.I1

:31;Pilot notes that work station',I

cameraalm ost tangled in pig-'#!/ tail as he Bounded theii separation plane.



Task

Camera Placement-Retrieval/Film

Change

dovement

1 TD A Work Stat ionrask (h)

?est (10)

1TD A Wor k S ta tionrask ( b j

?est (11)

P,

Cubtask

Exchange cameras. Pilothands in work station came .

C P gives pilot retro-adaptecamera

Trans la t ion from s/c hatchto A TDA wark station

Pip =in and portable hand-hold evaluation. (Initial placment )

Pi p pi n a n d portable hand-hold evaluation. (Dynamicevaluation)

Fluid and electrical discon-

nect evaluation

Apollo torque wrench evaluation

7 of 9

Position

Spacecraf texterior hatch

are a

SpacecraH exterior Portablehandrail to spacc r a f t / A TD.4interface

A T D A w o r kstation

11

I1

E"i=Uwul

mW

n-

89:21

91 :5 :

93 :21

95 :54

99:lO

: 0 2 : 2 ;

C

mL

x

-

4420

4423

44 :24:

44 :26:

44 :30:

44 :34 :

EHVII-

-(0

CGI

c

i:

--2:34

I :14

2:13

3:07

3:46

1 :54

-

BNMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Comments

Pilot installs retro-adaptercamera and m.&es exposure

settings l/25O at 6 f r a me sDer second

Pilot requ ests a rest perio dafte r initially placing pip pin san d handholds.

Pilot comments "pip pinsthat swivelare not adequateas handholds 11

Pilot comments IILooks likea panel on the back of th eAgena is a little loose 11 .

period revealed electricalClo ser examination during rea

umbilical panel that failed tolrslam shut on left-off~l



Pa g e 8 of 9

Task

4 T D A Work Statio1Task (e/

Observation andFinal W o r k StationClean up

Movement

Opt ical Sur fac iEvaluation

Communications

Umbilical Stowage

Eubtask

Apollo torque wrench evalu-ation

Torque re-evaluation usingonly on e waist tether

no tethersTorque re-evaluation using

Jettison of pi p pins, waisttethers and portable handholdsT D A work task using notethers (electrical connectorevaluation)

Translation t o s / c h at ch dol;portable handrail

Attempt to clean s / c windoawith wiper cloth

Positioning

Position

A T D A w or kstation

t I

I1

Spacecraf t exter -ior/portable hanc

rail

Spacecraf t exterio rPortable handraiand C P window

Spacecraf t exter -

handrailior on portable

Spacecrafe exter-io r on portablehandrail, hatcharea

ti='0

ulY

a

W-a

!04:5

111:1

111 :5

112:5

113:5

114:3

-

U

L

;;a

-A4 :35: 56

44 :42:2:

44 :43 :01

44 :44 :01

44 :44 :51

44 :45:4.

-

xul

E.-iL

44 :42 :21

44 :43 :02

44 :43 :52

44 :44 :5!

44 :45:41

44 :i36:24

-

6:25

:4.

:5:

:5.

:44

:4.

-

Comments

ttclose fi t of the suit in thea r m s 1' .

Pilot notes his contac t pointsio be "right arm, right waistbether, and right foot 11.

Pilot makes on e last check d

left hand thrusters

Pilot notes that ItAgena tethezlookshooked up and the docking bar clamp is engaged"

Pilot notes fiat 'Ithe only:hings that are coming close

:o being warm . ar e my a r m s !H e attributes this to the

c

-

It



TABLE= - Cont'd. P q e 2 of 2

Task

I S - 1 0Is -

1 0

s -10

Restraint

I I

Movement

Ca me r a Task

Torque Task

Eubtask

.- ....."Farring removal an d

jettison

S - 10 removal fFom slots

S - 10 placement on Velcro

Detach right waist tetherfrom TD.4

Detach left waist tetherf r o m TDA

Translation back handrailfrom TD.4 towards space-craft hatch

Install Work station cam era

boltTorquing operation on fixed

Position

-.""-

TD-4

I1

T E A

I 1

11

Adapter workstation

It

. ".

-

U

h

9

3;

-01 .9

15.4

19.9

29.0

49.0

50.8

56.0

70.4

38 .5

50.8

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE!

- I*aComments

1 3 . 5

4.5

9.1

20. c

1 . 6

5. 2

14.3

15. S

12.j

42.4

Appears to be time missingat the beginning of this task

Blackout

Blackout

Pilot re-attaches this tethero his E L S S

to hi s E L S SPilot re-attaches this tether

Pilot moves back to end dhandraiLI3uring thistransla-tion he turns 180" at approxlmately half way down hand-rail.

Thi s task is not completeon film

Film ends bdore th i s taskis complete



TABLE aP. FLIGHT TIME LINE-WORK STATION TASKS - DETAILED ANALYSIS Pa m I of 3 EIIYIRC"!rI1

Rsition

-43 :43 :22

43 :49:02

43:52:22

43 :55 :51

43 :57:55

43 :59 :44

44 :01 :25

44:04:30

44 :07:31

-

'iJ

b

t

I

Torque

Electrical connector (center,

In foot restraints

I1

Pilot notes difEiculty remo vingwrench €rom pouch.

Pilot notes that Itcrea se inglove on thumb I t is beginninghis hand trouble.

Adapter W o r k Task

(A)

5:40

I :41

3:29

4 3 :49: 02

43:50 :4,

43:55:51

43:57:s;

43:59: 44

44:01 :2 :

44:03:1;

44 :07:33

44:10:51,

-

Adapter W o r k Task

(ElI"utter 11 j Pilot comm ents that Itmedium

, ELSS flow with monitoringis adequate for wo r k tasssaccomplished so €a.

Pip pin and portable hand-iold

Saturn bolt

2:04

1 :49

I :41

1 :so

3:01

3:23

4ttach waist tethers to w or kstation, remove fee t fromvestraints and evaluate bodydynamics

Saturn bolt Pilot encoun ters difficulty withmelted rubber retainer onSaturn bolt causingincrease

work load because a€ needto use both hand s to removebolt.

rt

I t

Adapter Work Task

@,ISaturn bolt Pilot notes that tFSa€urn boit

workspaceis wayto o closeto the tethersI t .

Pilot commenta that IIsmalL

ring requires more delicatehandling to get pro pespos i-tion in hand.

Hook and ring



TABLEm- Cont’d. Page 2 of 3

Task

4dapter Work Task

(C)

T D A Wark Task

( aI

Cubtask


Left hand connector evalu -ation

Right hand connector evalu-ation

Pip pir? and portable hand-hold evaluation (initial pl ac e-men t )

Pi p pin and portable hand-hold evaluation (dynamics

evaluation)

Fluid and electrical discon-nect evaluation

Apollo torque wrenchevaluation

Apol lo torque wrenchevaluation

Fosition

Waist tethers only

‘n adapter

It

I t

TDA workstation usingwaist tethers

t t

t t

tt

It

91 :3 ;

f2 :08

82:5;

8 3 :3 2

44 : 44 : :3 6

12:37 13:13

44 : 44 : :3 91 3 : l j 13:52

44: 44: :3514:02 14:37

14 :37

24 :26

44: 44: 2:12

44 : 44: :36

31 : I 3 33:25

33 :25 34 :01

44: 44: 2:2735:56 38:23

Cammeats

C P comments tcrunning 4

minutes behind schedule It

before this subtask begins.

Pilot notes that body positionis not a problem for centerconnector.

Pilot notes that left handconnector i s I t a bit morediEficult11 because of lack ofhandholds.

Pilot notes that right handconnector is Itquite an e a s yon e 11 .

Pilot requests a rest periodafterinitially placing pip pinsand handholds.

Pilot comments Itpip pi nsthat swi vel are not adequate

as handholds. It

Pilot notes that- Wh e onlythings that are coming closeto being warm are my arm-8

H e attributesthis.to th e 11

Itclose Eit OE th e suit in th ea rms ‘ 1 .



TABLE I I P - Cont 'd.

tTask

1 '" (C )Work Task

(Continued)

EuStask

rorque re-evaixation usingmly right waist tether

Torque re-evaii;ation usingIO tethers

Position

TDA work

station using rightwaist tether only

T D A workstationno restraints

-

&*C.-G

7

44 :40 :2L

44 :k 2:21

Qmmcnts

Pilot notes his contact pointsto be !!right arm , rightwaist tether a n d right footI t .



TABLE XV

Task

Adspter Work Task(A)

Adapter Work Task( E )

Eubtask

Torque evaluation

Torque task-looseningevaluation

Torque task-tighteningevaluation

Tor que tas k- l / 2 inch boltevaluation

Center .connector evaluation

Cutter evaluation

Pip piz and portabl e hand-hold evaluation

Saturn bolt removal

Saturn bolt removal

Hook an d ring evaluation

Pos i t i on

In foot restraintsin adapter

I I

I1

I I

I 1

11

11

11

Waist tethers onlJin adapter

.-i

B

ca

-W

rJ

-37:55

38 :55

$0:20

$1:20

C2:40

$6:45

50:lC

50 :56

52 :41

59:2 E

c

6s

-37:55

38 :55

+0:20

+ 1 :20

k 2 : 4 G

$6:45

5 0 ~ 1 6

50:5 6

52:41

59 :2 €

E r M l-Ira

L

0

>

1:..II

-

:60

1 :25

:60

1 :2 0

1 :10

32 5

:4 8

1 :4 3

6:47

3:20

iCammcatr

Pilot remov es torqu e wrenc hi.om pouch and adjuststorqucjial f o r loosening operationxi fixed bolt .

NMENJAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

It

I

Pilot hoc)k s up left and righwaist tethers.

Pilot rem ove s both fe et fro mrestraints at beginning of thissubtask.Pilot comm ents that Ithe tirolirubber retainer strip aroundbolt'! during removal task.

Pilot seta camera at 6 F P Sfo r this task.



TABLE f o n t ' d

Task

'I1

Adapter Work Task

( C )

T E A W or k Task(a)

T D A W o r k Task

(b

T D A Work Task

( 4

Cubtask

Nylon a n d steel Velcro strip

.valuation


CeEt hand connector evalua-:ion

Right hand connectorsvaluation

Pip pin a n d portable hand-$old evaluation (initial pla ce -ment)

Pip pin and portable hand-$old evaluation

Fluid a n d electrical discon-lector evaluation

Apollo torque wrench

Evaluation

Apollo torque evaluation

Electrical and fluid connectorevaluation

Torque re-evaluation

Connector evaluation

Torque re-evaluation

.C

Page 2 af 2.I-Position

Waist tether only

in adapter

ll

It

ll

Two waist tether

On e waist tetheronly

II

I I

No tether

EllVlRONMEHTAL RESEARCH ASSOCifilE

-ICammcnts

-cI

Pilot adjusts hi s tethers and

and changes camera settingat end of this subtask

Pilot changes camera back'0 1 FPS at 73:03



TABLE XEI

ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR TASK COMPARISON

L

CONNECTOR DESCRIPTION ORBITAL UWATER #

SIMULATION

PORT 18035

CENTER 2 039

STARBOARD soI0 2

e T I M E - SECONDS

118



TABLE XvrrBIOMEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION COMPONENTS F O R THE

WATERSIMULATION

I==SENSOR

0 2 Content (exhaust)

COe Content (exhaust)

Airflow

1 Respiratory Rate

Skin Temperature

P R I M A R Y

Beckman type E 2

Per kin E lmerT yp e A S

Fisher-Porter

'Flora ter' (nd)

Skin MountedElectrodes(sternal)

Impedance

Pneumograph

Thermistor Probe(posterior to earlobe

BACKUP

Beckman type DI

Liston -8 e c ker (nd)

0

0

0

0

119



T A B L E XSZIU

RESULTS OF BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS OF GEMINI XU PREFLIGHT SIMULATION

ASTRONAUT ALDRIN

'I

CODE TASKBTU/Hr. BODYRESP.HEART

Ft.* CO,TEMI?RATERAT E

A .47971126563.7Resting In Water

B .5715 1 97.00538.2Agena Tether Task

C

.5096.6189540.6Torque Wrench EvaluationD

.6297.0249053.IAdapter Work Task

E

-5 097.0128037.3Apollo Torque Wrench EvaluationF

.7097.6187 551.2Velcro Evaluation

1

I1 G I Working On Line'I1 39.0 I 65 i/ 21

Working On Line 1 69.3 1 100 1 27 1 98.2 I .75 1I



TABLE XU

RESULTS OF BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS OF GEMINI X E PREFLIGHT SIMULATION

II BODY 1. BTU/Hr. I HEART \ RESP.I

1 CODE , TASK

1 A 1 Resting

97.9~

-65 1 637.5

i Ft2 i RATE / R A T E TEMP. I co 2

II

i

I

I

I

I I1 B Working - NO Suit

I I1, D 1 Working -No Pressure 1 92768.2 , 100 ! 18

I1

i

! I

E 1 Resting - Pressurized970 -f19.0 1 65 i 15

I

I

Working-Pressurized .998.22782.1 j 150

G .490.415Resting-Pressurized I 21.1 1 100

I

I

-

scale'9.9off-

.699.4 -2713012.6Resting - 5 % CO,

Worklng-5YOCO, 20I35165.0



TABLE 3cI TASK TIME - TASK ENERGY COMPARISON Page I of 3

c.NN

IIP o s i t i o n i n g p e s t r a i n t

!?est (1 )

Camera Placement-Ret r ie va l F i l m Change

Positioningzestraint

RetrievaJ./Film ChangeCamera Placement-

Pos i t ion ing /Res t r a in t

' Rest (21


I Movement

P o s i t i o n i n g p e s t r a i n t

Agena Tether

P o s i t i o n i n e P e s t r a i n t

Rest (3 1

s-10


TD A Work S t a t i o nPreparation

Rest (4)

Pos i t ion ing /Fks t r a in t

Movement

RetrievalFilrn ChanpcCamera Placement-

GL V S t r i p s

--"a

ELAPSED TIME

(min.:sec.)

Flight

0:oo

1:52

3 :01

4:40

5:25

6: 20

6:54

8:37

9:47

10:35

12 :23

14:59

15 :52

18 :03

21 :48

22:47

23 :58

29 :09

31:19

32 :20

33:02-

Preflight

Simulation

0:oo

4:35

:50

2:55

3:20

4:25

5 :50

6:20

6:30

7: 01

8:57

10:37

18:09

12 :32

13:27

14:42

31 :01

19:49

22 :49

23 :29

23 :53

Flight

1:40

:52

1:39

:15

:55

:27

1:43

1:05

:41

1:45

2 :20

:38

2:07

3 :39

:40

1:06

5:08

:49

:44

:26

1:36

TASK TIME

(min.)

Preflight

Simulation

:50

:25

:60

:25

:65

:10

:30

:10

:31

1:56

1:40

1:30

1:40

:55

1:15

3 :27

1:51

3 :00

:40

:24

1:20

Increment

+ 0.84

+ 0.45

+ 0.65

+ 0.33

- 0.06

+ 0.28

+ 1.22

+ 0.91

+ 0.16

- 0.18

+ 0.66

- 0.87

+ 0.45

+ 2.73

- 0.56

- 2.35

+ 3.28

- 2.12

+ 0.06

+ 0.03

+ 0.27


TASK ENERGY COST

Flight

12

10

31

11

12

3

11

13

12

24

37

5

19

72

14

28

198

20

14

9

33-

(BTU)

Preflight

Simulation

5

5

11

9

17

2

2

1

1

5

17

23

9

10

13

56

26

6

4

3

15

Increment

+ 7

+ 5

+ 20

+ 2

- 5

+ 1

+ 9

+ 12

+ 11

+ 19

+ 20

- 18

+ 10

+ 62

+ 1

- 26

+ 172

+ 14

+ 10

+ 6

+ 18



TABLE P Cont 'd . Page 2 of 3

TASK

Camera Placement-Retrieval/Film Change


hvement

Camera Placement-RetrievalFilm Chanpe

Rest ( $ 1

Positioningzestraint

Hork S ta ti on Prepara-t ion

Rest ( 6 )

iyork Station Prepara-Cion

Adapter Work Task

Rest (7)

Adapter Work Task

( A )

( B i )

Sest ( 8 )

idapter Work Task(E2)

Rest ( 9 )

Adapter Work Task( C )

Adapter Work St at ionCleanup

Movement

ELAPSED TIME

(min.:sec.)

Flight

34:42

36:05

36:37

38:40

41:02

42:09

45 :47

47 :17

49:37

52 :17

59 :38

61:17

72:11

73:25

79:53

81 :32

85:36

88:37

Preflight

Simulation

25:13

-26:13

26 :48

36 :02

28:38

32:52

44:45

4-

37:55

69:53

46:45

77:30

52:41

85:32

71:53

79:30

89 :42

Flight

1:12

:26

2:02

2:22

:57

2:50

1:18

2:09

2:36

7:21

1:35

10:53

1:04

6:24

1:31

3 :42

2 :14

:31

TASK TIME

(min.)

Preflight

Simulation

:60

-

2:25

1:13

1:53

:10

1:43

2:oo

-

6:50

2 :oo

6:56

2 :oo

10:07

3:10

5 :15

3:50

1:04

Increment

+ 0.20

+ 0.43

- 0.38

+ 1.15

- 0.93

+ 2.66

- 0.42

+ 0.15

+ 2.60

+ 0.52

- 0.42

+ 3.57

- 0.93

- 3.43

- 1.65

- 1.33

- 1.60

- 0.55


TASK ENERGY COST

Flight

.24

8

42

73

24

54

18

28

36

146

18

187

19

146

21

71

59

12

(BTU)

Preflight

Simulation

17

-

41

7

25

1

25

21

-

110

33

79

45

126

21

140

58

20-

Increment

+ 7

+ 8

+ 1

+ 66

- 1

+ 53

- 7

+ 7

+ 36

+ 36

- 15

+ 108

- 26

+ 20

0

- 69

+ 1

- 8



TABLE 11 Cont'd. EIVIRONMLWTAL RESEIRCH ASSOCIATE!

TASK ENERGY COST

(BTU)

~

TASK

ELAPSED TIME

(min.:sec.)

TASK TIME

(min.)-

Preflight

Simulation

Flight Preflight

5imulat ion

Increment Flight Preflight

Simulation

IncrementFlight

Camera Placement-Retr ievalFilm Chanpe

qovement

T D A Work S t a t i o nTask ( a )

R e s t (10)

T D A Work StationTask (bl

Rgs t (11)

TDA Work S t a t i o nTask ( c )

Observation and FinalWork Station Cleanup

Movement

Optical SurfaceEvaluation

Umbilical Stowage

Ing ress

Thruster Checkout

Handra i l J e t t i s o n

Hatch ClosurePrepara t ion

Hatch Closure

63

32

58

58

65

30

159

18

20

30

21

37

31

8

17

-

+ 24

+ 8

+ 25

+ 46

+ 27

+ 10

+ 93

+ 8

+ - 9

+ 23

+ 21

+ 31

+ 31

+ 2

+ 11

-

R9:21

91:59

93 : 2 1

95:54

90 :46

93 :04

5l+:09

92:19

2 : 3 4

1:14

2 :1 3

3 : 0 7

3:16

1:54

6:25

:41

:51

:55

:43

1:28

1:49

:44

1:05

-

1:33

1:05

2:lO

:45

3 :40

2:oo

9:lO

:35

1:04

:55

-:27

+ 1.01

+ 0.15

+ 0.05

+ 2.37

- 0.40

- 0.10

- 2.45

+ 0.10

- 0.22

0

+ 0.72

+ 0.95

+ 1.82

+ 0.26

+ 0.60

-

39

24

33

12

38

20

66

10

11

7

-6

-6

6

-

99

1 0 2

104

111

111

112

10

57

51

16

57

55

19

19

54

110:04

113 :39

4:55

I

114:36

115:19

116 :56

118: 56

-116:23

-50

18

47

:28

:29

-

116

117

117

119:40

121:01



TABLE XXLI

EVALUATION OBJECTIVES FOR VARIOUS EVA SUBTASKS

Camera Placement Evaluation

Rest (2)

Foot Restraints

Connector X

I Cutter I xI Pip - pins 8 Handhold I x1 Saturn Bolt l xI Hook 8 Ring l x

Apollo Torque Wrench

Optical Surface Evaluation

XVelcro Strips

X

X

X

X

X

X

~

X

X

X

X

X

X

x

126



TABLE mXm

EFFECT of RESTRAINT MODES ON W O R K TASKS FOR TL tG HT AND WATER SlMULATIO)I

ADAPTER WORK TASKS

I I

FOOT RESTRAINTS WAIST TETHERS II I I~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~

FLIGHT SIMULATION-FLIGHTSIMULATION

Min : sec. BTU/hr. Min:sec.BTU/hr. .M in, tec .BTUlhr. .Min:sec. . BTU/hr.

TORQUE

1664.84401240.02:56810.31:IO1042.91:41CONNECTOR

782.3 I6:471339.84311096.66:231177.57:29

I

CONNECTOR -722.53 91153.6242

-3:37 -371.3 - 145 432.0

TOROUE 356.61:451835.82:Ol555.32:331600.01:57410.11:351158.93 ~ 0 3



TAQLE XXlXREST PERIOD PERFORMANCE

5 797.9I.881515.80.95

6 630.02.00781.42.15

7 990.02 .oo683.51.58

a 1350.02.001065.41.07

8 397.53.17828.91.52

IO 960.00.751115.43.12

II 600.02.00947.41.90

12 625.0I.92--

TOTAL -20.16-22.13

AVERAGE 706.91.68987.t2.01I

128



Handrail Erection

Figuro 5-1 GEMINI 1[IT COMPARISON . OF ORBITAL FLIGHT, WATER a A I R C R A F T S l Y U L A T l O N

SELECTED FILM SEQUENCES (FIVE SECOND INTERVALS) Paga I o f 2 2



Handrail Erection.- -" . .. ..

Figuro 5-1 Paqr 2 of 22



Movement From Hatch To TD A

Vgure 5-1 Cont'd. Pogo 3 of 22



Movement From Hatch To TDA Waist Tether Evaluation

(no aircraft film available)

Figure 5-1 Cont'd . P o g o 4 of 22



- ~ ~ ~~~

Waist Tether Evaluation Rest


Figuro 5 - I Cont 'd. P a g o 5 of 2 2



Rest

.


Flguro 5-1 Cont'd. Pago 6 of 2 2



Agena Tether Task



A g e n a T e t h e r T a s k


Figure 5-1 C ont 'd . Page 8 of 22



Agena Tether Task


Figuro 5-1 Cont 'd . Page 9 of 22



Agena Tether Task


Figuro 5-1 Cont 'd . Pago IO of 22



Movement From Hatch To T D A Work Station


Flguro 5 - I Cont Id. Page I1d 22



Movement (Cont'd.) TDA Work Tasks: Pip-P in 8 Handhold Placement


Figure 5-41 Cont 'ct . Page 12 of 22



Pip-Pin S Handhold Placement

Figuro S-I Cont'd. Pago 13 of 22



Pip-Pin 8 Handhdd Placement

I '

'iguro 5-1 Cont ' d . Pago 14 of 22



Pip-Pin - & Handhold Placement

Figuro S - I Cont 'd . Pago IS of 22



Pip-Pin & Handhdd Placement

Figure 5 - 1 C o n t ' d . Paga I6 of 22



~

Pip-Pin 8 Handhold Placement




Pip-Pin & Handhold Placement

(no aircraft film availaue)

Rest On T D A

Figure 5 - I Cont 'd . Page IO of 22



Rest On TDA

(no aircraf t f i lm available)

Figuro S - I Cont'd . Pago 19 of 22



Rest On TDA


J

Fi gure 6 - I C o n t ' d. Page 20 of 22



Rest On TDA Waist Tether Adjustment


Cigurr 5-1 Cont 'd. Pago 21 of 22



Apollo Torque Wrench Evaluation

t


Figure 5-1 Cont 'd . Pago 22 of 22



HANDRAIL ERECTION MO VEM ENT FROM HATCH TO DOCKING BAR

AGENA TETHER TASK S - 0 1 0 DEPLOYMENT

TDA WORK STATION PREPARATION

RETURN TO HATCH MOVEMENT

I

TO ADA,PTER SECTION

J

Figure 5 - 2 Gemini XII SEQUENCE OF PREFLIGHT WATER S IMU LATI ON (30 SECOND INTERVALS)



MOVEMENT TO ADAPTER SECTION

WORK STATION PREPARATION

F O O T R E S T R A I N T E V A L U A T I O N

ADAPTER WORK TASKS

Figure 5 - 2 Cont'd.



ADAPTER WORK TASKS

FOOT RESTRAINT EVALUATION

ADAPTER WORK TASKS

5-2 Cont'd.



ADAPTER WORK T A SK S

CAMERA RETRIEVAL MOVEMENT

1-

Figuro be2 Cont 'd .



figure 5 - 3 PI P PI N DEVICE

Standup

Famlfiarlzatlon s-IO

Adapter Work Tasks TD A Work Tasks

To Adapter To T D A

Plume Observation lnpress "Figure 5 - 4 MAJOR TA3K-EVENTS OF TH E GEMINIXU UMBILICAL EVA

156



connotar time line not contlnuour

HANDRAIL ERECTION

ir) MOVEMENT TO DOCKING BAR (4AGENA TETHER TASK

bri) R E S T

(4 S - 0 1 0 a TDA WORK STATION PREPARATION

Figure 5 - 6 SEQUENCE OF AVAILABLE FILM FROM TH E GEMINI XIt FLIGHT

(THIRTY SECOND INTERVALS)



w) connotes tlme line no t continuous~~~

EGRESS SPACECRAFT

~ ~~

(*I MOVEMENT FROM HATCH TO DOCKING BAR

AGENA TETHER TASK (*) S - 0 1 0 DEPLOYMENT

(a) TDA WORK TASKS

Figure 5 - 7 SEQUENCE OF AVAILABLE AIRCRAFT SIMULATION FILM

(THIRTY SECOND INTERVALS)



NASA -5.66-11799

STRASUIT

P1OE

.EG

FI.WW 5 - B LE G TETHER C'ONFIGURATION FlOuIe 5 - 0 CAMERA PLACEMENT EVALUATION WHILE

STANDING IN COCKPIT UNTETHEREO

Flwra 5-10 C A Y I A PLACEMENT EVALUATION - BODY

OUTUDI SPACECRAFT HATCH

Flpura 5 -I1 PILOT'S INITIAL RESTINQ POSITION ON

PORTAOLE HANDRAIL

161



Flgure 5-12 RlQH T WAIST TETHER TO PORTABLE

HANDRAIL RING

DOCKINQ CONE U-BOLTFO R WAIST TETHER

ATTACHMENT POIN1

Figure 5-14 AGENA TETHER CONFIGURATION R l l O R T O

ACTIVATION BY ASTRONAUT

162



.. .

?Mu,. 6 -I # ASTRONAUT ALORIU PERFORYIUQ CEUTER ELECTRICAL

CONNECTOR EVALUATIOU

?lgura 6 - W ASTIIOUAUT ALDRIU DURINQ YOVEYENT FROM

ADAPTER TO SPACECRAFT HATCH AREA

164



......................................................

m m I................... ....... I.................................... ' """~ii:"""r--

:. : 1-1

P Ig -, .................................................................................................................................. ~ .................................................................

I ,

8I I

f -z ..

2

",",11 "".....~ .. ....................................................-

-, .I" " ~ ~ - -........ .............................................................. ........... ....

-,................................................................................................................................................................................... ..............................

-, .. ...................................

-a

165



I I Total Time (min.)Task Category

IO 20 30 40

1 Positioning .8 RestraintI

n m m m I I 9.13

-6:25

Camera Placement8 Retrieval .Movement

* . !

I Rest

Preparation 81 Cleanup p m = ?.FS8 I .

IExperiment Support

Residual

1 1 1 1 Fl igh t- Simulation

Figure 5 -21 COMPARISON SUMMARY OF MAJOR TASK CATEGORY



rMo ve to adapterAtLlcB GATV t e ther

7 4T D A w o r k sta t ion

.. r eva lua t ion

M e s s a g e s for Houston4rEva lua te foot res t ra in ts

160r Return to

r cockpit

200 -

180

160

-55 140m

y’

3 120I

Elapsed time, min

NASA-S-67-817

-------O G c m I n i I X - A

-- -- - O C e m i n i X

---A G e m i n i P

0Gemini m

100

Flgura 5 - 2 3 P R E F L I G H T E R G O Y E T R I - GEMINI II - III

167



-0- Heartrate- Blood

pressure

WI

U

ln

S 300400I:

0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14 16

Time, m in

Flgure 5 - 2 4 OXYGEN UTILIZATION CURVES FROM PREFLIGHT

ERGOMETRY

168



r - - 1

160

140

130

0I I I I I I I L o l oA C 0 E F 0

TAOKn r Iz :

Flgura 6 - 2 5 OEMlNl nl BIOMEOICAL MEASUREMENTS OF T H E

SIMULATION

.. .-I

C.l/Wfd -T a v u m u a ..............-2 ""

.......

........ - .

F l w a 6-28 O E Y l Y l D I O Y E O I C U U U l l E Y E N T S OF THE

I I U A A T I O Y ( da V. WEIR TLCYYIQUE)

169



. - . . . . . . . . . - - ......

rBTU/hr/ft2 -Heart Rate ..............

I I 1 I I I 1A C 0 E F 0

TASK

Flyre 6 - LT PREFLICHT SIWLA TION BIOYEOICAL YEAS UREYE NTIUSlNB E R A SUBJECT

-130

30

- 120

- S O

- 8 0

-7 0

-6 0

s f*

15s 2- T.rnp.,0,"r,E?U/hr/ff2 -..............co 2 ""

I

' .....

..4:' ,

" \,:' \

\\ ..........

\

Flaure 8 - 2 8 PREFLIQHT SIYULATION BIOMEDICAL YEASUREYENTI

U S I W E R A SUBJECT

170



Cumulative Workload

FIwYre 6-7.I CUYULATIVE WORK LOAD FOR THE O T - X I T A I K LINE

EFFECT OF AMBIENT PRESSURE ON HEART RATE AT CONSTANT WORK RATE

I

Figurr I-30 EFFECT OF AMBIENT PRESSURE ON HEART RATE

AT CONSTANT WORK RATE

171

"



EFFECT OF E A T LOAD ON HEART RATE AT CONSTANT WORK RATES

e .......................................................

ec72.F. 50Y. R.H.

80 I I I

I 2 3 4I

WORK CYCLES

Fl9UIa 5-31 EFFECT OF HEAT LOAO ON H E A R T R A T E AT

CONSTANT WORK RATES

I

4<200

I I7 0i - A

90 110 130 I5 0

PULSE COUNT / MIN

Flvura 5 - 3 2 SINOLE PARAMETER WORK LOAO CORREL ATIONS

172



z ,.L"".... Y...."" I."".-."l...".l.""l.."1-'I

174



Flaure 6 - 3 6 CALCULATED DRAC FOR NOTION OF A P R E W R E

8UlTLD 8UBJECT THROUOH THE WATER

175



176



The Effect of Restraint On Task Work Load

Flqrro 8 - 3 # THE CFFECT OF RESTRAINT 011 TASK

WORK LOA0

177



Dearer O f Flexure A t The Hip

ol" ""I-~I I I

10 20 30 4 0 50 60OEOREE O F BEND

Degree O f Flexure At Th e Knee

20 40 60 BO 100 120

DEORLE OF B E N 0 "Flaure 6 - 4 0 WI T MOBILITY ANALYII8 FO R LEAH BACK

TASK

179



Flaw. 5 - 41 APOLLO TORQUE WRENCH

Flgura 5 - 4 2 TELESCOPING HANDRAIL

180



TI".* lrnl",

Figura 5 - 4 3 COYPARISOU OF TH E EFFECTIVEUEII O r R E I T I

Incidence and Duration of Work Tasks

t

F1-m I- 44 CX?LRlYLNTAL SUPPORT T A I K I COYCARl lOH

181



6.O-CONCLUSIONS

While water imm ersion simulation proved to be vary useful ita mzpport-ing the Gemini E V A program, the Gqpini E V 4 pr og ra m in turn cause#a rapid evolution and re-evduation of the water immersion simulationtechnique at ERA. The inclusion o f biomedical measurements towardthe end of the pro gram particula rly heightened the value of water im-

mersion simulation of E V A .

In general , the water immersion technique of fer s a simulation mediumwhich closely com pares with actual spa ce performance. Direct numer?ical correlation must await mis sions wherein experimental tasks can bedesigned for direct one f o r one cQmparison and where more extensivebiomedical instrumentation i s included in the flight. The results of thes t u d y strongly &firm: the validity o f water immersion a s a simulationtool f o r support of futureE V A and I V A activities.

6.1 - C O R R E L A T I O N - W T M SP A - C E P E R F O R M A N C E. I , -

Time Line - The task time line developed during the water immersionsimulatiqn was used to establish target times and wae not intended a s cr

rigid performance specification. The tasks were not performed inspace in exactly the same sequence as wa8 rehearsed in the water.A s an eeaqple , the task of collecting deposits on th e spececrdt wind-Bhield was pe rfor m ed ea rly in the simulation and v e r y late in sp ac e.Additional ta sks su ch as the inspection of a vernier rocket were notperformed at all in the simulation. T her e we r e , howe v e r , var ioustask group ings that occurred in sequenc e and formed the basie of thedetailed comparison. These comparisons confirm a ve ry d o s e r e l a -tionship between preflight training and flights . Th e data gtrongly S U P -

p o r t e the use of water immersion to establish time lines for fu tu re B V p .

Velocity - The most ser ious limitation imposed b y the use of water im-mersion as an E V A trainer and simulator is that of the drag associatedwith movement, This factor becomes o€ minor importance f o r low ve-locities in the range of 0 .5 f ee t pe r second or less, since as the velo-city approaches a e r o the d r a g approaches zero. The velocity associatadwith a typical movement sequ ence in the travel down the telescopinghandrail, proved to be approximately .25 fe e t p e r second in both waterimmersion gnd orbital flight. The period involving the greatest distanqeexcursion during E V A w a s the movement sequence back to the adapter,This sequen ce i4 not recorde d on fi lm fo r the flight since there wa s nq

camera ooverage, Analysis of the water immersion pnefl ight film showsthis 9 foot distance to be traversed in 27 seconds f o r an averqge velo-city of 0.33 fee t pe r second or the same a s in the simulation.

While future E V A tasks may result in grepltey velocitiqs which becomea problem in w d e r immersion simulation, the Gemini XLT w a s perfQrrJ?sdwithin a velocity range where water d r a g $id not ppove to be +m im-portapt fac tor .

182



Kinematic8 - The film supplement to this report includes a portion inwhich a split <Fame tec hn iqu e has been U E ~to maperimpope threeduced sige f ra m es on one 16 m m fr ame . Th e upper cen ter s how sthe film Prom orbit - the lower lef t Show s the fi lm from p ref l ight waterimmersion - the lower right shows the fi lm from pref l ight zero graaircraft when available. Although the camera anglee are di f ferent foreach view, a careful s t u d y shows that per formance is very similar in

both time and mQtion be tween orbital flight a n d water immers ion. Thecom pariso n betw een orbital flight and zer o gra vity air cra ft sho wssiqi-Iarity in motion but a major dBerence in t ime . Per formance in the zerpgravity aircraft w ae always faste r but w as not a conetant ratio. Theratio appears to be task depe nden t with the time in the zero gravityparabola controlling the s p e e d of the task.

Work Load - Biomedical data from pre fligh t ha s be en ca refu lly analyzeand indicaters, that f o r GT-XU type tasks , hear t rate is a valid indi-cator of the relative wor k ,'cad of the astronaut. Oxygen uptake me-thods require a time to reach equilibrium whit* is not consistent with,the task times experienced. Heart rate, on the other hand, increase@

during periods when the astronaut is obviously working harder and de-creases dur ing per iods of le ss er activity. I n additioq, heart rate andrespiration rate were the only measures of physiological output madeand currently planned for future mis s ions and will,, of necess i ty ,f o r m the bagis of comparison for tas ks in the near future.

Heart rate comparisons between the simulation and space when deter-mined on the basis of the prefl ight ergometry , shows that the p e rf o r-mance of the tas ks in orbit required a higher metabolic output than w s srequired in the simulation, particularly for moderate o r higher worktas ks . L o w level work tas ks and re & per iods are af fec ted by s econ#order balance oonlsiderations in the isimulation rgince the astronaut is not

at zero grgvity. inside the suit.

S ince early cons iderat ions of water immersion simulation concluded thatwork in the simulation would be grea ter than work in space , the G T - mdata showing greater w or k load in spa ce was unex pecte d and calls f o ra review of the aimulation ver8us orbital conditions. A cu r s o r y eva lu -ation indicates that thermal load a n d a tmos pher i c pr es s ur e e f f ec t s mayaccount f o r the unexpected lower work load in simulation. There w a sno attempt duripg the simulation r u n s to control these ef fects . Tablesum ma rizes the impgrtant conclusions developpd aa a result of thiss t udy .

6.2 "- U T I L I T Y~ .~ OF TME S I M U L A T I O N

Training - Astronaut Ald rin accumulated mo re than 20 hours of water8imUhtiOn prior to flight including the original GT-XIl task line. Thelast eeseion, 6 Izours, w as held 14 dayrsr pr ior to orbital EVA. T w ow e e k s after retur n from orbit he per formeda pQstElight evaluation of the~ imu la t i on . M e r each ses$ion, an informal de-briefing wae held to din-c u s s p e r f o r m a n c e , p r o c e d u r e s , agd suit operations. A s a r eeu f t of



these d iscuss ions , task s e q u e n c e s w e r e shifted, p r o c e d u r e s w e r e al+

tered, and suit operation was modified in ar der tcP opt imize the astro-naut Is p er fo r m a n ce . A s a r e s u lt o f thi4 o r b i t 4 p er fo r m a n ce p r ev i e w ,Astrong ut Aldrin gave special attentionto continuously relaxing specificmusc le group s in or de r to be su re that he w ae not per forming unnece6-g a r y w o r k . Even d e r the postflight simuJation, the astronaut commente#that he wae still learning how to work within a p r e s s u r e s u i t .

G T - m training included Command Pilot Love11 perf orm ing the controland monitoring function he performed in sp ac e. S u b jec t i v e l y , th e cr ewreported that the simulation training was in p a r t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s u c c e s sof the GT-XU EVA. T h e r e s u l t s of the analyses per formed dur ingthis contract support this conclusion. A complete comparison of theavailable data , however , shows tha t while the simulation was adequatef o r t he t a s k s performed during Gemini X U EVA, fu ture tasks requ ir inggreater work loa ds will requ ire higher fidelity more closely controlledsimulation.

Equipment Evaluation - Contracts NAS 1-4095 and NAS 9-6584 w e r epr im ar i l y for the pur pos e of evaluating pr oo ed vr es and tra in ing p ers onne l . I t w as immediate ly apparent , how eve r, that the simulation alsoo f f e r ed a m ea ns fo r evaluat ing potential flight equipment configurations.T h e p r o b l e m s of handling portable hardware, s u ch a s cameras andtools , became obvious when viewed through the means of high fide litys imulation. This does not mea n that eac h piece of equipment need bean exac t copy w h ich h as been m a d e neutra l ly b u o ya n t fo r high fidelitysimulation. Important operating concepts must be faithfully reproduced,however , and where gross uncontrolled motions occur, the hardwaremust be made neutrally bu oyan t without changin g its geometr ic charac-ter is t ics .

Res tra in ts - The speciEic tasks compris ing the EVA t ime line were notper formed in the s a m e sequence in the flight a n d simulation. Both thenumber and spacing OE the rest per iods were different . Consequent ly ,the astronaut 's subject ive analys is of the task comparison particularlyof the value of restraints must be given first priori ty . Subject ive ly ,the as tropau t repor ted a pre ference for the molded fo ot res tra in ts . Thiep r e f e r e n c e is partly due to the combination of these restraints with theGemini suit which is relatively inflexible in the foot and leg area thusproviding a pre ferred attitude position maintenance characteristic. Waistte thers provide control of the maximum excursion distance between thetether poi nts and the astronaut but pro vid e little con tro l ov er attitude.

Fu ture pla ns for the use of the molded foot res tra in ts shouldtake intoaccount that the Apollo suit , being reasona bly flexible in the foot a n d legar%a, will not provide the same position maintenance characteristics as

did the Gemini suit.

Ano ther factor complicating the evaluation of restraints is the length ofindividual tasks. S in ce th e individual ta s k s w e r e OE short duration and

w er e n o t p e r fo r m ed in th e s a m e sequence in simulation and s p a c e , itbecame advantageous to evaluate the contribution of restra ints in the

184:



other Gemini E VA Is. In the G e m i n i pr ogr am , the only long te rmE V A task p e r f o r m e d in a repetit ive sequential manner was the A M Uactivation taqk. Information on this task included.:

(1) As t ronaut Cernan per forming a postflight evaluation of GT-wusing Eoot stirrups.

(2) As t ronaut Aldr in per forming pref l ight GT-XU using moldedfoot res traints .

( 3 ) E R A sub jec t per forming G T - X and GT-XU with foot stirrup?.

( 4 ) E R A sub jec t per form ing activation ta sk s with no res traints .

T he di f f e rence be t w e e n GT-IX a n d GT-XU activation was the type a n dlocation of the foot res traints . GT-IX had st irrups mounted on a barrelatively high while the GT-XU version used the molded foot restraintsmounted below the AMU. Comparat ive evaluat ion supportea b y subjec-tive com me nts rstrongly sugg est that the overall task of AM U activationw as ea si er without res t ra ints .

The unrestrained subjec t moves during the task a n d optimally positionBthe suit relative to the required subtask . T h e G T - M r es tr ai nt r e -quires gross sui t bending to reach lower port ions of the AM U GT-XZT restraint requires much higher level e f fqr t due to t he p r e f e r r e dwork loca t ion of the torso (a suit problem reported b y E . Aldr in dur -ing debr ie f ing) . In s u m m a r y , res t ra in t s m u s t b e c ons i de r e d for fu turemiss ion requirem ents on the bas i s of the ir value to the per formance of

par t i cu lar tasks .

Table XYLZ s um m ar i z e s th e utility of water immersion simulation relativeto the Gemini E V A program. Sta rtin g with the Gemini IV E V A withno contribution, water immersion simulation continually had an inc rea p-

ing role in support of the E V A . A major value of the sirnulationproved to be the capabil i ty to visual ly preview space performance , thusal lowing mission planners to synth esize and coalesce the flight plan intoa final task line with as su ra nc e that the astronaut would not be r e -qu i red to drast ical ly al ter h is rehearsa l procedures . Fur ther , the r e -sults indicate that candidate hardware configurat ions can be adequate lyeva lua ted pr ior to use in spa ce . Also, the astronaut need not be r e -quired to pre-evaluate each piece of hardware and choose which hard-ware configuration and pr oc ed ur e he will u s . R a t h e r , a r e p e t X v eanalysis can be ma de utilizing pe rso nn el of equiva len t per formance capa-b i l it y to narrow do wn the rang e of choice .

Water immersion simulation should form the bas i s for the deve lop men tof time line a n d hard data relative to equipment a nd equipment layoutfo r fu ture m i s s i ons . T he G e m i n i XU E V A consisted of a well identifiedset of Casks o f relat ive ly low wo rk load intersp ersed with ma nyrestperiods. Also, the task took maximum advantage of restraint technique@evaluated prior to the fl ight . Care m us t be exerc ised in applying theset e c hn i que s to n ew ar e as o f E V A requiring high work loads. Continuougwater immersion simulation is req u i re d as wellas s uppor t from ot he rm o d e s s u c h as the zer o gr av i ty aircraEt to supply information unobtain-able f rom water immers ion simufa t ion .

185



TABLE XXP

CONCLUSIONS

# WATER IMMERSION SIMULATION -TRAINING CONTRIBUTE D MATERIALLY TO

THE SUCCESS OF GEMINI H1:

+ FOR NEAR FUTURE E V A TASKS TH E WATER IMMERSION TECHNIQUE

SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY SIMULATION MODE

*TIME CORRELATION IS ADEQUATE WITH WATER IMMERSION SIMULATION

0 HEART R A T E - WORKLOAD CORRELATION IS THE PRIMARY METABOLIC

MEASURE DUE TO SHORT TASK TIMES AND SLOW EQUILIBRIUM

RESPONSE TIME OF OXYGEN UPTAKE METHO D

*MODERATE TO HIGH WORK TASKS EXHIBIT GREATER HEART R A T E S I N SPA'CE

#LOW WORK TASKS E.G. RESTS ARE AFFE CTE D BY 2nd ORDER BALANCE

CONSIDERATIONS IN WATER

0 AIRCRAFT SIMULATION

INCREASE

IS VALID KINEMATICALLY BUT REQUIRES TIM E

#EXACT NUMERICAL CORRELATION REQUIRES RESOLUTION OF THERMAL AND

PRESSURE EFFECTS



TABLE XXPI:

SUMMARY OF GEMINI EVA RESULTS AN D APPLICABIL ITY OF WATER IMMERSION SIMULATION

FLIGHT OBJECTIYES I PERFORMANCE

GT - 4 - Feasibillty Demonstrated mans

( H H M U ) E VA- E. V. Mot ion capabi l i ty to perform

GT-SA -E.V. Motion( A M U )

Terminated early du eto excessive workload

GT-IO . -E .V . Mot ion Flrst transfer between

( H H M U ) spocecraf t-Retrieval o f lnadvertant loss of

experiments equipmentTerminated early du e t o

Terminated early du e

GT-12 -Eva luc t lon of : Success!ui performance

res t ra in t s , o f a l l tasks

potential Workload remained belowhardware, prescr ibed limitspiann!ng andoperat iona l

procedures

COMMENTS

-Low task work load

APPLICATION OF WATER

IMMERSION SIMULATION

- None

~~ ~~~ ~

- Problems of timelineand training val id i ty

-inadequate bodyrest ra in t system

-Emphas ized needfo r simu la t ion

- Body restra in ts,handholds a n d

equipment t ledownr

~ 7-Post f l ight evaluat ion

by astronaut an d ER Asubjects

-Demonstrated preliminaryu t i l i t y o f water immersiontralnlng

-Part ia l pref l ight

s lmuiat lon by E R Asubjects only

equipment loss- Showdd possibll l ty o f

~

- Emphas lzed needfo r pi lo t tra in ing

in water Immersion

mode-Raised serious

questions as t oE V A w o r k l o a d

capab i l i t y

- Prefl ight slmulatlonby E R A s u b j e ct s only

- Part ia l ly restructered

t imel ine an d operat ion- Pl lo t per fo rmed task

d i f f e r e n t t h a n E R A

subjects

-Proved utlhty o f

water Immersiont ra in ing technique

basis for f u t u r e E V A- Ertob l ished adequate

- Extenslve pref l ight an d

post f l ight training byast ronaut , supportedby ERA sub jec ts

-T a r k simulation closelycorresponded t o f l i g h tperformance



".

7.0-RECOMMENDATIONS

T h e s u c c e s s f u l u s e of water immersion simulation in the G em in i pro-gram suppor ted by the anabysiB of t h i s s tu d y p r o v id es th e b a s i s fo r th emqjor recommendations of this contract . In s o m e in s ta n ces , th ea erecommendat ions are a direct result of the data developed during thiscontract . Certain of the recommendations are syn thes i zed from datadeveloped during previous E R A contracts with the L a n g ley Res ea r ch

Cen ter . T he m a s o r recommendat ions are summar ized in Table Xxrm.

Water immersion simulation should be u s e d a s th e basic simulation modefor the zero grav i ty ex traveh icu lartasks f o r both the Apollo and theApollo applications programs. F o r these programs , the w a te r im m er -sion simulation mode should be u s e d to establish bas ic time lines forcont inuous tagk per formance. The film record of the task per formanceshould then be u s e d to determine the need fo r additional sirnulation ino ther modes , par t icu lar ly the zero grav i ty a ircra f t .

Water immersion simulation should be used to develop one or more hu-m an fac tor s exper imen ts for near future mis sion s , and to provide a

complete preflight data b a s e fo r evaluationof t h e r es u l t s f r o m th e ex -p er im en t s . In th i s m a n n e r , th e n eed and just i fication fo r the experi -

ments can be clearly identified. Prefl ight evaluation can be performedunder conditions admitting high fidelity measurement techniques whichcan then be adapted to the orbital experiment. I n this manner , the datareturn from space can be proper ly evaluated after the flight, yieldingthe maximum possible eff iciency.

Although water immersion simulation has proved extremely useful, itsvalue to the space pr og ra m will be limited until additional inform ationf r o m space f l igh t experiments is available. I t is important that the wa-ter immersion simulation mode be thoroughly understood so that it m a ybe us ed in an optimum fashion. Additional information needed for opti-mum utilization of the water immersion technique includes:

Previously uncontrolled simulation parameters of p r e s s u r eand heat load effects must be evaluated and a resul tant tech-nique be developed to more closely simulate spacecraft en-vironmental factors .

A cons is tent metabol ic rate measurement system must bedeveloped so that future space exper iments can be proper lyp r ea s s e s s ed i n t h e simulation and be proper ly corre la ted

after flight. This system must be com patib le with astronaubper formance cr i ter ia .

Additional study is needed to determine the exact numericalcorrelation between water immersion simulation and z e rogravity aircraft simulation and on e gravity walkthroughs.

188



\

RECOMMENDATIONSTABLE XXPII

O DETERMINE CONSISTENT TASK FOR SPACE EXPERIMENT

O PREFLIGHT EVALUATION OF SPACE EXPERIMENT

O METABOLIC RATE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

O RESOLVE PRESS URE- HEAT LOAD EFFECTS

O CORRELATION OF WATER SIMULATION WITH GROUND - A / C

O EXTENSION TO INTRAV EHICU LAR AND REDUCED GRAVITY TASKS

O EVALUATION OF "WATER FILLE D" SUIT

O DETERMINATION OF TASKS APPLICABLE TO WATER SIMULATION

O APOLLO EVA TASK SIMULATION

O AAP TASK SIMULATION



B I B L I O G R A P H Y

L u q i e n B r o u k a , M a r y E . M d i e l d , P a u l E . Smith , J r . , and GordonJ. Steppe, Haslqql l Laboratory f o r T o x i c o h g y and InCZustrial Medicine,E;. I . DuPoab d e N e m o u r s a n d Co., Wilmingtpn, Delaware, t tEia-or e panc y B e t w e e p H e a r t Ra te and Oxygen Consumpt ion During Workin the W ar m t h l f , J our na l of Appl i ed Phy i io logy (Wovember , 19651,V a l . 14, No. 6.

Ikf.S . Malhorta, et. d . , *P u l s e C o u n t 3s g M e as ur e of E n e r g y , .

Expendi ture I t , Journal OE Appl i ed Phys io logy (1963), V ol . 18, p . 992,

N . L. Ramanathan, Reliabili ty of Estimation of MetaboJic ' Le ve ls fromR gs p i r a t p r y F r e que nc y " , J our na l of Appl i ed Phys io logy (1964) ,Vol . 19, p 0 497.

G . FJsover , "Feasibi l i ty of Techniques f o y Monitoring PhysiologicalVariables Without At tached S en so r st r, N A S A C on tra ct N o . N A S 1 2 4( N o y e m b t r 4 , 1966) , N or t h American Avia'ation, I n c . , S p a c e I n f q r -met ion Sys tems D i v i s i o n , Life Sc i e nc e s Q pe r a t i on .

&. J. G r e e nbaum , et . al . , It Re po rt on th? Physic$ogical R es p o n se s of

M a n in a Simulated Gravi ty -Free Sta te While Per form ing V a r i o u s E V AW o r k Sc he du l e s 1 ) ( D e c e m b e r , 19661, Naval Medical Research Ins t i tu t e ,Be thesda, Maryland.

E . L. Beckman, Private Communicat ion (October 29, 1966) , G T - wSimulated E V A at E R A .

Gemipi W Technica l Debrie f ing (November q2, 1966), N A S A MannedSpacecra t? Center , Fl ight Crew S u p p o r t Llivision, Mission Operat ionsB r a n c h , H o u s t o n , T e x a s .

Gemini XU Voice Communica t ions (Air -Grpun? , Gro uod-Air) and On-board T r ans cr ip ti on , N A S A M anned Spac e c r a f t C e n t e r , H ous t on , Texw.

Gemini8

Technical D e bri ef ing , N A S A M anned Spac e c r a f t C e n t e r ,Houston, T e x a s .

Gerniqi X Technical D eb rie fin g, N A S A Manned S p a c e c r a f t C e n t e r ,H ous t pn , T e x as .

Cyr i l A. K e e l e , E . N e i l , Samson Wr igh t 1s Applied Physiology ,X Edition, Oxford Universi ty P r e s s (196i) '

VtSumtqary sf Gem ini Extravehicular Activ ity" , W S C - G - R - 6 7 - 2( F e b r u a r y , 1967), National Aeronautics and Space A dm i n i s t r a t i on ,Manned Spacecraf t C e n t e r , H ous t on , Texas .

B a r r y King , Mitchell M a n s , " T h e Feas ib i l i t y of Est imat ing the EnergyExpendi ture of Astronauts Through Part ia l Simulat ion of W eight less

-n e s s 11 , T e c hn i c a l R e por t N o . 170 ( F e b r u a r y 28, 1962) , O pe r a t i onsR e s e ar c h I nc or por a t e d , Si l ver Spr i ng , M ar y l and .

NASA-Langley,1969- CR-1146 1 91



AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON,D. C. 20546

OFFICIAL BUSINESS ' FIRST CLASS MAIL

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

POSTAGE AND FEES PAI

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

- ... .

If Undeliverable (SectioPostal Man u a l ) Do Not R

-~. .

Correlation Study of the Simulation of Gemini Extravehicular Activity With Flight Results

Documents

Transcript of Correlation Study of the Simulation of Gemini Extravehicular Activity With Flight Results