B. Todd/USRA
Project Overview
 NASA
Extreme Environment
Mission Operations (NEEMO)
 Our Charter:
To advance NASA’s ability to extend human presence across the solar system by the
affordable and innovative use of spaceflight analogs
2/1/2011
2
2/1/2011
3
2/1/2011
4
Project Overview
The Aquarius Undersea Research Habitat
The only undersea research facility in the world today…
2/1/2011
Hatch depth: 47 feet, Bottom depth 62 feet
5
Project Overview
Where Is Aquarius?
The Mission Control at the National Undersea
Research Center is a one hours drive south of
Miami
Aquarius is located just a 45 minute boat ride
from Key Largo about 6 miles offshore
2/1/2011
6
Project Overview
Why NEEMO Under the Sea?

Analogs come in 2 flavors



Environmental






Extreme environment
• Immediate return to surface not an option (~ 17 hr deco)
• Percentage of crew attention always on safety considerations
Isolation factor
Surface excursions in reduced gravity
Approx size and layout of an ISS module (e.g., Lab or SM)
Totally dependent on mechanical life support systems
Mission






Environmental analogs
Mission analogs
High structured timelines
Constant mission pressure
Concrete and relevant science objectives
High visibility and media interest
Tools identical or similar to spaceflight (timelines, procedures, etc.)
NEEMO offers both
2/1/2011
7
Project Overview
Why NEEMO Under the Sea?

In Addition



2/1/2011
Highly developed infrastructure including
• Communications
• Telemetry
• Video
• Remote excursion capability
Owned and operated by another US govt. Agency (NOAA)
Well established operations support structure already in place
(e.g., training, crew quarters, control center)
8
What Makes NEEMO Unique?
A High Fidelity Mission Analog








Ops concept/procedures
Usability and habitability
design tradeoffs
Ancillary hardware
design/selection
Cx workforce knowledgeable
and experienced on Surface
Exploration issues
Bridging workforce knowledge
gap on planning and execution
for complex ops
Early and relevant endoperator input
Proven PAO tool for keeping
the public inspired and
engaged in NASA’s Vision for
Space Exploration.
NOT A SIMULATION….A
MISSION
2/1/2011
9
Infrastructure and Capabilities
What is Aquarius ?
~50ft
depth
62ft depth
~20,000 mm
Model courtesy of Jim Maida and
the GRAF Lab
2/1/2011
NURC
10
Life Support
buoy : LSB
-(2 )40 KW
generators
-( 2) Mako
compressors
-Communication
antenna to shore
-Sits directly
above Habitat
Infrastructure and
Capabilities
Aquarius Area Map
and “ Aerial” View
2/1/2011
12
Infrastructure and
Capabilities
Aquarius sits in the “ Carpenter Basin” which allows easy access
to a wide variety of environments to explore
2/1/2011
13
Infrastructure and Capabilities
On- Shore Facilities









2/1/2011
Fleet of 6 boats
NASA Office and MCC
High Speed Internet, tele-conference, etc.
Conference and meeting area
2 Labs w/refrigeration, basic equipment
Workshop area
Dive lockers
Rest area
Hyperbaric chamber and safety equipment
14
Infrastructure and Capabilities
Photo Tour of the on- shore facilities
National Undersea Research Center
Main Bldg.
National Undersea Research Center
Bldg. 2 ( next door)
Canal View of bldg. 1
Canal View of bldg. 2
2/1/2011
15
Infrastructure and Capabilities
Photo Tour of the on- shore facilities
MCC and Office
Crew bunkroom
Lab 1
Lab 2
2/1/2011
16
Infrastructure and Capabilities
Photo Tour of the on- shore facilities
NURC “ Watch Desk” or “ MCC”
Workshop
2/1/2011
On-Site Hyperbaric Chamber
Crew workboat “ Sabina”, dive boat
17
Infrastructure and Capabilities
Photo Tour of the on- shore facilities
Tank Fill
Outdoor Work Area
2/1/2011
NEEMO Dive Lockers
Indoor Workshop Area
18
Project Overview
NEEMO Crew Members
NEEMO 1 - 06 Days, Oct. 2001
DT/B. Todd, CB/M. Lopez-Alegria, M. Gernhardt, CB/SA/D. Williams
NEEMO 2 - 09 Days, May 2002
CB/M. Fincke, D. Tani, S. Williams, DT/M. Reagan
NEEMO 3 - 09 Days, July 2002
CB/J. Williams, D. Olivas, G. Chamitoff, SLSD/J. Dory
NEEMO 4 - 05 Days, Sept. 2002
CB/S. Kelly, R. Walheim, DA8/P. Hill, SLSD/J. Meir
NEEMO 5 - 14 Days, June 2003
CB/P. Whitson, C. Anderson, G. Reisman, SLSD/E. Hwang
NEEMO 6 - 10 Days, July 2004
CB/J. Herrington, D. Wheelock, N. Patrick, EB/T. Ruttley
NEEMO 7 - 11 Days, Oct. 2004
CB/B. Thirsk, C. Coleman, M. Barratt, CMAS/C. Mckinley M.D.
NEEMO 8 - 03 Days, April 2005
CB/M. Gernhardt, S. Kelly, D. Olivas, M. Schultz
NEEMO 9 – 18 days, April 2006
CB/D. Williams, N. Stott, R. Garan, CMAS/T. Broderick M.D.
NEEMO 10 – 07 days, July 2006
CB/K. Wakata, D. Feustel, K. Nyberg, NOAA/K. Kohanowich
NEEMO 11 – 07 days, Sept. 15 - 21
CB/S. Magnus, T. Kopra, B. Behnken, T.J. Creamer
NEEMO 12 – 12 days, May 2007
CB/Heidi Piper, Jose Hernandez,, Joe Schmidt, TATRC/Tim
Broderick, M.D.
NEEMO 13 – 10 days, August 2007
CB/N. Patrick, R.Arnold, S. Furukawa, Cx/C. Gerty
NEEMO 14-14 days, May 2010
CB/Chris Hadfield, T. Marshburn,EAMD/S.Chappel ,A.
Abercrombie
56 Crewmembers: 40 Astronauts/ 16 Scientists, Instructors, MDs or Engineers
* Has/had ISS crew assignment
2/1/2011
19
Project Overview
Historical JSC Orgs Involved

DA/Mission Ops Directorate







CA/Flight Crew Ops Directorate




Habitability and Environmental Factors Division
Human Adaptation and Countermeasures Division
Space Medicine
EA/Engineering Directorate


Astronaut Office
SA/Space and Life Sciences Directorate


Training personnel
Flight controllers
Flight Director
NBL divers and safety training
Operations Division
Mission Control and Simulator Development Division
Biomedical Systems Division
KA/Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Directorate

Astromaterials Acquisition

Advanced Projects Office
S&MA
PAO

Educational Outreach


2/1/2011
20
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives
 Life






2/1/2011
Sciences
Environmental and human behavior
Psychology
Physiology
Nutrition
Habitation
Expeditionary Medicine
21
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives
 Engineering






2/1/2011
Hardware Development
Wireless Positional Tracking systems
Wireless environmental monitoring
Exercise countermeasures
biological monitoring devices
diagnostic and countermeasure tools evaluation
Advanced EMU design
22
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives

Exploration Ops Concepts



2/1/2011
Surface EVA exploration
Surface based Rover interaction
Construction tasks
23
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives
 Tele-medicine



2/1/2011
and Tele-robotics
Tele-mentoring
Tele-robotic surgery
2-sec (lunar) latency demonstrations
24
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives
 Planetary


2/1/2011
Sample Analysis
Interactive PI
Tele-robotic sample manipulation
25
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives
 Robotics



2/1/2011
3-D Flying tasks
Rovers
Interactive man-machine scenarios – link to
handoff video
26
Project Overview
Historical Mission Objectives

PAO and Educational Outreach




2/1/2011
Have reached millions of school aged children through focused
educational outreach events
Featured on nasa.gov and spaceflight.nasa.gov web pages
A google search on “NEEMO” returned ~ 80,000 hits (N9)
GMA, PBS, CNN, USA Today, etc.
“
27
NEEMO 14 Post‐Test Quicklook Summary
Full 14‐day mission completed successfully
 Over 3400 data points collected over EVA‐based objectives
• All Human Health & Countermeasures (HHC) and Behavioral Health & Performance (BHP) data and samples collected
• Highly successful Education & Public Outreach (EPO) efforts

Hypothesis 1: A volumetric FRED mockup will be successfully unloaded from a full‐scale cargo lander mockup using a davit with EVA support in simulated lunar gravity.
Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected for davit operations and tagline control from 4 crewmembers at all 9 suit weight and center of gravity combinations
Results: Task completed successfully under multiple EVA weight and CG configs. by all crewmembers. Areas for improvement identified. Detailed analysis in progress. Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, and document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 2: EVA astronauts in simulated lunar gravity will successfully translate with small payloads between the surface and the deck of a full‐
scale cargo lander mockup in simulated lunar gravity.
Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected for davit operations and connection of small payload to davit line; data collected from 4 crewmembers at all 9 suit weight and center of gravity combinations.
Results: Task completed successfully under multiple EVA weight and CG configs by all crewmembers. Detailed analysis in progress. Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, and document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 3: A simulated incapacitated crewmember will be successfully transferred from the surface to the deck of a full‐scale cargo lander mockup in simulated lunar gravity.
Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected for davit operations and connection of crewmember to davit line; data collected from 4 crewmembers at all 9 suit weight and center of gravity combinations.
Results: Task completed successfully under multiple EVA weight and CG configs by all crewmembers. Areas for improvement identified. Detailed analysis in progress. Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, and document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 4: A simulated incapacitated crewmember will be successfully transferred in simulated lunar gravity from surface into LER mockup via mockup suit port, 40”wide x 40” high side hatch, & 40”wide x 60” high side hatch.
Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected from all 4 crewmembers for the 3 methods of ingress at one suit weight and with a volumetrically correct PLSS mockup.
Results: Task completed successfully under multiple EVA weight and CG configs by all crewmembers for suit port and both size hatches. Areas for improvement identified. Detailed analysis in progress. Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, and document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 5: Varying simulated EVA suit weight and CG location (based on suit port compatible PLSS packaging) will affect performance of construction EVA tasks Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected for all planned tasks; data collected from 4 crewmembers at all 9 suit weight and center of gravity combinations.
Results: Preliminary analysis indicates subjective human performance differences among weight and CG configurations. Detailed analysis in progress.
Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, & document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 6: Crew productivity will not be significantly affected by a communications mode in which real‐time habitat‐ground communications are available only twice‐per‐day as compared with continuous real‐time communications.
Data Collection: Comparison switched to assess effects of real‐time communication with ground control to a Mars‐like delay; autonomy questionnaires completed during each protocol and post‐mission.
Results: Analysis in progress.
Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, & document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 7: A crewmember will successfully translate through a hatchway in simulated lunar gravity via 40” x 40” hatch and 40”wide x 60” high hatch, while weighed out to IVA weight
Data Collection: All 4 crewmembers translated through the 40” x 40” hatch of the airlock and ascent modules, without PLSS mockup and weighed out to lunar IVA weight; ratings and comments were collected. Due to time constraints, and because of the simplicity of the 40” x 40” hatch translation no data was collected on the 40” x 60” hatch translation. Results: Preliminary results indicate that all crewmembers found the 40” x 40” hatch totally acceptable for IV translation in lunar gravity. Detailed analysis is in progress. Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, & document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
40” x 40” hatch
Hypothesis 8: A simulated incapacitated crewmember will be successfully transferred from the crew lander deck into an airlock and ascent module in simulated lunar gravity.
Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected from all 4 crewmembers at one suit weight and with a volumetrically correct PLSS mockup.
Results: Task completed successfully by all crewmembers. Preliminary analysis indicates that the confined area on lander deck is a challenge but probably sufficient for the task. Several areas for improvement identified. Detailed analysis in progress.
Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, & document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 9: A crewmember will successfully translate into an airlock an ascent module in simulated lunar gravity.
Data Collection: Ratings, metrics and comments collected from all 4 crewmembers one suit weight and with a volumetrically correct PLSS mockup.
Results: Task completed successfully by all crewmembers. Areas for improvement identified. Detailed analysis in progress.
Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, & document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Hypothesis 10: A crewmember will successfully establish anchors, translate, and perform tasks in a simulated very low gravity field.
Data Collection: Data was not collected to assess this hypothesis due to topside weather and associated time limitations.
Results: n/a
Next Steps: Formulate protocol for assessment on future NEEMO mission and/or field tests.
Hypothesis 11: The crewmembers will find it acceptable to translate through a 40” wide by 40” high hatchway in 1‐g over a 14‐day mission
Data Collection: Due to the internal hatchway in Aquarius being only ~24” wide, a realistic assessment of a 40” x 40” hatchway could not be performed
Results: n/a
Next Steps: Formulate protocol for assessment in other relevant settings.
Behavioral Health & Performance / Human Health & Countermeasures Experiments:
Data Collection: All blood & saliva samples collected; all questionnaires completed; all psychomotor vigilance tests completed; all planned Etag and CASPER data collected; SPIFe used for planning and mission executed.
Results: Analysis in progress.
Next Steps: Complete analysis, interpret results, & document findings. Develop future test protocols based on any limitations of results.
Participatory Exploration & Social Media:
Aquarius Website (streaming webcams)
> 300,000 hits
All crewmembers “twittered” and blogged throughout training week and
the mission and conducted multiple live and recorded EPO events. The www.nasa.gov/neemo
public followed in real-time via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and
-approx. 1,000 hits per day
nasa.gov updates and viewed streaming webcams and audio from EVA YouTube:
helmets, and video from multiple cameras inside and outside the habitat. - Followers: 5,760
Decision by crew to invite the public to participate in the naming of coral
outcroppings via social media during the Exploration EVAs was
successful demonstration of Participatory Exploration. Individuals and
schools suggested names before and during EVAs, while watching and
listening to the EVAs live. Photos of crew naming outcroppings
requested by schools were posted by the crew on Twitpics immediately
post-EVA, which was well-received.
- Upload Views: 111,781
Twitter:
- Tweets: 272
- Followers: 296
Facebook:
-Followers: 718
- Countries Reached: 20
Example of a photograph taken during an Exploration Traverse EVA in which a
coral outcropping was named following a request by an elementary school. The
photo was edited post-EVA and immediately posted to the internet via Twitter.
Link to Social Media
Statistics:
NEEMO 15
 On
2/1/2011
to NEO…
44
Questions ?