NASA CONTRACTOR NASA

REPORT e'.i
*

LOAN CCIPY: RETURN TO

AFWL (WLIL-2)
KIRTLAND AFB, N MEX

CORRELATION STUDY OF THESIMULATION

' OF GEMINIEXTRAVEHICULARACTIVITY
WITH FLIGHT RESULTS

Prepared by
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Randallstown, Md.
for Langley Research Center

N A T I O N A AL E R O N A U T I C SA N DS P A C EA 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 1969
 NASA CR- 1146
TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM

CORRELATION STUDY O F THE SIMULATION O F GEMINI

EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY WITH FLIGHT RESULTS

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

Distribution of this report is provided in the interest of

informationexchange.Responsibility f o r thecontents
r e s i d e s in the author o r organization that prepared it.

Issued by Originator as Report No. ERA-67-7

Prepared under Contract No. NAS 1-7142 by

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Randallstown, Md.
for Langley Research Center
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
Springfield, Virginia 22151- CFSTI price $3.00
 ABSTRACT

P r i o r to the Gemini 3x mission all simulations of extravehicularacti-

vity w e r e of apartialnature,mainly utilizing the zero gravity air-
craft. T h i s simulationtechnique did not provideadequateassessment
o f the biomedicalfactor8oftheperformanceofGemini X-m. Thi8
problem was brought into sharp focus by the early cessation of
Astronaut Cernan rs extravehicular task on Gemini X.
Concurrently, a N A S A - L R C supported program of water immersion
simulation was underway at Environmental Research Associates to
investigate f u t u r e ingress-egressrequirements.Thisprogramwas
extended b y N A S A - M S C to include the postflight evaluation of the
Gemini X task a n d further to investigate the E V A of Gemini X and
XI. The program culminatedwith Astronaut A l d r i n p e r f o r m i n g p r e -
flighttraining and postflightevaluation of the successful GT-XZT E V A .

The water immersion simulation =tf the Gemini E V A utilized full-scale

mockups of the Gemini vehicle including portions of the Agena target
vehiale with valid replicasofancillary E V A equipmentsuchastools,
astronautmaneuveringunit,etc. A I I importantitemswere maintained
in aneutrallybuoyantcondition.%io-instrumentationwasincorpor-
atedinto theGeminiflight suits and continuousvoice and film records
w e r e obtained

The waterimmersionsimulationoftheGeminiextravehicularactivity
provided a valid training time line for performance of complex extra-
vehicular tasks and provided adequate measures of the level of work
entailed. A secondcapabilityevidenced a s a resultoftheprogram
was the method f o r evaluatingvariouscompetitivehardwareconcepts
s u c h a8 tools a n d motion restraints.Thetechniqueused in the p r e -
flightevaluation and training was to perform the simulation r u n with
E R A subjects prior toactual performance of the training r u n b y the
astronaut.Thistechniquepermittedpre-evaluationofhardware in a
repetitivemanner a n d served to assess the vabidity of the water simu-
lationmode.Factorssuch as drag-damping and orientationalstability
were compensated by variation of themockuporientation and c o d i g -
uration .
Subseqyent to the flight, the time lines and thebio-medical data w e r e
analyzedtodeterminecorrespondences and d z e r e n c e s .T h er e s u l t s
of the simulation program supported b y an analysis of idlight data
provides a performance baseline f o r future E V A t a s k s and critically
evaluatesthewaterimmersionsimulationtechnique f o r utility in f u t u r e
programs

iii
 TABLE OF C O N T E N T S
PAGE
v
ABS T R A C T iii
T A B L E OF CONTENTS V

L S S T OF F I G U R E S vi
L I S T OF T A B L E S ix
INTRODUCTION xi
1 . 0 PROGRAM SUMMARY-GEMINI EXTRAVEHICULAR
SIMULATIQN 1
2.0 WATER IMMERSION SIMULATION TECHNIQUE 8
3.0 THE GEMINI PROGRAM A N D R E F A T J Q N OF
WATER IMMERSION SIMULATION 12
4.0 P E R F O R M A N C E A N A L Y S I S 16
4 .l GEMINI X 16
4.2GEMINI X 22
4.3 GEMINI X 26
5 , O GEMINI XU 53
5.1 GENERAL 53
5.2 TIMELINECOMPARISON 58
5.3 W O R K LOADCOMPARISON a1
5.4 EVALUATION OF T A S K S B Y C A T E G O R I E S 88
6.0 C O N C L U S I O N S 181
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 181
6.2 U T I L I T Y OF THE SIMULATION 1 83
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 188

V
 L I S T C2F FIGURLS
FIGURE NO.
3 -

2 -1 7 a& S-020 Experiment Placsqqnt pcnd Fqbieyal

T-Z
1-2 ++MU Donpinp Tssk
1-3 Gemini &T SimvlationSequence
1 -4 Gemini XU Umbilical E V A -Time Lipe
8-1 Instrumentation -Flo w Diagram
2-2 Gemioi X U Mocl.gup Configuration in the E R A Facility
4-1 Gemini X WockupCqnfiguration
4-2 Gemini . X MockupConfiguration
4-3 AetronautCernan at UmbilicalPigtail &ea
4 -4 Arstrov& CernanUnstowing AMq C~nt+-ollsr Arms
4-5 Aetronaut iq Foot S t i m u p Reqtraint System
4-4 SubJeotUsingNeutrallyBuoyantTorqueless
P o w e r Tool
4-7 D-$6 @ q e r i m e n tS t o w a g eA r e a
4-8 RetFoAdaptem Camera Installation
4-9 MovementSgquence f r o m Spacecra#t Hatch to Agena
4-10 Uemini “Heart a n d Respiration Rate f o r the
OFbitd E VIA
4711 Agena TetherTask 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
5-1 Gemini XCC-CQmparison of Orbital, Water Sirnulqtion
and Pjrcrat3 Simulgtion SelectedFilm S e q u e n c e s
(Five Second Intervals)
5-2 Gemini XlI-Sequence of Total PreflightWatenSitpulation
Tat34 TimeLine(ThirtySecondIntepud) ’

5-3 P i p Pin De vice

9-4 WaJor T a s k - E v e n t s of theGemini XU Vmbilical E V A
5-5 p o c k i n g B a r ClampConfiguration
5-6 Sqquezzce of AvailableFilm f r o m the GT-XU Flight
(Thirty Secon’d Interval)
5-7 Sgquence of Available Aircraft Simqlaticm Fllm
(Thirty Second Interval)
a-e L e g Tether Configuration

vi
 L- I S T- - OF .FIGURES (cont. )
I

F I G U R E NO.
579 CgmeraPlacementEvaluation While Stqmdipg in
SpacecraftCockpit(Untethered)
5-1o Camera Placement Evaluation-Body Outpide S p a c e -
craft Hqtch
5-11 Pilot 1s InitialReqtingPositiononPortableHandrail
5-12 Right Waist Tether Attached to Portable Handrail Ring
5-13 Docking Cone U-Bolt Attachment Point f o r Waist
Tether
5-14 Agena Tether Configuration Prior to Activation . by
qatronaut
5-15 AgenaTetherDeployed
5-16 S-010 FullyDeployedon TclA
5-17 AdapterWorkStationTaskBoard
5-18 Astronaut Aldrin Performing Center, Electrical
ConnectorEvaluation
5-19 Astronaut Aldrin During Movement fram Adapter
to Spacecraft Hatch Area
5-20 Flight and WaterSimulation TaskTimeComparison
5-21 Comparison Summary of Mqjor Task Category
5-22 Heart Rate Versus Elapsed Time for Orbital E V A
5-23
5-24
Preflight Ergometry-Gemini =-XU
Oxygen Utilization Curves from Preflight Ergometry
5-25 Gemini XU Biomedical Measurement8 of the Simula4ion
5-26 Gemini XU Biomedical Measurements of theSimulation
Usingthede V . WeirTechnique
5-27 PreflightSimulationBiomedicalMeasurementsUs,ing
E R A Subject
5-28 PreflightSimulationBiomedicalMeasurementsUsing
ERA Subject
5-29 CumulativeWorkLoad f o r the GT-XU Task Line
5-30 E f f e c t of A m b i e n t P r e s s u r e on Heart Rate at
CoqstantWorkRate
$-31 E f f e c t of HeatLoad on HeartRate at Constant
W o r k Rates
5-32 SingleParameterWorkLoadCorrelations
5-33 Gemini XU- Task Energy Comparison

vii
 L I S T OF FPGURES (csnt. )
FIGURE NO. ?+GEJ
5-34 EnergyExpenditureRatio 1 74
5-35 Cqlculated Drag f o r Motion of a Preesuye Suited
SubjsotThroughtheWater 1 75
5-36 AstronautAGustingPosition with Resatraint Attgched
to Fip Pin 1 76
5-37 Aetronaut Ac(justingPosition with Restraint Attached
toPortable Handhold 177
5-38 T h e Effect of Restraint on Task WQrk Goad 3 77
5-39 S u i t Mobility Evaluation in Adapter Fogt R w t r a i n t s 1 78
5-40Suit Mobility Analysis for Lean Back Task 1 79
5-41 ApolloTorqueWrench 180
5-42 TelescopingHandrail 180
5-43 Compgrison ot the Effectiveness of $?est@ 183
5-44 E x p e r i m e n t 4S u p p o r tT a s k s Cwnpadsan 1

viii
T A B L E NO. P.AGE
Gemini Extraarehicub Simulation Task S u m m a r y
S u m m a r y of theUmbilical E V A of thqGemini
Missions
Gemini X Water Simulation-Data Andpis
Gemini Ix Water Immersion Task Sequence
Gemini Ix Water Simulation-Data Analysis
W e c t of Restraint Modeon Gemini A M U Donning
Qualitative Evaluation of the E f f e c t o€ Restraints
on the AMU Donning T a s k
Gemini X ( 1 ) Water Simulation-Data Analysis
Gemini XT Water Simulation-Data Analysis
Simulation Time Line -Final Iteration
Flight TimeLine-FinalIteration
AircraftSimulationTimeLine-FinalIteration
Comparison of TransitionTasks
Flight Time Line-Work Station Tasks -Detailed Analysis
Preflight Simulation -Work Station T a s k s -Detailed
Analypis
Comparison of ConnectorTasks
Biome,dicalInstrumentationComponents f o r the
WaterSimulation
Results of Biomedical Analysis of Gemini XU
PreflightSimulation,AstronautAldrin
Results of BiornedicaI AnalyBis of Gemini XU
Preflight Simulation
Task Time-TaskEnergyComparison
Task Complement
EvaluationObjectives for Various EVA Subtasks
Effect of Restraint Modes on W o r k Tasks
Time and Energy Comparison for Rest Periods
Conclusions
S u m m a r y o f Gemini E V A Results and Applicability
ofWaterImmersionSimulation
Recommendation8

ix
 INTRODUCTION

The early cessation of the E V A task of Gemini X caused a reappraisal

of the qethods for preparing the astronauts for the flight and also of
the techniques for planning E V A tasks. This reappraisal focused
primarily on theinapplicabilityofthethenexistingsimulations and train-
ing Eor longduration E V A t a s k s .

T o addressthisproblem, N A S A extendedacurrentwaterimmersion
€$VA r e s e a r c h contract with Environmental Research Associates to
include an assessmentoftheGT-X EVA. Whenthesimulation, per-
formed by an E R A subject,closelyapproximatedtheactualflight per-
formance it was decided to continue the program through GT-XI and
GT-XLT. Theprogramfurther included asubjectiveevaluation of the
simulationtFchnique b y an experiencedastronaut.Cdmr.Eugene
Cernan performed this function through a postflight evaluation of the
GT-IX E V A .

SimulationoftheGT-XI E V A , b y ERA subjects,was u s e d toiden-

tify problemareas and toschedule task sequence.Althoughthe
GT-XI E V A was notcompletedduringtheflight,acomparisonofthe
resulting data emphasizedtheneed for water immersion simulation
and training. At thispoint in theprogram N A S A includedthewater
immersiontrainingofthe G T - X I E V A astronaut.

Calibrations r u n s b y E R A subject a n d training r u n s b y the prime and

back-up c r e w s w e r e p e r f o r m e d onacontinuously updated mockup of
theGT-XtI flightconfiguration.Subsequenttothe initial training r u n ,
mqjor modiEications weremadetothe E V A taskwhichrequiredaddi-
tional trainingtime and a rescheduling of thelaunchdate.

Training f o r thefinalversionoftheGT-XU E V A using high fidelity

hardwaremockupwascompletedtwoweeksprior tolaunch.Bio-
medical measurements were made and atimeline f o r theflight E V A
wasestablished.Finally,apostflightdebriefingrunwasperformed
t w o w e e k s d e r missioncompletion b y theastronaut.

T h e s u c c e s s o f theGehini XII E V A has led N A S A toincludewater

immersion training as .an integral part of E V A mission training a n d a
pool facility has been added tothe M S C complex f o r this purpose.

S i n c e the endof theGeminiprogrammeant an end to all immediate

3 V A experiments contract NASI-7142 was initiated b y N A S A - L R C
and undertaken b y E R A tocorrelate,asclosely ,as possible, space
experience and thesimulation program.The fo116wing reportpresents
the results and conclusions of this program.

xi
 2.0-PROGRAM SUMMARY
GEMINI EXTRAVEHICULAR TASK SIMULATION

Portions of the umbilicalextravehicudar tasks' of four Gemini missions

w e r e simulated bywaterimmersiontechniques at E R A . T h e s ew e r e
the G T - X , X X , and missions. A summaryofthespecific
. X n

Baskssimulated is given in _T&Ie I .

T h e Q T - X umbilical E V A wasthe first mission-task to be simulated,
and was perfonmed by an E R A subjectwearing an A r r o w h e a d v e r -
sionofthefullpressure suit, Thiswasfollowedby apostflightrun
ofthe G T - X A M U donning task by Astronaut Cmdr. E . Cernan.

Subsequent to the performance of the GT-IX simulation,thecomplete

task line of the G T - X umbilical E V A was performed by an E R A
subject.Thiswasfollowedbythe simulation of the original version
oftheGT-XU E V A performedbyAstronaut Col. E . Aldrin.Sub-
sequently,AstronautAldrinparticipated in extensivewaterimmersion
simulation - training of thefinalversionoftheGT-XU EVA.

Gemini X -The Gemini X E V A tasks were performed by an E R A

subjectwearing an air-pressurized Arrowhead, Mark N Mod .6full
pressure suit. Thetask lineincludedtheconnection ofthe H H M U
nitrogenquickdisconnect on theadapter and theplacement and r e -
trievalofexperimentcomponentslocatedontheAgena T D A (the
T - 1 7 , and S ; - O l O e q e r i m e n t s ) .T h es u b j e c tp e r f o r m e d the HHM.U-
QD task b y staging in apositionrepresentativeofstanding in theopen
hatch of the spacecraft, proceeding in ahand-over-handfashion along
theadapterhandrail and connectingthe QD whileretainingahandhold.
Thesubjectroutedthe N underneaththehandrailprior to theconnect
task. A r e v e r s eo r d e r &connect task was also p e r f o r m e d .

T h e E R A subject also performed the T-17, S-010 placement task on

theAgena T D A mockup.This task included transferingtheT-17
experimenttotheAgena T D A mockup,placingthe T-17 on theVelcro
attachmentpad on the Agena surface and retrievingthe S - 0 2 0 experi-
ment.The S-010 experimentwastransportedfromtheAgena in two
p i e c e sb ym e a n s of Velcroattachmenttothe ELSS. The HHMU
mockupwasalsocarried on the E L S S b y meansofVelcroattachment.
Figure ,1-1 s h o w s a sequence of T-17 and S-010 experiment place-
ment a n d retrieval.The E R A subjectexperiencedgreatdifficulty in
handling and retainingexperimenthardwareduringmovementto and
f r o m theGeminitargetvehicle.

Gemini lX - Astronaut Cernan commenced his AMU donning task at

the umbilicqlpigtailconnectiononthe circumferenceoftheadapter
curtain.Hethenproceeded todon the A M U to thepoint of the 180"
turnaroundpriortostrappinghimsell into theAMU.The task in-
cludedtheactivation of the A M U and ended with the chest restraint
connection prior to release of the A M U , the point at whichtheabort

1
decision w a s made in flight.F;gure 2 - 2 is an excerptsequence
f r o m thefilmrecord of Cmdr.Cernan 1s .pesfoz-mance. Wate? immer-
sion simulationof GT-IX substantiatedthevalidity of water immersion
simulation as a tool for assessing spaceborne tasks,.
Gemini X l - A n E R A subject wearing a pressurized G2C-FPS p e r -
formed the GT-Xl E V A tasks in sequential o r d e r . . During an initial
r u n it w a s determined that thesequencerequiredmodificationdueto
equipmentinteractions.TheresultantsequenceoftheGemini X
E V A t a s k s w a s usedduringthesubsequentsimulations.Figure 2-3
showsaportionofthewaterimmersion Simulation ofthe G T - X l
E V A . E a r l y terminationofthe G T - X E V A prevented a directcom-
parison of the results of thepreflightwaterimmersionsimulation.

Gemini XU - Subsequent to the reeonfiguration of the Gemini mjE V A ,

a series of simulations of thefinalversionofthe GT-XI extra-
vehicular tasks w a s performedbyAstronaut Lt. C s l .A l d r i n .A l s o
included w a s apostflightsimulationevaluationrun by Astronaut Aldrin.

T h e mockupcodigurationcomprised a fullscalevisually-accurate I)
version of the Gemini reentry moduleincluding the R/R section a n d
theadaptersectionplus a cylindricalsectionoftheAgena TDA work-
site.

T h e simulated G T - X I E V A comprisedthreebasicsequences; (I) e r e c -

tion ofthecockpit T D A handbar, ( 2 ) A g e n aT D Aw o r k s i t et a s k s and
( 3 ) adapterworksitetasks.Figure 2-4 showsthe planned task line
f o r the GT-XU umbilical E V A whichevaluatedtheastronaut I s ability
toworkunrestrained and towork a n d rest, restrained by waist
tethers, both in thespacecrafthatch and on thetargetvehicle.During
this period the pilot connected the Agena tether and activated the S-010
micrometeorite experiment package located on the forward section of
thetargetvehicle.The pilot thenmoved to thespacecraftadapter
work station.

During the first night period, the pilot performed various subtasks at
theadapterworkstation,alternatelyevaluatingvariousrestraintmodes.
T h e pilotexitedtheadapter at the start of the second daylight period
and proceeded to the A T D A work station where he performed various
subtasks.The pilot returnedtothehatchafterclearingthetarget
vehicle and spacecraft.

2
 TABLE I GEMINI EXTRAVEHICULAR SIMULATION
SUMMARY
TASK
~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~

MISSION TASK CONFIGURATION ANCILLARY HARDWARE

GT-9 Adapter
end sectlon AMU (1x1 with tether bag
and
prnlight
GT- 9 foot
restraints
GT- I1 foot
rectralnts
ELSS

01- IO HHMU N2 QD HHMU QD panel HHMU

Agena TDA
half- T-I7
section S-IO and
retentlon
bracket
EVA
still camera
ELSS

GT- II EVACamrra Adapter

end sectlon Apollo sump camera and
brackeir
placement and
thermal
curtain HHMU
Agena t r t h e r Reentry module EVA mode camera
and
brackets
Foot restraint R / R section EVA
still camera
w evaluation ELSS
Apollo sump D-16 with knee tethers
camera
retrieval GT-I1
foot
restraints
D -16 Agena tetherand
clamp
HHMU Q D Dockingbar
mirror
Debris
cutters

GT-12 -I AMU Donning / Same

as f o r GT-11 AMU
(XI11 wlth tetherbag and
penlights
Doffing GT-12 foot
restraints
AMU evaluation EVA movie camera
and
brackets
AMU tether restraint clamps
and
‘attachments
Debris
cutters
ELSS

GT-12-2 Handrail
eraction Reentry
module Foot
restraints / waist tether
Adapter
work tarkr R/R
section Portable
handrail
TDA work tasks Equlpment adapter / Adapter work station
work station TDA
work station
Retro.adapter Agena tether and locking
clamp
TDA /workstation s-IO
EVA movie camera
Flgura 1 - 1 T-17 (L S-010 EXPERIMENT PLACEMENT (L RETRIEVAL

4
5
6
e.t. t
k 42:40

. 42:4s

- 43.50

Figure 1-4 GEMINI PI: UMBILICAL EVA TIME LINE

7
 2.0-WATER IMMERSION - TE-C-HNIQUE

Thewaterimmersiontechniqueemployed in Geminisim ulation w a s

developed b y Environmental Research Associates and compsfses the
completesubmersion of a subject in an air-pressurized single-gas
anthropomorphicfull-pressurespacesuit.The suit is maintained at a
p r e s s u r e of '3.7-4.0 p s i above ambient water pressure by means of a
relief valve mounted in the outlet port of the suit.
T h e completeweight of thesubject and associatedequipment is counter-
balanced b y the buoyancy forces actingon thesubjectexterior, i.e.,
themassofthesubject and equipment isaGustedtoequalthe total dis-
placement.Sincethe suit whenpressurizedoccupies a volumegreater
thanthesubject,ballast is requiredtoachievethis condition of neutral
buoyancy.The ballast is provided b y means of distributedexternal
wieghts,locatedtoprovidebalance in roll,pitch, and yaw axes a s
well a s maintaining theneutralbuoyancy of thelimbs.Thewater
immersiontechniquehasbeendemonstrated to be valid for low-velocity
motions within restricted areas such as the Agena and spacecral?adaptel
work stations.

S u c c e s s f u l application ofwaterimmersion to theGeminiProgramwas

d u e in large measure to theexperiencegained in p r i o r r e s e a r c h p r o -
g r a m s and to carefulconsiderationofrecognized simulation constraints.
The water immersion simulation technique isconstrained b y thefollow-
ing major f a c t o r s :
(1) Theeffectofthe fluidmediumonthe motion ofthesubject.

(2) T h em a s si n c r e a s e due to ballasting thesubject.

(3) Attitudestabilitycharacteristicsdue to geometry of the

subject.

(4) Metabolic ekfects of the suit pressurizationsystem.

T h e f a c t thatlimb movement rates are constrained in a p r e s s u r e suit

and that safetyconsiderations dictatethat EVA be performed in a slow
and deliberatemannergreatly assist in minimizingthedynamic effects
of thewatermedium.Experience at E R A hasshown that subject
velocities of l e s s thanone foot per second result in negligible displace-
mentsdue to planing and that thedrag forces are low as compared 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 y to inducethetranslationalvelocity.
T h e p r e s s u r e of the water drag force as a damping medium not p r e -
Bent in space is a limitation whichmustbekeptconstantly in mind in
evaluating the results of thesimulations.

T h e damping e f f e c t of the water is somewhat offset b y the necessity

f o r the suit subject mass to be 30 to 40 percent higher thanactualdue
tothe ballasting requiredforneutralbuoyancy; that is, theballast
inertiatends to compensate for the water damping and the response to

a
the net force issimilar in direction a n d magnitudetothe same require-
ment iq thespaqeenvirgnment so lopg as theaccqleration a n d velocity
of the subject are relatively small.

T h e air volume of the inflated full-presgure suit allows the body pqsi-
tion of thesybjecttochange within' the suit. Thecenter of gravity of
the suit-subject assembly is therefore a function of subject body attitude.
The ceptqr of buoyqncy for the suit-sybject assembly is not altered b y
theshi3ofcenterofgravity. Misalignmentofthe centerofbuoyancy
and the center of gravity results in rotatianofthesubjecttoa prefer-
ential attitude whichalignsthecenterofbuoyancy with thecenterof
gnavitydongthegravityvector.Constant attention tothisphenomenon
aqd reballasting necessitated b y g r o s s attitude changes hold this p r e -
ferential attitude e f f e c t toaminimum.

N o attempt w a s made in these simulationstoexactly duplicate the suit

inlet and outlet gasenvironment a s provided by the Environmental Life
S u p p o r t S y s t e m ( E L S S ) chestpack in s p a c e .A i ri s suppliedto
the pregsure suit subject viaanumbilicalcontaining theairsupplyline,
airexhaustline, a n d electricalleads for biomedical measurements and
voicecommunications. Theseitemsareencased in anormal umbilical
flight cover with ballastweightsaddedtoachieveneutralbuoyancy for
the umbilical. T h e resulting umbilical assembly w a s slightly larger
thantheflightitem but exhibited similardynamicbehavior.

A n airflow of 10 C F M wasusedtoassure adequatecooling and carbon

dioxideremoval fromthespace suit. T h e subject w a s biomedically
instrumented with s t a n d a r d flight s e n s o r s to obtain electrocardiograms,
respiration rate a n d depth, and bodytemperature on a continuous
basis.

Figure 2-1 shqwsthesystem configurationdeveloped f o r thesimula-

tion oftheGT-XU umbilical EVA.

A full scale mockup of the Gemini spacecraft and targetvehiclewas

utilized in thetraining-simulations. It consisted of a half sectionof
thespacecraftreentrymodule, a 1 / 4 sectionofthespacecraftadapter
@hell, a full mockup of theadapterwork station area, and a 112 s e c -
tion of the Agena target vehicle.

The spacecraft target vehicle area a n d spacecraft adapter work stations

were full fidelity mockups utilizingtraining hardware identical to the
flightitems.Interveningareaswereconstructed to conformtothe
mold line codigurdisnoftheflight dicle.The mockupwaslocated
with the longitudinal center-line of the assembly 6 f e e t belowthe s u r -
f a c e oi: thewater.Figure 2-2 showsarepregentativemockupcon-
figuration in the E R A facility.

AuxiliaryequipmentincludedtheAgenatargetvehicleworkstation
equipment,adapterareawork station equipment,astronauttethers, and
motion picture and still camerae.

9
F&ht configurationwork station hardware and
Cethers wcrqused an#
DQ attempt wals medetoachieveneutral4uoyanay in these Items.
T h e c a m e r a s w e r e non-opersjlting neutFajlybuoyant mockups of the
fliqht hardware, but the attachment braqkqtry w a s identical to flight
hardware.

T h e following personnel attended the suit-eubject in the water f o r the

Gemini XE simulation r u n .

2 - safety and equipmentspecialists

1 - simulation engineer
1 - testconductor
3 - photographers
Assisting in thesimulationactivities in the area outside the pool were ;

3 - biomedicalmonitors
1 - command pilot
1 - flightplanspecialist
1 - p r e s s u r e suitspecialist
2 - photographicspecialist

All eimulation personnel were in communication via a systemofhead-

sets and anunderwater loud speaker.

Data from the simulationconsisted of:

(1.) Continuous 16 mmcolor motion picturefilm

(2) Continuous
tape
recorded
voice
communications

(3) Biomedical data in continuowand/ortabular form

(4) P o s tr u n debriqfing of the E V A astronaut

(5) Postrundebriefing of simulation personnel

Eaoh simulation s e s s i o n lastedapproximately 3 112 h o u r s and two

simulations wereperformedeach day. Gemioi XU simulation schedule
wlth Astronaut Major E . Adlrin as thq Hubject was as follows :

Sepbember 12, 1966 -

Simulatioq of the early task plqn f o r the
Gemini XU missionwhichincluded (2) attachment of the
targetvehicletether and ( 2 ) preparation and flight OE the
astronautmaneuvering unit.

October 17, 1966 - SimulationoftherevisedGemini XU task

planwhichincluded (1) attachmqnt ofthetargetvehicle
tether, ( 2 ) operationoftheadapterwork statio4 and ( 3 )
operationofthe Agena work station.

October 29, 1966 -

SimulationoffinalGemini XU task p l a n .
Emphasis on tasktime,taskrsequence'andworkload.
10
I I

J i

Flgura 2 -I INSTRUNEHTATION - FLOW DIACRAN

NOCKUP
CONFlOLRATION 111 C.RA
FACILITY

11
The Gemini Program consisted of twelve flights, ten of them manned
bytwo-mancrewB. Six of theseflights had umbilical extravehicular
activity b y the pilot a s p a r t oftheirmission plan. These flights are
shown in Table lI.
Additionalstandup E V A wasaccomplished on theseflights with the
pilotstanding in theopenspacecratlhatch.The E V A portionofthe
missions was completely or partiallyaccomplished on all Flights except
Gemini Vm, which w a s terminatedbeforethescheduled E V A due to
a spacecraft malfunction.

The threeobjectives of E V A on the Gemini Program were:

(I) Developthecapability f o r E V A in f r e ea p a c e .

(2) Use thedeveloped E V A capability toincrease capability OE

theGeminispacecralt.

(3) Developoperational
techniques and evaluateadvanced
equ.ipment in support of E V A f o r future p r o g r a m s .

In general,theprincipalobjectivesweremet but problems encountered

duringtheprogramsomewhat shifted theemphasis on theobjectives.
T h e evaluation of various free space propulsion devices was deferred
in order to obtain a betterunderstanding of tetherdynamics,body
crtabilization requirements,operationofthepressure suit s y s t e m , and
control of metabolic energy loads.
Q n e of themoatdifficultaspectsofdeveloping an extravehicular capa-
bility w a s simulation.ofthe
E V A environment.The combination of
weightlessness and highvacuum is unattainableon e a r t h .Z e r o graviby
aircraftsimulations were extensively used a n d proved valuablebut
occagionally misleading.Neutralbuoyancy simulationrs underwater ulti-
matelyprovedtobethemostuseful duplication of the weightless,
tractionless Mpect of the E V A environment as experienced by the
Gemini astronauts .
T h e flight plans and t a s k s f o r E V A were diaCerent f o r each Gemini
mission BO thewidestpossibleexperience could beobtainedinthe
limited flightsavailable. T h i s diversity of flightactivitiesmadethe suc-
cess d the program highly dependent on good simulation of the EVA
environment f o r development of the flight plan and equipment and f o r
training of the E V A astronaut.

Simulation f o r Gemini N, and X - A consistedofflights in the ZQTO

gravity aircraft f o r astronaut training and equipment procedures devel-
opment; a n d one gravity walkthrough for flight planning development,
stowagedevelopment, a n d astronaut procedures training.

12
 Gemioi X and XT had the benefit of water immersion zero gravity
simulation f o r flightplanning and equipmentevaluation f r o m simulations
performed by the Environmenbal Researgh Asspsiates pressure suit-
8ubjecbB4nd made available to theGemini night c r e w 8 in motiov pic-
ture filma. Gemini X,thelastGemini misrsion,had the full benefiq
simulation in the form &:
1
of water immersion zero gravity

(1) Real tiqe, fq11 lengthtasklinedevelopment utilizing both

the E V A pilot and the command pilot.

(2) Extensivepressurizedspacesuit operatingtime in atrac-

tionless environment f o r the E V A qstronaut.

(3) Biomedicalsurveillance of the E V A astronautduringsimu-

lation toenable p r o p e r flightplanning OE the E V A work
load.

FroblemaEncovnteredDuring EVA -
While themqjorityofthe EVA
m'issionobjectivesweremet on eachflight,each had minordiscrep-
I ancienworthy of noteto thoseinterested in theplanning requiredby
such a uniqueactivity.

The first entry into extravehicular activity was performed on Gemini Z V

b y Lt. Col. E . H . White. T h e onlydifficultyheencounteredwae in
closingthespacecrafthatch at theendofthe EVA. A muchhigher
level of effort was required than had beenenoountered in aircraft and
groundsimulation,resulting in rathersevereoverheatingofthe EVA
pilot and to somelesserextenttheCommand Pilotwho had to assist.

TheGemini = - A missionobjective, toevaluate a stabilizedmaneuv-

ering unit during E V A , w a s notachievedbecauseAstronautCernan tw
highmetabolioheat load causedvisorfogging,resulting in restricted
vision.The high heat load w a s duetodifficulties in maintainingbody
positionduringthemaneuvering unit preparationactivities. These
difficultieswereunexpected in that theGemini IV E V A and the
Gemini X - A training in the zero gravity aircraft had notidentifiedthe
extent of the difficulty in maintaining body position.

The body positioning problem occurred again 00 Gemini X but did not
have a significant effect on performance.Thework load and p o s i -
tioning problem became increasingly more importantaltertheGemini Xl
mission.Severe heating and sweating of theastronaut in coqjuncticw
with body positioning problems withactivation of the Agena tether
paurged an early cessation of the umbilical E V A .

Major Results ofWaterImmersionSimulation of Gemini.E V A -

The
water immersion simulation of zero gravity had been used previously
I b y NASA as ar e s e a r c h tool and a s aresult of Gemini X - A , was
quicklyestablishe? a s anengineering and task planning tool in support
of future Gemini flights.

13
A relatively low fidelity neutral buoyancy simulation of Gemini X EVA
pa& tasks revealed no unexpected dBiculty a n d none was experienced
b y .AatronauC Collins on the Gemini X flight except stowage and house-
keepingdBicultieswhichresulted in lossofsomeequipment. The
neutral buoyancy simulation of the Gemini X E V A task plan revealed
thatmovement along the vehicle whileburdened with many loosely ,
tethered items of equipment resulted in a high probability of equipment
lolss and possible entanglement, as had been experienced on Gemini X.
A s a result, two bulky items of equipment were deleted to enhance
the chances for recovering the data from experiments in the adapter.
N o diEiculty w a s experienced with thetargetvehicletetherattachment
task during the neutralbuoyancysimulation of Gemini Xl E V A , where
the task was conducted as a one hand operation with the other hand
used on the docking bar to maintaina floatingstability.

During the Gemini Xl flight E V A Astronaut Gordon exceeded the

capabilityof the E V A Life Support System, resulting in excessive
fatigue,overheating, and possiblyexceedingacceptable COz levels due
to highmetabolicIoada. The highmetabolicloads weregenerated
whileattempting to maintain bodyposition to accomplish the task of
&aching the targetvehicle tether. The bodypositioningtechnique of
using the legrs to hold position on the spacecraft nose was successfully
simulated in aircraft and LG training but proved too fatiguing in flight.
Had the astronaut used both neutral buoyancy a n d aircraft zero gravity
simulation f o r his training the problem would most likely have been
discovered.
Gemini E V A experience through mission XT led to the following con-
clusions :

(1) Engineering and taskanalysispreflight planning ofthe E V A

missions had beeninadequate to completely define the d B i -
cultiesencountered.

(2) Whenunexpected difti'culties wereencountered in flight t h e y I

resulted in body positioning problems and a large increase

in metabolic load as the astronaut powered the space suit
in an effort to maintain body stability.

(3) The astronaut could generatemetabolicloadswhich exceed

the capabilityof the E V A Life Support System resulting in
degraded performance.
i
(4) The E V A astronautshoulduseneutralbuoyancysimulation
f o r training in addition to zero gravity aircraft flights. I

(5) The Gemini xzir shouldbedevoted to defining and resolving

the body restraint problems b y m e a n s o f a series of varied
t a s k s , while assuring metabolicloads within Life Support
. S y s t e m capability.
These conclusions resulted in the requirement for a high fidelity,
neutral buoyancy simulation of the Gemini XU umbilical E V A to be flown
b y Astronaut A l d r i n . This simulationwould address bothengineering
and c r e w training aspects.
14
 TABLE 3
3
Summary o f Umbilical EVA Activity of the Gemini Mission

MISSION EVA ASTRONAUT DATE DURATION

GEMINI IE LT. COL. E. H. WHITE II JUNE 3,1965 36 min.

OEMf Nl 9III: LT. COL. 0,R. SCOTT MARCH 16,1966 -

GEMINI 38c - A C M D R . E.A. CERNAN JUNE 5,1966 2 hrs, 7min

GEMINI X MAJOR M. COLLINS JULY 20,1966 39 min.

GEMINI X E LT. CMDR. R.F. GORDON SEPT, 13,1966 33 mln.

. GEMINI XIC LT. COL. E.E. A L D R I N NOV, 13, 1966 2 hr 6min.

 4. O - P E R F ' O R M A N ~ J ?
A~N A L Y S I S

Waterimmersionsimulation had been used b y ER.A p r i o r totheGemini

simulationprogram f o r general reseaz-ch ~ L ~ F P ~ ~ S The B S . main t a s k s
investigafed were ingress-egress thsaggh ~ S passageways.
E L ~ P ~ Q Cand
I n this research program the intent wastomeasuretheinteractions
between a subject pressurized in an anthropomorphic full-pressure
suit and thesurroundingairlocks a n d passagewaystructures. No
attempt wasmadetoascertainmetabolicrequirements.

T h e p r i m a r y advantageofwaterimmersion a n d themain factorwhich

recommended it f o r u s e in theGemini program, was the relative insen-
sitivity ofthesimulationmodetotasklength. Its majordrawback
appearedto be that sincethesubjectwas maintainedin aonegravity
environment within the suit a n d onlytheexternaltractionlessaspectsof
weightlessnessweresimulated,the metabolicdeterminationswere
unjustiEied.

Otherversionsofwaterimmersionsimulation,thewaterfilled suit
technique,partiallycompensate f o r this restriction since the density a€
the humanbodyapproximates thatof water.Thewater filledsuit
technique,however, suffers a greaterhandicap, in thatsuitmobility
is alteredduetotheincompressibility a n d viscosity of the water pres-
surizingmedia.Thislatterfactorexercisesa f a r greaterdegradation
of the simulation since the primary factor under investigation is suit
mobilityinweightlessenvironments.

.
4 l - GEMINI X
in coqiunctionwiththe
-Although the problem of valid simulation first arose
early cessation of theGemini Ix E V A , the first
use of the water immersion technique was a portion of the GT-X
umbilical E V A task.

The p r i m a r y objective was the retrieval of an experiment package of

the GT-VRI targetvehiclepreviously I& in orbit.AstronautCollins
translated through f r e e space by means of the tractor-type propulsion
unit ( H H M U ) . Figure4-1showstheequipmentmockupsused during
thewaterimmersionsimulation of thenitrogen umbilical supply line-
coupling and disconnect, T-17 placement and S - 0 1 0 retrieval.

A I 1 waterimmersionsimulation of the G T - X tasks w e r e p e r f o r m e d b y

E R A personnel wearing Arrowhead, Mark N full-pressure suits.
The three umbilical E V A tasks were simulated numerous times in a
mannerspecified b y N A S A flight c r e w trainingpersonnel.Duringthe
performance of the simulations various astronauts were present and
acted a s o b s e r v e r s , and performed certain pasts of the task in
SCUBA. Filmrecords of thesimulationswereviewedbytheGemini X
flight c r e w . T h e importantaspects of thesimulatedtaskperformance
are summarized below :
(1) The eubjectwearing the F P S # s t a g e s ft f r o m a standing
position in the pilot Is seat.

16
 Thesubjectactivatesthehandrail on theadapter.

Thesubject,wearing an E L S S with the HHMU velcroed

to it, e g r e s s e s theGemini a n d proceeds in a hand over
hand mannerdowntheadapterhandrail to the location of
the disconnect panel.

The subject opens the storage p a n e l of the HHMU- NzQD

b y a pinch-action onthe fastener in the Eace of the panel.
Subsequent to panel releaBe, the eubject throws the panel
away.
TakingtheHHMU-N2QD in onehand,retaining a hand-
holdon thehandrail withthe other, thesubject effects a
connection OE the QD with a pushingmotion.

Upon successfulQDoperation, thesubjectrotatesthe

nitrogenon-offvalvewhich had beenmadeautomatically
accessiblebypanelremoval.This activation involvesthe
90 rotation of a smallhandleIocated
O near the Q D .

RemovaloftheQDoccurs in a reversemanner.The
releaseof the QD occurs in response to a fflightIf push
on a release lever integralwiththe QD.

Variousgeneralconclusionsconcerningthesimulationtechnique and
operationweremadeby the E R A and N A S A projectengineers. It
appeared that themockupssuppliedto ERA ,by MSC were inadequate
todeterminethe total character OE task performance.Themockup
duplicatedonlysmallportionsofthespacecraft,approximatelyone
square foot of the adapter surface and a smalllength of a halfsection
of thetargetdockingconearea.Thesesectionswereinsufficientto
determinecompletebodyinteraction with thespacecrat3.

S e v e r a l important factorsweredetermined. (1) A new routing

technique w a s speciEied f o r thenitrogen umbilical supply lineto prevent
astronautentanglement and to controlthelocation of the disconnect,
( 2 ) serioushardware-spacecraftinteractionswereobservedwherein
various loosely attachedelementswerecontinuallybeingsnagged by
protruding hardware and lostduringmovement to and aroundthe tar-
getvehicle, ( 3 ) it wasobserved that thehandholds and motion a i d s on
thetargetvehiclewereinadequate to permit the astronaut to properly
retrieve and activate experiments(particularlythe S-010 micrometeor-
ite collector), and ( 4 ) thesubject Is Eeet continuallycontacted the
spacecraft as a result OE the'natural tendency OE the suit when arm
motions wereinvolved.Thislatterfactorwas in disagreement with
the reports of Astronaut Cernan, who had experiencedbodyposition-
ingdifficulty;his Eeet a n d body continually moved away from the space-
cr&.
N o attempt w a s made to determinethemetabolicrequirements of the
task since the Navy Mark N F P S was used and a continuous task

17
line simulation w a s not performed. P T 2 4 S A personnel u,ssed the Lcitr-
r e c o r d of thesimulation in a qualitative manner to acqzlaint the c r e w
withthevisual aspectB of thetaskperformance. At t h h t i m e , the
flight c r e w felt that themotionsevidenced in thewaterimrnsrsionsimu-
lationwouldnot be replicated ig fIi'ht,

Subsequently, a quantitative measurement o€ tasktime a n d body-

hardware contactrs w a s made b y E R A in preparation for correlation
with data fromtheflight. A s it turnedouttherewasnoflightfilmdue
to camera m h c t i o n so that the voice record a n d thepostflightde-
briefing were theonlyidormation that w a s analyzed.

The Gemini X umbflicd E V A began after rendezvous with the

Gemini W targetvehicle. M e r retrievingthe S-022 micrometeorite
package the pilot proceeded to connect the HHMU nitrogen supply line.
T h e S-012 retrieval w a s notsimulated in thewater. M e r returning
to the cockpit the astronaut prepared to transfer through free space to
thetargetvehicle, WTth the G e m h i vehicle and target i-2 close prox-
fmity (approxfmatdy 5 ' separation) the astronaut pushed o f f toward
the targetvehiclegraspingtheouter I& of thedockingcone.
V e r b a l description of the maneuver ascertained that the ERA subject
had accomplishedthismaneuver in asimilarfashion,Theastronaut
lost his hold on the smooth docking aurface and drifted away f r o m the
vehicle,returning b y means of the HHMU. H e thenusedappur-
f a a c e s on thedocking COR^ aa handholds and proceeded to accomplish
experimentretrieval. S i m i l e p e r f o r m a n c e had beenobserved in the
simulation. Table p r e s e n t s the results of the data
analysis of the
simulation run.

T h e GT-X umbilical EVA hadthe following rnq-or r e s u l t s :

(1) It markedtheperformance of the first work task b y an

astronaut in space and also first transfer between space-
craft.

(2) Theastronautperformed an abbreviated E V A with relative

ease.

(3} The performance of the E V A wam incomplete and data retzzz

degraded b y amaIfunction of camera and the loss of
camera and micrometeorite package.

(4) Theastronautexperiencedrelativedsiculty in moving along

the s p a c e c r d due to inadequate restraint and handholds
and perturbation to the passive target vehicle,
T h e work loads evidenced were relativefy low and onXy during ingress
and hatch closure were elevated heart rates and respiration rates
noted (peak respiration rate = 34/min., peak heart rate = 260 .'
im 1.
r
In general, the flight performance correlated very well with t h e p r e -
flightsimulationtaking into accountthedifference in suits and also
subjectdifferences,Theastronautwasrequired to routethenitro-
gen umbilical in a slightly dserent manner thanplanned because the &
handrail did not fullyextend,AstronautCollins Mated in thepostflight
debriefing -

Collins. - 9)As f a r asthenitrogenlinehookupwent, it w a s not

v e r y difEicult, but it was not very easyeitheriThehalf of the
quickdisconnect on the umbilical itself h a s a sleevearoundit,
and this sleeve must be in theretractedposition in order to have
it cocked so that youcanmakethedisconnectconnection,,The
f i r s t time I took a stab at it, I hit thefitting on the side ofthe
spacecraft a little bit off center - a little bit off axis,. and that
snappedthiscollardowntotheengagedposition, andin this
configuration it will not lock in place, S o , that meant I had to
goback a n d r e c o c k it, Thistakestwohands, and so I had to
1st go with both hands f o r not more than 3 -seconds to get that
thing recockedi and then on m y second attempt I did makethe
Q D without anytrouble, and then .I turned on the nihogen valve
Ingeneral,thebody positioning was not quite a s difficult I think,
a s I had been led tobelieve by some of these water tests and
what not, but on the other hand it wasn 't a v e r y e a s y thing
eitherparticularlybecause I w a s usingthe f o r w a r d handrBail
rather than the aft handrail and my body had a sort of a side-
ward component whenever I pushed down on the Q D < I
notonlytended to pitch m y bodydownagainstthesideofthe
adapter but alsotendedtoroll off, and thismade it slightlymore
difficult.Anyway, I did getthe thingplugged up on thesecond
t r y , and d usedmaybe 5 minutes doing this,Thepeason I
wasted s o muahtime wasbecause I had to correlate m y b o d y
position with John. ! f

l n thewaterimmersion simulationthe subjectexperiencedsimilar dif-

ficulties with inadvertant activation oftheconnector and with hisfeet
interactingthespacecraf?exterior.

Duringthewaterimmersion simulation the E R A subject ahso had d i f -

ficulty in obtaining and maintaining a handhold on thedmoothdocking
conelip-Further,even thoughthemockuphapsection of the T D A
w a s f a i r l y rigidduetobuoyancythesubject's motion continuously af-
fectedthemockup,Thesubject also had difficulty in operatingthe
S-010 latches and in attaching thesectionsofthe S-010 to his chest-
p a c k and Velcropatch on his thigh. T h e astronaut had a similar
experience duringflight, PilotCollins and CommandPilotYoung
stated in the postflightdebriefing -

19
 Collins - f f I g r a b b e d hold ofthedockingcone a s near a s I can
recall, at about thetwo o ?clockposition. If you call thelocation
of the notch in it, the 12 o fcloek, I was to the right of --
that at
aboutthetwoorclockposition and startedcrawlingaround. No,
I must have been more about the four ofclock position, because
I started crawlingaround at the docking cone counterclockwise,
and thedockingcone itselE, aleading edgeofthe docking cone,
which is very blunt, m a k e s a very p o o r handhold in t h o s e p z e s -
s u r eg l o v e s . I had greatdziculty in holding on. A n d , a s a
matter of fact, when I got o v e r b y t h e S-010 package and tried
tostop m y motion, m y inertia, my lower body, kept me right on
moving and m y hand slipped and I fell off the Agena.rf

I n the first waterimmersion simulation runtheAgenaTargetVehicle

w a s f i x e d mountedon thepoolfloor.Thesubject ~ t & & d itn.i?m~foc-
ward end in frontofthedockingbarguide.His initial eticorts at T-17
and S-010 operation were impeded because the chest pack interacted
thedockingcone.Thesubject rolled o v e r on hisbackto f r e e the
chestpack and graspedtheedgeofthe docking cone.Thesubject
movedaroundthe lip ofthecone b y a sliding hand motion,takingcare
to retaina handhold atall times.Thesubject altered hisposition b y
exertingforces with hia hands, usingrandomhandholds in thearea
betweenthe dockingcone and theAgenainterface.Thisresulted in
placingthesubject in apositionfacingtheVelcropadlocated on the
Agena surface.

A second simulation r u n w a s p e r f o r m e d t o a s s e s s t h e f a c t o r s involved

whentheAgenamockupwas allowedto move in six degree of f r e e -
dommotion. ThiswasaccomplishedbysuspendingtheAgenamockup
aboveweightslocated on thepoolfloor.Themockupwasconnected
totheweights b y athreecablesuspension. I n thismannerthe effect
ofsubjectvelocity at thetimeof contact wasassessed.Thesubject
was propelled toward the mockup at a low velocity from a separation
distance of approximately three feet.
This attemptfailed becausethesubject could notmainkiin avisual
sighting of the mockup and consequently lost physical contact as he
passedoverthemockizp.Momentary conkact with themockupcaused
signiEicant motion perturbationto both thesubject a n d themockup.
Since no handholds were provided further attempts at eantact b y the
subjectonly added to the motion perturbation.

A second attempt at subjectcontact with a semi-free mockup was

successful.Thesubject had determined p r o p e r orientation a n d hand
posi€ionpriortothemaneuver.

20
After successful initial contactthesubjectmovedtotheexperiment area
in a manner similar to that pei-formed during the %ixed mockupsimula-
tion r u n . Mockup perturbation WQI minimalduring movementtothe ex-
periment area and w a s only vkBbPe when the subject attempted toman-
e u v e ro v e rt h e lip ofthedockingcanenThismockupmovement did not
degradethesubjectsperformance. It ia felt that the motion w a s not
entirely representative of the free motior, of the Agena in space due to
themockup configuPatiotL However, theeffectofsemi-freemockup TC
action in thewater simulationaided in assessingsimilareffects in the
true space, environment.

Collins continued hisdescription of theorbitalperformance in his d e -

briefing -
Collins - "At any Pate, I sPowdy workedmyway aroundto
the S-010 package and removedthenosefairing. If took m e
about three or f o u r stabs to get both thosebuttons p u s h e d ,T h e
button on theright, I think, I got thesecondtime a n d the button
onthelefi, I believe, I gotthesecond time.., A n d when t h e y
w e r e both pushed in# I got m y f i n g e r s down in thathole on top
ofthefairing and ezsedthe &.iring forward.:Thefairingcame
f o r w a r d and thenfelt Bike it w a s locked in place,. B u t when I
gave it an upward compFnent it did Dome offu A n d I wastrying
to do this very gently,becausethefaipingwasconnectedtothe
main S-010 packagebythesetwo little w i r e s , whicharesimply
pins that would pullright out ofthe S - 0 1 0 package ,. I very gin-
gerly removed the nose fairing and withoutputting an p r e s s u r e
onthe w i r e s , I wentback a n d grabbed a hold of the S - 0 1 0
packageitself and removed it., I h e l d ,f r o m that time on,, I held
the S - 0 1 0 f i r m l y in m y left hand and the wisesheld, and w e got
thenoseconeback in that manner..

While the simulation ~f theGemini X umbillicad w a s b y no means a qom-

phtetaskline,several importantconclusions w e r e drawn.,

T h e s e v e r a l Gemini umbilical EVA t a s k s simulated

(T-17, S-810 a n d the nitrogendisconnecg) wereadequately
accomodated b y water immemsion techniques

Equipmentcarried the s u i t exterior would have

to
be
secured to prevent damage OF dsss.

Bodydynamics a n d motion characteristicswereadequately

simulated a s long as theastronautwasrestrictedtomotions
on or near the surface of thespacecraft.

21
 (4) Thecharacteristics of certainofthemockupspreviously
usqd in conjunctionwith zero gravityaircraftwereins&-
ficientto yield adequateidormation as t o b o d y - s p a c e c r d
interactions.

(5) Handholdsmustbeprovidedtoaccommodatethe tasks

planned.

These pesults were substantially borne out by the astronaut 1s p e r f o r -

mance in space.

4.2 - GEMINI X - The Gemini Ix simulation w a s thefirstinstance

6E astponautparticipation at E R A . T h e G T - I x simulation run took
place at the E R A facilityafterthepreflightsimulationoftheGemini X
umbilical E V A t a s k s .T h e Gemini Ix simulationalloweddirectcom-
parkon of water immersion simulation performance withactual experi-
eqce from space.

The mockup f o r theGemini lX simulation consisted of a full scale sec-

tfan of the aft end oftheequipmentadapter with the A M U fixed in the
center of the gold protectivecurtain.Twosets sf footrestraintswere
a#aphed. T h e actual foot stirrups were located in theproper activated
positionrelativetothe AMU. A secondsetoffootrestraints,the
I 1 dutch s h o e s 11, w e r e located 180" oppositethefoot s t i r r u p location.
These latter foot restraints were a proposed concept for the GT-XT
and XU flight' that AstronautCernanwastoevaluate at theendofthe
G T - X simulation run.Figure 4-2 s h o w s theGemini Ix mockup in
the water simulationfacility.
The followingprocedure w a s used in this and all subsequentsimula-
tion-training r u n s at ERA. Afterthemockupwasplaced in thewater
pel&ivetooperational a n d photographicconstraints, initial r u n s b y
S C U B A (wet suit) equippedsubjects and o b s e r v e r s w e r e made to
aslsesrq potentialsimulationdBiculties and deficiencies.Appropriate
phanges to themockup and setupweremadeto yield maximumsingle-
pun Simulation fidelity characteristics.

A n ERA subject wearing a pressurized Gemini suit performed the

totalsimulation r u n one ormoretimesunderastronaut(in situ) obser-
vation tofamiliariz'etheastronautwiththesimulationtechnique and p r o -
c e d u r e s and to s e r v e a s a finalcheckonsimulationequipment and time
line fidelity.

In many instances the hardware supplied was notvalidflight hardware.

T h e mockups also were not 100% fidelity in that they represented only
general mold lineconformationtothespacecraft.Discrepancieswere
ngted and discussed by observers a n d theastronaut and appropriate
ohangesweremadewhererequired.Wherethechangeobviously
wouldnot increasetheinformationcontentoftherun,nochangeswere
made. A s theprogramdeveloped,mockupswerecontinuously updated
to assure thegreatest validityin true spaceoperation.

22
 The Gemini X task, simulated at ERA comprisedonlytheAMUdon-
ning task.Table n/T summarizes the sequeptjal steps simulated.
A s was stated earlier,theGemini IX umbilical E V A of Astronaut .
Cernan w a s the first indication of potential dzficultieq of man I s opera-
tion in space. Several aspectsofthe X performance contributed to
this :

(1) P r i o r to the Ix mission,nosimulationtechniqueexisted

whichwould give a true picture of the A M U donning p o r -
tion of the t a s k , particularlytheweightlessaspects of the
tasks.Thezerogravityaircraft simulatedthe task in a
number of thirtysecondsegments.This did not give a
truepictureofthecumulativetaskwork-load.Onegrav-
ity walkthroughs-did not determine the work required to
maintain bodypositionwhileworking a n d thoseduetothe
requirement to e x e r t f o r c e s and torques without the aid o€
normal LG traction.

(2) Up to thetime of themission, umbilical E V A was thought

to be relatively easy duetothe e q e r i e n c e of Astronaut
Col. E . White on Gemini N.

(3) Minor hardwareequipmentmalfunctionsduringthe EVA

contributed to acceleratedheartrates. A garmenttear in
theinnerlayersuitcontributedhigherheatloads.

(4) T h e umbilical E V A w a s terminated due tovisorfogging

brought on by excessive work loads complicated by the
suit problem.
With thisas a basis, a waterimmersiontasksimulationevaluationpro-
gram w a s cQnduatedusing both the E R A subjects and Astronaut
Cernan.Thepurpose of this E V A simulation w a s not primarily to
aolyetheproblemsencountered b y AstronautCernan.Rather,the
purpose w a s f o allow AstronautCernantoassessthe simulation tech-
niqve in the light of his recent space experience, in ordertoprovide
NASA with guidelines f o r theremainingGemini umbilical E V A missions,

Three; sirnulation r u n s of Gemini X type tasks are discussed and com-

pared in thqfollowingsection. Theseare': ( 1 ) thepostflight r u nb y
theGepini JX astronaut, ( 2 ) a comparisonrun of theGemini X task
b y the E R A test subject, and ( 3 ) thepreflightrun of the initially
scheduledGemini 2Q.T taskbyAstronautAldrin.Camparisonofthese
t)lree runs yields direct correlation of the effectiveaess of the various
footrestraintmodes u s e d throughouttheGeminimissions.Astronaut
C e r n v u s e d theGT'IXfoot stirrups, whilethenGoldenSlipper
foqt restraintswereusedbyAstronautAldrin.The E R A subject
performed the A M U donning task bothwith a n d without foot restraints.

Much discussionhgsbeen forthcoming oq thevalue, validity, and future

uee of foot restraints as a result of the outcome of the Gemini X F V A .
The determination of the exact value d the foot restraints requires an
exemination of conditions exiding prior to waterimmersionsimulation.
23
Thnee Rroblems had been identified as responsible for the early ter-
mination of the umbilical E V A of GT-IX

(1) lackof a valid simulation mode f o r longduration tasks

(2) improper
body
re4traints

(31 Z L S S capacity
exceeded

The astronaut statedthatthroughouthis E V A , his feet continually

floated away from the spacecraft and that he had to expend consider-
able e n e r g y maintaining bodyposition.He also Statedthat t h e s ef a c -
t o r s had not been reproduced duringpreflight simulation r u n s in the
zero gravity research aircraft.

At thetimeofthepostflightwaterimmersion simulation ofthe GT-IX

pmbilical E V A , E R A speczicallyset about investigatingthisunrestrained
motipn phenomena to determinewhethersimilareffects would been-
oounteredduringwaterimmersion Simulation r u n s . T h e N A S A had
at thistimealreadyplanned and initiated future space experiments to
determine the body motion effect and tocircumventbodypositioning
d E f c u l t i e s .T h eG T - X pilot and subsequent E V A astronauks would
t r y to reproduce the free-float tendencies experienced by the G T - X
pilot.Missions X I and Xll would include redesignedfootrestraints.
Further, the primary emphasis of the GT-Xll umbilical E V A would be
anevaluation of restraints.

T h e postflightevaluation run of Gemini X was performed by Astronaut

Cernan at the E R A facility on 7/29/66 and lasted f o r approximately
3 hours.The A M U w a s mountedinthestowedposition in theadapter
well and {hefootstirrupswere in theactivatedposition. Theastro-
naut staged f r o m the position in the flight line where he enters the
adapter from thehandrail and inserts his umbilicalin the pigtail and
bandbarglips.Figure 4-3 s h o w s the astronaut at thisstage of the
primulation. Table V detailstheresultsoftheanalysisofthefilm
r e c o r d of thewaterimmersion simulation of G T - X .

The total durationscheduled f o r the GT-IX umbilical E V A was 267 minn

utes, but it wasterminated 3 9 minutes e a r l y duetothevisorfogging
problemqentionedearlier.Visorfoggingoccured at a point in the
t a s k line immediately after the lo wering of the AMU controller arms.
T h i s task is shown in Figure 4-4 in thewaterimmersionsimulation.
1.p thesimulation, AstronautCernanperformedthecontrollerarm un-
stow ta8ks apumberoftimes in ordertocomparethe simulationwith
hie space experience.

The unstowtaskrequiredtheastronautto exert a large pushing force

on the top ofthecontrollerarmtofreethearmsfromadetent.The
motion w g s to c o m p r e s s a relatively high force (approximately 25#/in. )
springapproximately 1/2-1 in orderto allow abladeshapeddetent to
move f r e e of its retention slot. Generalmissionrequirementswere

24
that the astronaut w a s instrkc;ted.fomaintain hi6 stanoe in the foot stir-
r u p ss h p w n in Figure 4-5 duringthe A M U donning sequence. This
posture required the astronaut to simultaaeously compress the .con-
trollerarm and tobeqdtho lsuit at thetorso a n d at the arm. All
t h e s e suitmotions r e q u i r e l a r g e f o r c e s aqd inducehighmetabolic
loads.Theastronautreported that thewaterimpersioa simulation
p o d e adequately reproduced the mqjor aspects of E V A performance.
T o provide a direct comparison of the effectiveness of the foot r e -
s t p a i n k , an evaluation of the ERA subject f s performanCe without r e -
straint aids and Astronaut A l d r i n f s performance of the original version
sf GT-XlT with the molded foot restraints wasmade.Threecriteria
of comparison were used (I) direct time comparison from film a n a I p
ais, (2) averagelimb motion fromfilmanalysis, a n d ( 3 ) subjective
comments both fromthesubjects and the direct e b s e r v e r s .T a b l e Z
shows the effect of the restraint mode on the subtasks comprising the
A M U donning tasks. It is evidentthat, in general,themore re-
strained the individual thegreater theduration 6fthe'task. . General
analysis of the motions involved further indicate that f o r the A M U don-
ning task that the greater the restraint the greater the energy required
f o r suit f l e x u r e . T h i s is attributedmainlyto therigidityofthespace
suit and therelativeplacement of the restraints and the work station.

T h e natural angle oftheuppertorso and armsoftheGeminisuitwere

fixed f o r optimum operation in a seatedmode. While standing,the
neutralposition of the a r m s cau'sedtheoptimum work level to corres-
pondto a positionapproximatelyonefootbelow eyelevel.TheAMU
donning task required relatively high level foroe application in a region
(+ 1.5) feetfromthis optimum worksite.Therefore, a largeportion
OF the t a s k s induced an added energy requirement for suit f l e x u r e .
T h i s is basicallytruewheneverthepositionofoperationisfixedrela-
tivetotheworksite.
Fixedworkspaces
impose 3 npsuedo one
gravity handiuap on thetask. Optimumoperationinweightlessenviron-
mentallowstheqstronauttofreelypositionhimsexrelativetothework-
site and thusoptimizethe e a e r g ye w e n d i f u r e tor eachtask.This is
borne out b y the qualitativeevaluation of theAMU donning task with-
out restraintaidspresented in Table Tm
theastronaut should work in a completelyunrestrained
.
Thisis not to s a y that
condition. It
appears that for most tasks the best combination of restraints are
waisttetherstocontrolgrossmotionstorelativeproximityofthework-
site' and portablehandholdstopermitthe application o f f o r c e s o r
Borques.
Subsequent to Astronaut Aldrin f s training f o r the GT-XLT task (first
v e r s i o n ) , N A S A decidedtoreconfigurethe tasks tocomprehensively
coverthebroadestpossiblespectrum of E V A tasks. Table Vm
s h o w s theresultsoftheanalysisofthewaterimmersion simulation of
GT-XlI (1 ). Analysis of theresultsofthe simujationindicatethatthe
Bstronaut could have properly and successfully completed the tasks a8
originallyscheduled butthat minormodificationstotherestraintdesigq
8houCd beaccomplished if a similartask is scheduled f o r f u t u r e
pissions .
25
4. 3 -
G E M I N I Xi -
Waterimmersionsimulation of theGemini X I
umbilicaf E'VA was initiated at E R A on August IO, 1966. Dueto the
proximity of the flight astronaut participation- w a s not planned.

Certainportions of the sequences were omitted in the sirnulation dueto

unavailability of representative flight hardware or because of the obvi-
O U B limitations ofthe simulation medium.Pneviousexperience had
shown that t a s k s involving gross, relatively high velocitymotions and
excursions away from the spacecraft sutfer serious degradation in the
watersimulationmode d u e to thedrag-dampingcharacteristicsofthe
water. Rapidattitude excursionsofthesubjectare limited b y the
p r e f e r r e d attitude characteristics previously discussed and b y drag
and planing e f f e c t s . HHMU evaluation is representativeoftasks not
particularlysuitedtowaterimmersionsimulation.

The Gemini X simulation marked the initiation oftheuse of the total

Geminimockupconfiguration.All simulation r u n s afterGemini XT util-
izedaquasi-completespacecraftsystemconfigurationwhichconformed
in moldline contourtothe actual spacecraftcodiguration.Thebasic
mockupcodigurationcompriseda modified adapterendsection from the
Gemini X simulation,arepresentativeGemini R / R sectionloaned b y
the 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 and a quadersection of the
adapter s u r f a c e . I n latersimulationsasection of theAgenatarget
vehicle w a s added tothemockupcomplement but w a s unavailable f o r
the GT-XT r u n s .

A sequentialtimeline was performed by the ERA subjectwearinga

G2-C version F P S . Portionsofthetimelinewhichwere incompatible
withthesimulation medium w e r e omitted. Actualhardwarewasused
whereavailable.Wherethishardwarewas not available,reasonable
facsimili were built at E R A and madeneutrallybuoyantwheretime
permitted.

T h e U S A F , WPAFB supplied aworkingversiop of the D-16 experi-

ment,thetorquelesspowertool.Thiswasmadeneutrallybuoyant
b y encapsulation in atransparentplasticcylinder and is shown in
Figure 4-6. T h e encapsulationincreasedtheexternaldimensionsof
the toolmaking it impossibletostow in theequipmentstowagearea
provided in the r e e n t r y adapterwall,Figure 4-7. A second unit was
u s e d f o r theunstowingoperation but was not madeneutrallybuoyant.

A n initial simulation r u n indicated that a rescheduling of thesequential

events would result in better utilization. A l s o , theastronaut had been
r e q u i r e dt oc a r r ye x c e s sh a r d w a r e( c a m e r a s ) totheadapter.Recom-
mendedchangeswereincorporatedpriortothefinal simulation r u n .
The purpose of the G T - X simulation w a s to provide a complete pic-
torial record so that NASA personnel a n d the c r e w could review the
umbilicaltime line. Theresults of theanalysia of thefilmrecordof
Gemini XT simulation is given in Table X .

26
 The Gemini X umbill'cal was terminated early d e s approximately
thinty-threeminutesofhatqh-opentime.Thisearly terminatii5n was
attributed to two factors; ( 1 ) difficulties wiCh theqttachment ofthe
extravehjc&r v i s p r prior to E V A and (2) an ynusually high expendi-,
ture of energy by the pilot duringtheAgeqatethertask. The a s t r a -
naut &EO noted a continuous tendency to float up a n d out of the spaoe-
craft 4 thebeginning of the EVA.

Tbe +-&z?iewalof the S - O O 9 experiment a n d thehandpailerectionwent

smoothly.The first problemencountered w a s with the installation Q€
*he E V& motion picturecamera.ThisdZicuftywaslater attributed
to a lastmiqytechange in thedesign and operation of thebracket.
The camera had tobe inserted in one orientation to permit adetent tcr
mate with anfirotation
slot in the
recepbcre. The astronaut had to
exit thehatchtobring his body ovFr and apovethecamerareceptacle
and e x q d a relatively high pushing force to instdl the camera.
Fiquye 4-8 , isapictureshowing the E R A subject installing the
garneya duriag the preflight simylation .
AstronautGordonthenmovedtothearea of the Agenatether.He
pushed off thehatch and thehatch holding deviFe using a technique
suggested by Astronaut Cernan, and movedtothedockingbar,attempt-
iqg first to g r a s p the RCS thrustera. His initid p u s h off caused hiq
tofloat y p abovethe TDA. Command Pilot Conradretrievedhim by
#*$in# himback with the umbilical. His second t r y at thismovement
w a s s u c c e s s f d .F i g u r e 4-9 is apictorialseapencefromthewater
simdatiap run of this qegment of the time line.

Attaching the &en3tetherinvolved a n unusuallyhighexpenditure of

etnerqyn a n d the pilot b e c a q e v e r y fatigued and beganbreathingrapidly,
Figure 4-10 is theastronaut '8 heart rate suzd respiration rate during
the E V A . Mequrementg of similarparameterswere notmgde durinep
the simulationsincethesimulationinvolved only the E R A subject. I

Figure 4-11 i8 a flightfilmsequenceshowing activation of the q ~ q ?

tether.Thefollowingcommentsby thg command pilot and the pilot
during the postflight debrieEing describe the detailed performance.

Gordon - n Well,we did get it, and I t r i g d to get myself in gost-.

tiaq onthespacecraft, as I had donebefore. I wanted bo use
m y leg8 in8fde the dockinq cone tQ help wedge. myaeIf in there 4q
that I could haveboth handa free. B'ut, unfortuhately,this
.
ngt the case . It didn tt happen this way. I had touse m y I&
hand and haqgon tothe handhold onthe le& side and do all the
was

wQrk end attaching thistethep with m y right 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 I s atpp dghbthese. I had watched yoy

do. khils very task in the zepo-g airplane. You couldget in that
zero-g airplane and whiatle vp to thgtthing and get yourself
pprked where you were completely a s t r i d e it and pullyourselP
down, but, pou n e v e r could do that up there. Y Q u w e r e d the
 thiqg, an$ you never got y o u r leg8 a& f a r f o r w a r d in the TDA
as you did in the zero-g airplane. It justwasn lt quite the 4arrng
Andthereyouwere, I keptseeing y ~ working
u away,having
tohangon with your left hand.

Gordon -"Tetheringwasdzicult; it was so hardto maintain

m y position and work on this thing, that I let m y f e e t float up
p d out of there and use one of the handholds and one hand on
She clamp. I-had an awful lot oftroublescrewingthis clafnP
down. Every time I triedto tuzm it, it would s wive1 on the
docking bar.

Gordon - IIAnyho w , I finally got the clamp on t o m y satisfactioq

The'tetherwas in place.Therewasonetestremainingto do
up there, and that wasto install themirror. I tookone tug at
the cover that was over that m i r r o r , a n d it didn I t giveaninch.
I j u s t gave it up and said forget it. I camebacktothehatch.

Conrad - " T h a t w a s quite a jqb gettingyouback t9 thehatch.

You aqked meto do something a couple of times. I gaveyou
a v e r y light tu$ a n d youstartedto take of& up a n d a w a y f r o m
the hatoh.

Gordon - Well,we did getback tQ thehatch, and bythis time

I w a s pretty exhausted.We stoodther)e f o r a longtimetrying
tocatch up with eyerything, a n d theonly thingthat wasreally
wrongwas that I w a s haviqgtrouble with p y righteye.This
was mqrely a matterofsweat in m y eye, a n d I wa8having
troubleseeing out of it. It was actual sweat,and, it wassting-
ing m y eye. I wascompletelyexhausted at the time. I wanted
togetbackto that adapter v e r y b a d / y f o r thenightside p a s s ? but
w e talkgdabout this and made the decision to ingress rather than
leave me out t h e r e f o r t h e nightside p a s s .

Figure k - I 2 is a pictureofthe ERA subjectperformingthe Agena

tether taqk duringthesimulation. T h e ERA aubjectperformed the
q g s n a tether task in a manner completely di@erer)t f r o m bhe pilot. The
FRA subjectutilfzedtheadvantages of opergtion in a weightless envi-
ronzpent to poqition h i m s e r in an optimum manner relative to the work-
site qnd performedthe taqkwhilemaintaining ? singlehandhold. A
bettar method might have included the waist tether restraint technique
Whi9.h would haveallowedthesubjecttouge both hands. N o undue
effort w a s notedduringthesimulatedperfopmance Qf thistask.The
combination of eqcessive sweat buildup b y theastronaut and theapparn
gnt fatigue oau8ed the command pilot to terminate the EVA.
AI! other) assigned tasks were accomplished withoub undue dSiculfy in
$he simulationwiththeexceptionofthe D-16 experiment.The D-16
aypqrimenthardware is shown in Figure 4-23 .
Thesubject
uired t g evaluatea cornbination of restrqined and unrestrained opcrgr
me- vas
%
hone u t i b h g a torqueless power tool (SPT)to establish man 1s

28
 capabilityto p e d o r m controlledmaintenance t e k s in place,Theinifid
bvaluati p wqs scheduled f o r the GT-WE umbilical E V A , but w a s pot
accomp~*sheddue to the earJy termination of themission.The D-16
experiment w a s the subject of extensive study and simulation b y the
UEiAF-WFAFB.

DfaCicdties wepeencountered in thewatersimulationdue to (1) the

Ip#ioq OE thetorquepanelrelativetothe restraints, (2) knee tether@
cctivation, and (3) the exceseive foccerequirement8ofthe (SPT)
triggermechanism.Figure 4-14 is a sequenceshowingthe D-16
tqa& #uringthewaterimmersionsimufation.Similar diqicdties did
nQt occur in the simulation of the 0-16 in the zero gravity aircraft.
This difference is probably d u e to the relatively low fidelity of the h q d -
warq in thewatersimulation. Theshort duration of thezerogravity
! parabola, however,probably did not showthe diFTiculties resulting
f r o m continuoes application of f o r c e on the trigger and duetobody
.positiopmqintenance.

The results of the Gemini X mission pedormance emphasized the need

f o r moreextensivesimulation bywaterimmersiontechniques to devel09
flight hardwareconfigurations.Further, it becameobvious that astro-
-auttraining in thewatersimulationmode would greatlybenefitmissioq
perfarmance. with this in mind,the NASA scheduledAstronaut
Aldriq t,v participation in the water immersion simulation of the initial
version ofthe GT-XU umbilical E V A . Details of the simulation &~rt
of tbe GT-JCU, version 1, were included in theSectiondealingwiththe
G T - X simulationdueto task similarity.

29
TABLE SI FEMlNl X WATER SIMULATION DATA ANALYSTS P a g e 1'072 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIfiTTES.
c I

TASK SUBTASK C0t:rEinEHTS

T-17 Initial body positioning 33a4 Subject attempts to find correct handhold positions
eveluation F o r approach to S-10 area on ;Agene.
Mo vr=m ent 20.8 S u b j e c t t r a v e l s along c i r c u m f e r e n c e of T D A ,
retaining .contact with left h a n d ,

Positioning p r i o r to T-17 15.'0 T-2'7 l o s t due. to interaction with mockup.

placement

T-17 placement 66a.6 S u b J e c t r e c o v e r s T-17 with right hand andplaces

experiment M Agena velcro qetention patch;
L e f t hand maihtaining body position during this
subtask.

Manual deptoyment of T - 1 7 5.0 Subject unfolds experiment manually using right

panels handtomaintainbodyposition.SuIjjectsecures
open panels to velcro (spring loaded mechanism
f o r automaticunfolding panels not operative)
Subject inadvertantly &ouches face d T-17 while
attempting body positioning.
Positioning prior to S-10 S u b j e c t maintainshandholdonlipofdockingcone
retrieval throughout this movement.
S - 1 0f a i r i n gr e m o v a l Par ,ing velcroed Eo E L S S . Subjectusesleft
handtomaintaincontact with A g e n a .

S-10 experiment retrieval S-10 removed with lefthandand- velcroed to

E L S S . InteractionwithT-17 and leftsideof
subject Ls body almost Lrees experiment f r o m its
velcroed position.
-
-
~~~

HHMU-N2-QD Activation Movement s / c along hand- Subject pivots on handrail (180°) at QD panel.
railtoQui&Disconnect
Panel
Positioning Subject .transfers QD h o s e -&-aft section of
handrail(threadingoperation).

QD oonnection
Nz valveactivated S u b j e c t examinw QD a n d ,hose momentarily befor
activation.
 TABLE IR Continued
P a g e 2 of 2. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHASSOCIATES

I- TASK
SUETASK TIME cor;,;IGiEm
INTERVAL
(Seconds)

HHMU-N2-QD Activation Movement .- QD panel along 37.5

(ContJ handrail to s / c

HHMU-N2-QDDeactivation Movement -
s / c alonghand- 28 1 Subject again pivots 180" onhandrail.
?ail ta QD panel

-V2 valveshutoff and QD 11.4 S u b j e c t u s e s left hand f o r both subtasks.

dlsconnection

Movement -
QD panelalong
handrail toward s / c
16. 7 S u b j e c t t r a n s f e r QD h o s e t o leEt hand before
moving down handrail,
Positioning ' 12.5 S u b j e c t t r a n s f e r s QD hosebackthrough afk
Bection of handrhil(unthreadingoperation).
Movementalonghaqdrail to 41.7
s / c . continued

, .
 ~~~~ ~~

1 . M o v et oa d a p t e rp i g t a i la l o n ga d s p t e rh s n d r s i l 16. A t t a c h the f o l l o w i n gi t e m si no r d e r to V e l c r o
2. I n s e r tu m b i l i c a li n t oa d 3 p t e rg u a r d o nc o n t r o l l e ra r m s
(a) o x y g ehno s e
3 . Movetodonningstation - s t a n do nf o o tb a r ( b ) r e s t r a i n t hzmess
facing AMU ( ce)l e c t r i c aulm b i l i c a l
4 . Pullumbilicaltaut and i c s e r t inh2nd b a r ciip 17. R e a d N 2 p r e s s u r e
5. U n s t o w s n dp o s i t i o nm i r r o r s 1 8 .O p e nN 2v a l v ~
6 . O p e np e n l i g h t s - sctTJat= a n d attaohlightsto 19O
. p e nO 2v a l v e
handrailwithvelcro
2 0 .R e a dO 2 m d N2 p r e s s a r c z s
7. C o r i c e c tb l a c kt e t h e rj u m p e r hook t o A M U
t a t h e rr i n g .U n s t o wt e t h e r b a g and c o n n e c t 21. Mcde sslector s w i t c h - m m c a !
b o t ho r a n g eA M Ut e t h e r kooks to ri.ng on 22. V e r i f yv o xs w ; t c h - v 3 x
umbilicaltether
23. R e l e a s en o z z l ce x t e n s i o n s
8 .I n s p e c tA M U
24. Main p o w e r s w i t c h - o n
W 9. I n s p e c tb a t t e r yc a s e s
hl 25. H 2 0 2 T I M s e l e c t o rs w i t c h - b a c k p a c ku p
10. VeriEy R C S s h u t - a f fh a n d l e ss t o w e d
26. T u r n let? 1 8 0 a n d d o nA M U
11. U n s t o w a t t i t u d ec o n t r o l l e ra r ma n dc h e c k
attitudecontroller 27. P o s i t i o nt e t h e rt oa v o i de n t a n g i e m s n t

12. E x t e n da n dl o w e rc o n t r o l l e ra r mt of u l ld o w n 2 8 .V e r i f y s / c PWR l i g h tg o e s off

position 29. V e r i f ya v a i l a b i l i t y of AMUelectricalrlmbilical
13. U n s t o wt r a n s l a t i o nc o n t r o l l e ra r m and c h e c k and change-over from s/c
t r a n s l a t i o nc o n t r o l l e r 30. Test warninglightsandaudiotone
14. E x t e n d a n d l o w e rc o n t r o l l e ra r mt of u l ld o w n 31. R e a dH 2 0 2q u a n t i t y
position
32. C o n n e c ta n dt i g h t e nr e s t r a i n t
15. U n s t o wr e s t r a i n th a r n e s s ,o x y g e nh o s e and
electricalumbilical

TABLE Ip

GEMINI IX WATER IMMERSION TASK SEQUENCE

 TABLE P GEMINI WATER
SIMULATION
DATA
ANALYSIS Page I of 3
ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCH ASSOCIATES

TASK SUBTASK TIME COhlhlENTS

INTERVAL
(Seconds)

DositioninglRestraint Pull umbilical taut and insert 5.5

inhandbar clip

Work StationPreparation Uristowleft mirror 48.4

Positioning/Restraint Position from left to right 7.8

sideof w o r k station to deploy
right mirror

Work StationPreparation Urstow right mirror 12.5

PositioninglRestrainf Positionback into foot 22.2

restraints after mirror task

Work StationPreparation Unsto w penlights 41.6

w Communications 11.8 Tnstructions f r o m C . C .

W
PositioninglRestraint Repositioning umbilical in 9.3
clip

PositioninglRestraint Repositioningfeet in stirrups 8.4

ConKect BlackTetherJumper 25.6

Hook to A M U TetherRing

Cammunications 8.7

UnstowTetherBag 23.0

ConnectBothOrange AMU
TetherHookstoRing on 86.1
Umbilical Tether

PositioningjRestraint Reposition tether bag 13.1

Inspect A M U and Battery Case 38.1

VeriEy RCS Shut C f f Handles 33.4

Stowed
PositioningjRestraint Repositionfeet in stirrups 17.0
 TABLE -X Cont-'d. Page 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCHASSOCIATES

1 TASK

UnstowAttitudeController
and CheckAttitudeController

Communications
Arm
I SUBTASK
TIME
INTERVAL
(Seconds)

27.5

6.6
COMMENTS

Zxtend a n d lower controller arm to full down

)osition
-

UnstowTranslationController 66.4 Txtend and lowercontrollerarmtofulldown

A r m and CheckTranslation ,osition
Controller

Communications 6.9

Unstow and Attach O2 Hose to 31.3

V e l c r o on Controller A r m

PositioninglRestraint B o d y positioning of Feet in 36.5 Pilot repositions his Feet in restraintsbecausehis

restraints body movements degrade his foot restraint position
during each task that involvesreaching or bendin4D

Unstow a n d AttachElectrical 24.5

Umbilicalto V e l c r o on Control-
ler A r m
Communications 25.0 Pilot alsoappearstoberestinghere.

PositioninglRestraint B o d y positioning 6.9 Pilot r e m o v e s f e e t f r o m f o o t s t i r r u p s p r i o r t o

maneuveringovertoread N2 p r e s s u r e .

Read N z P r e s s u r e Maneuver to left side of AML 8.4

Positioning/Restraint 1 B o d y positioning 10.8 Pilot returns to foot stirrups after reading N2

I pressure

Unscheduled
! 3.6 Pilot pauses to remove debris from front of his
workarea(floatingVelcrostrips)

' Positioning/Restraint 6.9 Pilot r e a 4 u s t s penlighton let? hand bar

Gpen N2 Valve Pilot reaches around left sidc 15.6 F e e t in restraints at beginnfng of this task but
of AMU during task both feet come free of restraint8

I
. O;?en O2 Valve 53.2
I
1 -
 TABLE X Cont'd.
Page 3 OF 3 ENVIRONMEWTALRESEARCH ASSOCIATES

TASK SUBTASK
TIME C0IC:LIENTS
INTERVAL
(Seconds)
5

Read O2 and N2 P r e s s u r e s 14.0

Positioning/Restraint Positionback into stirrups 16.2

Switch Mode Selector Switch 22.5

to Manual and VeriEy V o x
S w i t c h on

Positioning/Restraint Positioning on handbars a n d 23.3

regaining Feet position in
resbraints

ReleaseKottleExtensions 15.1

Positioninglzestraint Repositioningfeet in restraint 15.7

W Communications 18.8
UI
I\: 0 T I MS e l e c t o rS w i t c h 2.1
2.2
Switched to BackpackPosition

Unscheduled 184.4 Pilot pauses For an air bottle change ( s u r f a c e )

WorkStationPreparation Equipment positioning 9.1 Pilot positionshis umbilical and mirror prior to
180" turn into A M U (safety precaution)

T u r n Left 180' 26.9

Don A M U 18.1 Pilotbacks into backpack

Positioning/Restrainf 46.5 Pilotpositionshis m i r r o r s to check his position

in A M U

V e r i f v Availibility OF AMU 120.8

Electrical Umbilical and Change
Over From Spacecraft to A M U
Power

Connect and TightenRestraint 37. 7 Decision made at this point in GT-9 flight to abort
task
 TABLE
THE EFFECT OF RESTRAINTS ON AMU DONNING

Subtask Time : second

Foot Foot No
Subtask Restraints Restraints
Stirrups
Umbilical
In Cllp 6 3.9 5.5 87.0

Unstow Position
Mirrors 132.5 68.7 66.0

Penlights 59.4 41.6 43.4

Connect
Tether
Jumper 24.5 25.6 25.0

,
Unstow
Tether Bag 106.5 117.8 87.0 I

AMU lnspectlon 118.8 71.5 35 .O

Unstow Controller
Left 29.5 2 7.5 I 18.0

Controller
RightUnstow I 72.3 73.3

1
I

Unstow & Velcro

l8O0 Turn

-
Electrical

Connect Restraints
Tighten
81 0, Connectors

I
1
i
7 7.6

274.6

103.7
I
55.8

73.4

158.5
1
i 21.0

120.0

148.6
c

TABLEXU
QUALJTATIVE
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF
FOOT RESTRAINTS ON THE AMU DONNING
TASK

EFFECT OF
SUBTASK FOOT RESTRAINTS
.. . .

UMBILICAL IN CLIP +
UNSTOW LEFT MIRROR -
REPOSITION -
UNSTOW
RIGHT
MIRROR I

UNSTOW PENLIGHTS -
UNSTOW TETHER BAG -
TETHER HOOK ACTIVATION +
AM
U INSPECTION -
UNSTOW
RIGHT ARM +
UNSTOW LEFT ARM +
OPEN N, AND 0, VALVES -
READ
PRESSURE
GAGES -
UNSTOW RESTRAINT BELT +
TURNAROUND -
- DETERED
"

=AIDED

37
 I

TASK SUBTASH COIIENTS

!
I

Install EV-4 Camera in Adapter 1. S e c u r ef r o m cockpit

2. Mount camera
-
1 Move T o Adapter 1. E g r e s s hatch 9.6
2. Move along
handrail to 43.1
pigtail

3. Insert umbilical ih pigtail 32.5

-
R s t r i e v e and Replace. E V A 1. E g r e s s hatch 9.6
Camera
2. Removecamera from 1.7
adaptersocket

3. Place in cockpit 15.5

4. Film
load 60.0

5. Return
to
adapter and 35.6

t
replacecamera

1. E g r e s s hatch 9.6

i 2. S e c u r e line and move

along adapterhandrail
6.9

3. Position QD f o r c o n n e c i 7.6
1 tfon

4. Connect QD 4.8
 1
TABLE Sm . Con?'d.

AMU Donning-
XU Codiguration
1.
Page 2 of 3

SUBTASK

Start with feet in stirrup2

to attach umbilical to left
1
TIME
INTERVAL
(Seconds)

63.9
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSQCIATES

COMMENTS

handbar

2. Unstow and position

mirrors 132.5

3. Unstowpenlights and 59.4

Velcro to handbars

4. Connect black tether

hook to A M U tether ring 24.5

5. Unstowtether bag and 106.5

connect tether hook to
umbilical

6- Veicro tether bag to 6.7

lefthandbar

7. Inspect AMU 62.9

8. Inspect RCS handles 55.9

9. Unstow l e f t controller 29.5

arm

10. Unstowrightcontroller 72.3

arm

11. Unstow a d Velcro oxy- 34.1

gyn hose

12. Unstow a n d Velcro 55.6

restraint harness

13. Unstow and Velcro 43.5

electricalconnector

14. @ennitrogenvalve 18.2

I
~
tuuslL Cd'd.
P a g e 3 'of 3 E I I V I ~ E U T A LRESLAEH ASSOCIATES

1 TASK
SUBTASK
TIME
INTERVAL
COKMEHTS
(Seconds)

1MU Sonning - R e m o v e and discard 28.1

M Carfiguration(cont) oxygenvalvetie-down

Openoxygenvalve 28. 7

Actuate M O D E , V O X 24.0
switches

Release thruster 27.0

nozzles

T u r n 180" and back 219.0

into A M U

Attachelectricalcon- 203.7
nector,oxygenhose
and restraint harness

Agena - Spacecraft 1. E g r e s s hatch and posi- 51.1

T e t h e r Connection tion E V A camera

2. Translate along space- 61 . 6

craft todockingbar

3. Grasp
Agena
tether 31.0

4. Clamp
tether to docking 92.8
bar

5. Mount mirror on dockin 40.3

bar
I

TABLE P: GEMINI= WATER SIMULATION DATA ANALYSIS Page I of 5 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

TASK SUBTASK TIkIE

INTERVAL
(Seconds)

Sequence 1 1. Standing in hatch 224.6

2. Positisnpropellantline 84.2 Subject d r i f t s out of spacecraft during.this
backtopropellantvalve maneuver
Routeunder handrail

3. Install E V camera in 264.2 Subjecthasextremedifficulty mounting camera

adaptermount. Face
camera forward

4. Mount Hasselblad on 75.8

ELSS

Sequence 2 1. Move tospacecraftnose 10. g Subject is out of spacecraft hatch when he begins
translating Forward
Film segment ends as pilot reaches spacecraft
nose.Possibie time e r r o r .
2. Unstowspacecraft end of Subtask omitted in simulationdue to lowmockup
Agena tether - fidelity
3. Loop end over docking
bar - If

4. Unstowtether clamp axd If

install on docking bar
Tightenclamp If
5.
6. Remove and jettison 11
clamp handle

7. Install docking bar 27.9 Subject comments :#No problem u installing mirror
mirror

8. Returntocockpit 39.2
-
Sequence 3 1. Remove E V A camera fo. 21.7
filmchange
2. Remount E V A camera 59.6
Facing D-16 area
3. Plug in HHMU propellam 25.8
fitting
"
TABLE 11

;equence 4
Cont'd.

. P e r f o r m 0-16 Experi-
ment

A.

B.
Grasphandrail and
position self f o r knee
tetherattachment

Attach rt. knee

tether to handrail
Page 2 of 5

TIME
IRTERVAL
(Seconds)

11.7

19.a
ENVIRON#E#TAL RLSEARCH ASSOCIATES

Hasselblad carried to 0 - 1 6 area because d low

fidelitymockupcharacteristics.
bedetached f r o m chest pack.
Unit could not

C. Grasp tool b o x
handle, release lock
a n d extendtoolbox
until positive lock is
engaged

D. Open tool box, 48.7

extend power tool
handle,check it.
s w 50 f o r w a r d and
tool in impactmode

E. Grasp power tool, 12.9

tighteninstrumented
bolt f o r f i v e ( 5 )
seconds

F. U n s c r e w in s u c c e s '
sion f o u r ( 4 ) w o r k .
-
61 6
site bolts
G. Stow power tool, 85.0 S t o w a g e clip notevaluatedbecause OF s i z e d
turnoverworksite neutrallybuoyantgun.Pilotcomments 11 cannot
piate and hand-stad see clip when knee tethered 11
three ( 3 ) bolts

H. Unstow power tool,

reverse s w a n d
40.0 Subject comments Ittrigger Eorce w a y too high..
hand c r a m p s due to force required. 1 )
.
tightenbolts
TABLE IX . Coat-'&
Page 3 of 5 ENVIRON#E#TAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

TASK

Sequence 4 (cont) I. S t o w p o w e r tool or Subtask omitted in simulation. P o w e r tool could

lid a n d remove not bestowedbecause of size requirements for
hand tool neutralbuoyancy.

J. Tighteninstrumente Subtask omitted in simulation.

bolt for five ( 5 )
seconds a n d then
loosen bolt

K. S t o w hand toolin If
tool box

L. Cetachkneetether 53.3
f r o m handzail

M. Remove power tool, 4.29 Subjectstopstest during thissubtaskbecause d

check it on, a n d excessive work loads a n d overall inability to
tool in impact mode complete task"due to low mockup fidelity (negative
buoyancy of power tool).

2. Remove E V A camera Subtask omitted in simulation

f o r filmchange

3. Remount E V A camera 95.8

facing aft

4. Evaluate
handrails 68. 7
5. Remove E V A camera Subtask omitted in simulation
f o r filmchange

6. Remount E V A camera
facing forw..lrd
- fl

7. Move to
adapter 9.6
~~ ~

Sequence 5 1. I n s e r t umbilical into 14.6

adapter guard

2. Photograph
adapter 36.9 Subject uses' pigtail f o r b o d y positioning
 ENVIRONHENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

Sequence 5 (cont) 3. Clear adapter of debris - Subtask omitted in simulation.

4. A!tach restraint system 10.4 Subject unable to fully evaluate E o a t restraints due
'0 improper f i t (under size restraints).

5. Opentunneldoor and 26.3

Velcro in place

6. Unstow H H M U N2 line 7.1

7. Connect HHMU to N 2 35.0
line

8. Unstow HHMU and 16. 7

Velcroto E L S S

9. Attach camera lanyard

to E L S S ring
- Subtask omitted in simulation

10. Remove camera pip-pin - If

I
1. Unstow ..4pollo cameras 94.2
and Velcroto E L S S

2. Close tunnel d o o r 42.1 Revelcrocurtain

3. R e m o v e umbilical f r o m 4.8 Subject comments that mirror was used to

guide advadage in checkingchestpack, umbilicaland
feet.
64 * Open N2 valve on adaptel 2.9
I
6
Sequence 1. M o v e to cockpit 16.9

2. Hand c a m e r a sf r o m 167.9
ELSS

3. Mount retroadapter 34.1

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

-
TASK

i
I
I
WETASK

I
Zequence 7
I I. Movetonose of s / c I 40. 7

I 2*
Jettison docking bar
mimor
1 5.1

~~

Sequence 8 1. Returntoadapter 97.9

2. Turn off IfN2" shut-off 2.9
valve

- 3. Bleed off propellant in 14.4

H H M U with short thrust
while holding on to the
adapterhandrails

4. Unplug the HHMU p r o - 2.0

pellant fitting

Move towardhatch I 41.0

5.
Retrieve E V camera a n d 18.2 End of film
I 6* hand tocmd. pilot
(disconnectelectrical and
controlcable from
I
camera first)
i
 .
"

. .

" .. . --

Figure 4- I GEMINI X UOCKUP

CONFIGURATION Figure 4-2 GEMINI IX MOCKUP
CONFIGURATION

~i~~~~ 4-3 ASTRONAUT

CERNAN UMBILICAL
AT PIGTAIL
. g m 4-4 ASTRONAUT
CERNAN
UNSTOWING
AMU
CONTROLLER
AREA ARMS

46
Flqure 4 -5 ASTRONAUT
FOOT
INSTIRRUP
RESTRAINT
SYSTEM Flgure 4-6 SUBJECT USING NEUTRALLY
BUOYANT
TORPUELESS
POWER T O O L

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

ADAPTER
CAMERA
INSTALLATION

47
Figure 4 - 9 MOVEMENT
SEOUENCE FROM SPACECRAFT
HATCH
TO AGENA

48
 XI
GEMINI
UMBILICAL EVA

LAMtKA

r
M U ~ N T E D ~ 'r'
TETHER C O N N E C T E D
RETURN TO COCKPIT
r C H A N G I N G FILM
' ' 1 rlNGRESS
HEART 170
RATE,
190
r nn r k
urtw
HATCH
I

CLOSE
HATCH
BEATS 150
/MIN
130

RESPIRA-Io r
110
TI0 N
RATE
BREATHS
2ol
90

/M IN O L 7 0 10 20 030 40 7
50 60
ELAPSED TIME, MIN

Figure 4 - 10 GEMINI XI H E A RATN D RESPIRATION

RATE FOR
THE ORBITAL EVA

49
Flqurr 4-11 AOENA TETHER TASK IN ORBIT

50
Flqurc 4-12 SIWLATED AS€W TETHER TASK

Figure 4-13 D- 16 EXPERIMENT HARDWARE

51
Flqure 4-14 WATER SIMULATION OF 0-16 EXPERIMENT

52
 5.0-GEMINI Xn
5;l: G E N E R A L
Geminlf-XU
~ ___" Orbital Mission Data
umbilical E V A periods of the Gemini
- Data received f r o m t h e standup and
XU flight include a transcript of
thecontinuousonboardvoicerecord and ten separate film sequences
totalling approximately 1 6 . 5 minutes out of the one hundred twenty six
minutesof umbilical E V A . T h i s includesa 1 = 5minutesegmentfrom
thefirdt standup E V A . Therewasnofilmcoverageofwork in the
AdapterSectionduetothefailureoftheportablecamera.Conse-
quently, all flight film relates to work on the spacedraft nose or at the
Agena work station.

T h e onboardvoice record,therefore,forms theonlycompleterecord

ofthe G T - X l umbilical E V A . Theonlydificiencies in thisrecord
a r e d u e totime l o s s e s relatedtotapechanges.Wherepossible,the
flightfilm wascompared with thevoicetranscript and thesetapechange
intervalsweredetermined

T h e first iteration ofthetimeline from the voice record of theflight

wasmadefromthetranscriptof theoriginalonboard tapes.Thiswas
supplemented by analysis of the actualonboard t a p e s b y E R A personnel.
Analysisofthetapes in coqjunction with continuouscornparison of the
voicetapesfromthepreflightwaterimmersionsimulationmade i€ p o s s -
ible to fill inall timeline "gaps 11 e

T h e Iack ofcontihuousflightfilm and theoriginal discrepancies in the

flightvoicetranscript,made it necessary to use the preflight simulation
a s thebase line ofinformation f r o m whkihtoconstructthe first itera-
tionflighttime line,Thisanalysisrequired acompleteunderstandingof
themovement a n d activitiesofthe pilot d u r i n g thesimulations in order
tovisualizeconsistentperformance in space.Applyingthisknowledge
tothevoicerecord and thefilmsequencesfromspace, an overall
picture of the actrtal umbilical E V A wasconstructed.Idormation
f r o m thetwocompletepreflight simulation r u n s and f r o m thepartial
postflight evaluation r u n aided immeasurably in therationalizationof
discrepancies between the originaliterationsofflight and prdlight and
basic flight plan data.

Althoughaflightplan wasusedtocoordinatethe E V A work and r e s t

periods duringthepreflight simulation tasks, the actualwrittenplan
did not serve asthebasisforthe timeline comparisons.In effect,
the entire final preflight simulationtimeline became the flight plan.

53
 FlightFilm S e q u e n c e s - Althoughthevisual quality of the G T - X iq-
flightfilmswasexcellent,theperspectivefromwhichthefilmwas
taken in combinationwith theshadowingeffects in spacemade detailed
analysis of theflightfilm vez-y difficult. I n m a n y h s t a n c e s critical task
elementtookplacecompletely in shadow, therefore makingdetailed
visualanalysisimpossible.Analysisofspecificbodymovements, es-
pecially for the arm and hands is not possible in at least 50% of the
f i l m .E v e ng r o s st a s k identification proved difficult in s o m e p a r t s Q f
the film, and wasresolvedbyrepeatedviewing and comparison with
similarpreflightsimulationfilms. Detailed comparison of individual
t a s k sw e r e ,h o w e v e r , madeon a f r a m eb yf r a m eb a s i s .T h eh a n d -
railerection is themostreadily identified sequence.Thissequence
w a s not part of the umbilical E V A but was performed in a p r i o r s e g -
ment of thestandup E V A . Thesecondsequence,movementfromthe
hatchareatothespacecraftnose and T D A interface,isalsoeasily
identified and analyzed.Subsequenttasksequencescanonlybe identi-
f i e d when a thoroughacquaintance with theparticular tasks is obtained.
A second movement sequence, from the spacecraft hatchtothe Agenq
work station (after adapter work session), is theonlyotherreadily
identifiable sequence.

It should be notedthat thecameraposition in space does not c o r r e -

spond with camerapositions in thewateroraircraftsimulations. bhia
fact contributes to the dHiculty of directcompariaon of theflightfilm
tasks.Waterimmersion simulation filmstake advantage of optimum
camera location for task analysis e.g., perpendicular to the space-
cr& longitudinal axis. Theportable E V A camerawas located on a
semi-fixedconnectoronthespacecraftretro-adaptersectionnearthe
retroseparationplane duringtheflight.Thisposition could bereadily
reachedbythe pilotstandingin thespacecrafthatch.Thecamerawa8
aligned parallel with the longitudinal axis of the spacecraft allowing
coverage of astronautmovementforward of theretro-adapter.Thus
thebasic diEference is a 90' axis variation in camerapositionsbe-
tweenthewater and spacefilms.Also,forthewaterimmersion
simulation thecamerais, in e f f e c t , looking down on theprimary vehiole
workingareasfromabovetheastronaut. B y rotating the axis of p e r v
spective it wasdetermined that bodypositions and movements in the
simulation and in the actualflight corresponded very closely.

T h e initial m o v e m e n t f r o m t h e s p a c e c r a hatch along theportable

handrail is anexample of thesimilarity of motion between the space
and water.AstronautAldrinperformed a 180' turnaroundonthe
handrail at theendofthismovement.Theflightfilmshowsthisturn-
aroundtobe in theoppositedirection.Whencomparingthesequences
f r o m beginning to e n d ofthis initial translation,themovementsappear
tobealmostidentical inboth time and bodyposition.Thewatersimu-
lation turnaroundmade in theoppositedirection appears as a m i r r o r
image of the actualflight turnaround.Figure 5-1 , a comparative
sequence of theflight,water, and aircraftmodes,demonstrates in
greater detail thesimilarity in these movement sequences.

54
 The ma'or advantagederived from analysis of the film was the capa?
bility to compare the kinematics of the tasks with similar film recorda
f r o m thewaterimmersionsimulation.Thiscomparison had aided in
determiningthecorrelation of water immersion simulation to the space
performance.

WaterSimulation - P r i o r t G theGemini XU missionwaterimmersion

simulation runs of the umbilical E V A t a s k s w e r e p e r f o r m e d at the
EnvironmentalResearchAssociateswater simulation facility.The
purposesofthis simulation w e r e : ( I ) toprovidethe E V A astronaut
with a continuous realtimetraining a n d (2) toorganize and validate
the final flight time line plan.

A continuousfilm and voice record was made of the last two preflight
simulation r u n s .T h e s ef i n dr u n s ,s u b s e q u e n t l y referred to a s Pre-
flight I a n d Preflight Z, w e r e intended tobeaccuraterehearsalsof
the actualorbital E V A missionplan. After theGemini XlI mission,
Astronaut Aldrin returned to E R A to p e r f o r m a posfflight evaluation
ofhis E V A . Continuousfilm and voicerecorckweremadeofthis
postflight run.Theposfflight evaluation runpermittedtheastronautto
investigatecertain ofthetasks in more detailthan w a s allowed in
space d u e totimeconstraints.Further,theastronautevaluated sev-
eralothercloselyrelatedtaskswhichwere notincluded in theGT-XH
task line.

Althoughcompletefilm and voicerecordswere madeontheGemini XlT

' preflightwaterimmersionsimulations,thefilms
analysis.Thelossofthis
and comparison.
w e r e edited p r i o r to
edited portioncomplicatedthefilmanalysiB
T o reconstructthecompletetimeline,thevoice
transcript was comparedtothefilm in o r d e r toidentifytheareaswheye
film editing occurred.Tapechangeintervals did not affectthistime
linecomparisonsincethey did not normallycoincide with film breaks.

Table X details theresults of this

preflightfilm-voicecomparison.
I n thisfinal iteration all legitimatelyidentifiedtime losses are included,
and suspectedtimediscrepanciesarenoted.

A t times the astronaut I s body position restricted view of his hands

whileworking on a work station task. N o seriousproblems in task
interpretation wereencounteredduringfilmanalysis,however.
B o d y / c a m e r a position c o d i c t s mentioned abovedegradedthevisual
analysisofthe 'Eine hand movements and operationsassociated with
thework station t a s k s . A synchronizedvoicetranscriptwasusedto
interpretquestionable areas.

T a s k p e r f o r m a n c e d o e s not p r e c i s e l y coincide with its verbal descrip-

tion. T h i sw a s t r u e throughoutthe GT-XlI preflightsimulations.
Prime examples were .the scheduled rest periods,whereintheastro-
naut would completepreviousworktasks while commenting that hewas
resting.Becauseofthis,film a n d voicetimelineswereconstructed
independently.Thetimevariationsbetweenfilm and voice data in the

55
successiveiterations, in general,supporttherationale for data s e p -
aration for initial iterations.Since the filmwasusedasthetrue indl-
cator of task timeduration,discrepancieswerereconciled in the find
iterationtimeline with the data from the voice record serving mainly
to provide continuity and fine level details.

Figure 5-2 is acontinuouspictorialsequence of the simulation time

line including thehandrailerectionsequence of the E V A . Thistask
w a s included in thewaterimmersionsimulationto s e r v e a s astan-
dardized reference point and to provide an extra measure of practice
f o r theastronaut.

I n o r d e r that a high fidelity simulation bemaintained,thehandrail

erection task was performed separate from the umbilical E V A time
line.Thepilot,standing in thehatch,deployedthehandrail,marking
thestart and finishofthistask on thevoicetape. A t the end of this
task the commandpilot initiated the start of the umbilical E V A time
line.The umbilical E V A simulation commenced with thestandupfamil-
iarizationtask.

A i r c r a f t Z e r o G r a v i t y Simulation - A limited portion of the work per-

formed during aircraft zero gravity simulation program on theGemini m
umbilical E V A has been suppliedto ERA b y N A S A - M S C f o r p u r -
p o s e s of cross-correlation of simulation mode.Thesesimulations
wereveryuseful in determiningthefine hand task details suchasthe
hook and ringconnections,thewaisttetherconnections, and operation4
involvingVelcro handhol.Js and p i p pins.Thepreflightredesign of the
pip pins serves as a good example of the utility of the zero gravity
aircraft simulation. P r i o r toaircraftevaluationthepippins,Figure 5-3
w e r ef r e e torotate in thesockets.Theaircraftobserversdetermined
that if thepippinswereallowedtorotatefreely,seriousinteractions
with f r e et e t h e r s could O C C U P . The update versionemployedan anti-
rotation p i p pindesign.Comparison of the available results of theair-
craft simulationwith waterimmersion and spaceperformanceismade
a s applicable.

GeneralConfigurationofthe Umbilical E V A -
Thestatedpurpose of
thetaskscomprisingtheGemini X U umbilical E V A w a s to determine
the effectiveness of various restraint modes on Z V A performance.
The specific nature of the tasks and the restraints related to future
missionsconfigurations suchas A A P . Since Gemini signiEied a
temporary halt to E V A experimentation,the intent ofthe E V A w a s to
yield a n s w e r s toabroad as possible spectrum of representative future
E V A tasks.

Figure 5 - 4 is afunctionalflowdiagram of themajortaskevents OP

theGemini X U umbilical E V A . Althoughtherewereminorvariations
between the preflight simulation and theflight performance the mw'or
tasksequenceremainedunchanged.Waterimmersion simulation was
instituted to quantitatively determinethetimeline,toassessthe levels
of energy expenditure required to perform the timeline and to s p e c i f y
the duration and f r e q u e n c y of rest periods in order to maintain energy
expenditures at acceptablelevels.
56
 T h e initial taskperformedwas standupfamiliarization. T h k t a s k waB
designedtofurtherevaluatethe free floattendenciesexperiencedon
GT-IX and to preparetheastronautforthe umbilical E V A . Idormaw
tion from previous E VArs suggested that a familiarisation period hav-
ingminimum work levels could betterintroducetheastronauttohis
newenvironment.Theastronaut was alsotoevaluatethe cooling e f -
f e c t of the E L S S at thistime.Theastronautwasthenrequiredto
install and activatea 16 mm motion picture camera on the retro-
adapter priortotheAgenatethertask.Several attachmentmode@
would beevaluated; ( 1 ) attachmentwhilestandinginthespacecraft
restrainedbythecommandpilot, ( 2 ) attachmentwhilestanding in the
spacecrdtunrestrained, and ( 3 ) attachmentwhileoutsidethehatch.

Followingthecameraplacementevaluation,theastronautwasto pro-
ceeddownthehandrailtothenose of thespacecraft, evaluating teth-
ered dynamics along theway.Theastronautwasthentoconnectthe
Agenatether.Thistetherwasa 100 footlong, 2 inchnylonweb
tetherconnected on one end totheAgenavehicle.Thefree end of
thetetherterminated in amulti-strandcableloop,which wastobe
manually attached tothedockingbar b y t h e astronautduringthe EVA.
T h e loop waslocked onto thedockingbar b y the handhold clamp
shown in Figure 5-5 .
T h e astronaut w a s to performthistask
connected to the hand bar a n d docking lip b y waisttethers.The
whilg

Agenatethertaskwassubstantiallythesameasthe onewhich proved

so difficult on Gemini XI. T h e astronautwas toactivatethe S-010
micrometeoriteexperimentfromthisposition.Thistaskwassimilar
to that described in the previous discussion of G T - X .

T h e astronautwasthentomovetotheadapter and performtheadap-

ter work station t a s k s .T h ep u r p o s e of theworktaskswastoevalu-
atetheeffectiveness of thetworestraintmodes in performing variouB
subtasks.Thesubtasksincluded: ( 1 ) evaluation oftwotypes of
Velcro(nylon,stainlesssteel), ( 2 ) operation of variouselectrical and
Eluid quick disconnects, ( 3 ) evaluation of cutting typetasks and ( 4 )
performance and evaluation of torquingoperations. While in theadap-
ter theastronaut w a s also toevaluate suit mobility characteristics.
The astronaut was then to proceed to the Agena work station t o p e r -
f o r m a series of similar tasks evaluating tetheredversusuntethered
restraintmode.Thesubtasksincluded: (1) fluid connector operationt
( 2 ) evaluation of portableVelcrohandholds and p i p pin restraint an-
c h o r s , and (3) evaluation of theApollotorquewrench and torquing
capability.

Interspersed throughout the time line w e r e anumberofcameraacti-

vation and filmchangesas well aseleven,two-minute duration rest
periods.Following'theAgenaworktaskstheastronautwasto re-
turntothehatch and i n g r e s s , ending the umbilical E V A . T h ep e r -
formance in space and the simulations closely followed this format with
onlyminorchanges.Thefollowingsections detail theperformance in
s p a c e a s well as in thesimulations.

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 orbi-
5 1 and simulation timelin'es was performed to determine areas of sirnf-
larity and dissimilarity in tasktime a n d astronautmotion.Tables X,
X,and ZX present the results of thefinaliteratioq of thetimelines
f o r thewaterimmersionsimulation,theflight and theaircraftsimula-
tion, and detailsthetaskperformancetimes and thetaskdescription.
Specificcommentsaremadeto indicate anomalies or pertinent obser-
vations.Sequences of selectedtasksaregiven in Figure 5-1, com-
paringtheflight,watersimulation, and aircraftsimulation on a five
secondincrementbasis.Figure 5-2, acontinuous sequence of the
XU timeline for the water simulation and Figure 5 - 6 , a continuous
sequence of theflight,rarepresented f o rr e f e r e n c ep u r p o s e s .T h es e -
quences:comprisepictures on a 30 secondincrementbasis.Figure 5-7
is a similarsequence of the available film from the zero gravity air-
craft simulation .
HandrailDeployment - Handraildeploymentwas notan elementofthe
umbilical E V A . Thistaskwasperformed duringthe first standup
E V A period.Sinceunderwater- simulation presented an excellen;mode
to evaluatethis t a s k , and becausethesuccess of handrailerection wap
consideredcriticaltotheoverall umbilical E V A , ahandrailerection
sequence was performed at the beginning of eachpreflightwatersimu-
lation film. A comparativefilmsequenceisshown in Figure 5-1. T h e
flightsequenceisshown in theupperline.Directlybelowthis is the
sequence from thewaterimmersion and zerogravityaircraftsimula-
tion r u n s ,

AstronautAldrinbeganhandraildeployment at an elapsedtime (GET)

of20:27:24,immediatelyfollowingtheadapterhandraildeployment.
Theerectiontasklasted 115 seconds.Thesametaskperformed in
thewater simulation lasted 145 seconds.Themotions in both modes
wereverysimilar.Thetimedifferenceis attributed todifficulties in
deployingthetelescopingsections of thehandrail in thewatersimulation.

Since the handrail task durationexceededthetimeduration of one p a r a -

bola in the zerogravityaircraft(approximately 30 s e c o n d s ) , it is d i f -
ficulttocompare aircraCt simulationdata. A n interruption in the task
is noted on the original film.The total task time f o r handrailerection
in the zerogravityaircraftappears to be40seconds.Thisfollows
the normal pattern zero gravity task performance in aircraft versus
water simulation. It wasfound that in mostcasesthetasktimetends
to be markedly decreased in aircraft simulation o v e r actual performanye
orwater simulation. Thismaybe due tothepsychologicalfactor that
a zero gravity parabola gives only limited time to accomplish a task.
Themorefamiliarasubject is with this simulation mode, the lessthis
factortends tobe aproblem with propertaskplanning. Pilot Aldrin
commented that thehandrailerectiQnwasIfquiteeasy I f in both simula-
tion modes and wasequallyeasy in flight. I n apostflightdebriefing,
Aldrin described his movements in performingthiserectiontask in
orbit.

StandupFamiliarization - T h e first major umbilical E V A task was

standupfamiliarization. T h e object of this task was to give the pilot
58
time to a a u s t to hisnewenvironment.Theonly work t a s k s schedulecj
duringthisfamiliarization w e r e subjectiveevaluations,whichrequired
smallphysicalexertion.Themajorityofthe timeduringthistask
could therefore be used b y theastronaut in "getbing the feel?? of the
umbilical E V A m a d e .

The previous standup E V A had provided Pilot Aldrin with an excel-

lentintroductiontothe E V A environment.Aldrin'commentedonthe
usefulness of this first standup E V A in a postflight debriefing.

Aldrin - n I was quite thankful that we did havethestandup

E V A first because it gave me an opportunityto see just how
small the forces were that were required to get the body mov-
ing. I ' m s u r e also thathaving thisstandup E V A f i r s t , with ita
smaller priority than the umbilical E V A , tendedtohaveslightly
lower psychological effect if there really was any in t e r m s of
effecting any mental tensionorsomething that might haveimpaired
the activity o r changed heart rates. ..
" I rm glad that we did thatone first instead of the other one.
It putme in muchbettershapebecausethen I could devote all
m y attention totheparticulars of the umbilical E V A when that
came u p . . . 1'

A short umbilicalattached directly to thesuit int&e system was utilized

duringthe standup E V A . Thiseffectivelytetheredthe pilot tothe
spacecraft cockpit and limited hismovements.The longumbilical
changedthepilotrsconfigurationconsiderably.Hisoverallvolumein-
creased with the addition ofthechestpack ( E L S S ) , and hisfreedom
of movementwasextendedtothelengthof umbilical. B e c a u s e of
thesevariations, it wasfelt that anotherfamiliarizationperiod was
n e c e s s a r y to ailow the pilot toorienthimself to this new codiguration.
Standupfamiliarizationapparentlyaccomplishedthisobjective. A 1 1 indi-
cations show that Astronaut Aldrin was both physically and psycholog-
ically prepared as he moved into thesubsequent task line.

A l d r i n ' s orbitalstandup familiarization includedanevaluation of f r e e

floating dynamics and E L S S outflow characteristics.The total task
intervalwas 100 seconds.Inhispreflightwatersimulation,Aldrin
'spentonly 50 seconds on thissametask.Themqjority of thistask
timewas utilized f o r the f r e e floating dynamicsevaluation,sincethe
E L S S mockup in thewaterwasoflowfidelity.

Aldrin first attempted to release his hand grip and evaluateany r e -

sulting f o r c e s . Regaininghis hand hold position,the pilotattempted to
changehispositions with minor hand movements noting any particular
forcesinvolved.Aldrin Is orbital dynamics evaluation wassimilarto
hispreflightevaluation,except that he did not haveacommand pilot in
thewater simulation tosteadyhisposition with thelegtether,Fig-
u r e 5-8 . While the pilotevaluated f r e e floating dynamics in orbit,
the commandpilot released his hold on the leg tether.

59
.. .1111 I._.. . I , ,..., ,,.... , ... -- .

The S L S S oufflow evaluation w a s asimulated maneuver in the water

and, in e f f e c t , A l d r i n passedoverthissubtaskcompletely in the simu-
lation. Thisexplainsthedifference in timebetween the orbital and
simulationevaluations. N o aircraft data oli atandup familiarization waB
available. I n thepostflightdebriefing,Aldrin indicatedthat thedyna-
mics evaluations are not particularly suited for aircraft zero gravity
simulationdue to aircraft perturbations.

Aldrin - ItInthe z e r o gairplane, it is extremelydifficult to at-

tain this pure zero g a n d we never really know whether we're
workingagainstasmallperturbation in the aircraft trqjectory or
whetherthisis anactual response that we have. 11

Immediatelyfollowingthestandupfamiliarizationperiod,thecommand
pilot requested that Aldrinrest.Thisprocedurewas a variation f r o m
the simulationtime line.Duringthepreflightsimulation,the pilotbegan
the retro-adapter camera placement immediately after his standup famil-
iarization. T h e first two minute restperiodwasscheduled in the
water simulation followingthe evaluation OE the methods of camera place-
m ent .
Aldrin 1s first orbital E V A restperiodlasted 52 seconds. He com-
mentedthatthis rest did not s e e m n e c e s s a r y s i n c e n o r e a l activity had
occurred duringhisfamiliarizationperiod. A t thispointthe restperiod
w a s cut short a n d the pilot began the camera placement evaluation.
I n thepostflightdebriefing,CommandPilotLovellcommentedonthis
rest period and the overall rest schedule.

Lovell - " O u r time line f o r theumbilical E V A wasbased on the

oneswehave done in thewater.We allowedeight minutes f o r
the unlatching ofthespacecrafthatchtothefinaljettisoningofthe
wastepouch, and the pilotgetting up a n d outsidethehatch by
standingup.Wewereactuallyveryconservative on thetime
and completedthisprior to the eight minutesweallowed. It
(the f i r s tr e s tp e r i o d )w a s j u s t too soon.Thewaywe managed
to hit the proper hatchopening time, and be r e a d y at thesame
time, didn I t allow u s to sit around.Weweren I t rushed during
the umbilical E V A preparation.Ofcourse,the E V A wasde-
signedtogetthemost out of basic E V A with rest periods to
anticipate anyproblemswhichwe might encounter. Wetookthe
restperiodsastheycamealong,however, it was getting obvious
to m e that r e s t p e r i o d s whichwe had allotted wereeither too
long o r too frequent. Wemanaged to stay on thetime line through-
out the entire umbilical E V A .

T h e f i r s t orbital rest period, elapsed time 1 :52 (0:00 elapsedtime is

set at thestartofstandupfamiliarization f o r comparative purposes),
came before the elapsed time of the first scheduled rest period of the
preflight simulation (4 :35). Duringthepreflightsimulation,the first
restperiodwasinterruptedby an optical surface evaluation. Aldrin

60
attempted tocleanthecommandpilot'shatchwindowusingawiper
clothlocated in apouch on hislowerleg.The optical surface eval-
uation lasted 55 seconds, separating the two segments of the first
60 second rest period. A similar optical surface evaluation,also
lasting 55 seconds, was performed at an elapsedtime of l l 2 : l 5 in
the orbital E V A . A possiblereason for thischange in schedulewas
theconcernoveradherence to theplannedtimeline. T h e optical s u r -
face task was considered of secondary importance and wasplaced
near the end of the umbilical E V A timeline so that it could be omitted,
iE the mission fell behind the time line schedule.
Camera Placement Evaluation - Immediatelyfollowingstandupfamiliar-
izationinthesimulationtimeline and followingthe first orbital rest
period, Pilot Aldrin evaluated various placement techniques for the
E V A I 6 mm motion picturecamera.Duringthiscameraplacement
evaluation task, Aldrin attemptedto determinethebestbodyconfigu-
ration f o rc a m e r a installation and positioning. Figures 5 - 9 and 5-20
show two body positions evaluatedduringthepreflightsimulation.
Aldrindescribesthetask in hisposfflightdebriefing and comments on
its purpose.

Aldrin - nWe had threedifferentways of mounting thecamera.

The first two were essentially the same a s thestandup E V A .
I wasreally still insidethecockpit. Thenextone, I wascom-
pletely out and switched over tohavingtheright hand on the
handrail and the left hand taking the camera off and then putting'
it backin.Thiswas quite adifferent method of putting it in than
theothertwo. It requiredtheuseofone hand and a little bit
of torquingoperation with that hand to get the camera into posi-
tion and put it on down. But, again,this didn I t appear to be
anyrealdifficulty.The thing wearetrying to find out is, in
going back and forth putting the camera up and taking it down,
did you want to go through the procedure of getting back in the
hatch,asfarasyourfeetgo, a n d usingtheleft hand on the
seat to p u t thecamerain,or could you do this in passing?
Could youstopthere and put it up? If youcould,thenyoumghb
be able to s a v e a little bit of time. 1'

Comparison of the simulation and orbitaldata indicates that it did not

matterwhetherthe pilot was inside or outside of the spacecrd cockpit,
orwhetherhislegswererestrainedorunrestrained. As long a6 +
handhold could be maintained tocounteractreactionscreatedduring
cameraattachment,thetaskwas not diEficult.

Followingcameraplacementevaluation,PilotAldrinbeganhissecond
orbital rest period. A t a n elapsedtimeof 6 : 5 4 , Aldrin is lagging the
preElight water simulation time dine b y 139 s e c o n d s .T h ef i r s tr e s t
and thelongerstandupfamiliarization and camera placement tasks ac-
count f o r thistimelag.Thissecond orbital rest periodcorresponds
to the first rest period in thewatersimulation.

61
Aldrin positioned his body out&de the spacecr& cockpitt, and began
this rest holding onwithboth handstotheportablehandrail.This
wasthesamepositionused in theprdlightwatersimulation.Fig-
ure 5-12 showsthepositionAldyinassumed in thewatersimulation.
T h e pilot stated during this rest period in orbit that he had to get pro-
p e r position and Ithold onto something 11 to rest. T h e s a m e situation
w a s notedduringthepreflightsimulation. T h e first rest in thewater
simulation lasted 65 seconds and was interrupted by the optical surface
evaluation. Thesecond rest period in flightlasted 103seconds.The
optical surface evaluation was postponed until much later in theflight.
T h e originalflight plan called f o r rest periods of two minute duration.
Most rests in both orbital and preflightsimulationmodes did not attain
this scheduled length.

B e f o r e moving forward to the spacecraft nose, Pilot Aldrinextended

the umbilical out of thecockpit. I n orbit,Aldrinwasassisted in this
maneuverbyhiscommandpilst.Thetaskwas initiated at an elapsed
timeof8:37, and required 65 secondstocomplete.Duringthepre-
flightwatersimulation, Pilot Aldrin had tosimulatetheextensionsince
the umbilical wasalready out of thecockpit.Thiswasnecessarybe-
cause of theconstructionofthemockup umbilical and sincethecom-
mand pilot was not in thespacecraftmockup.Thelowfidelity of
these important hardware elements caused the actualorbital task line
to slip farther behind itsmissiontimeschedule.

Movementtothe T D A - Movement along thespacecraft began at 9:47

( E T ) in theflight.Aldrin 1s objective wastomovefromthehatch
area up theportablehandrail and positionhimselfonthehandrail at
thespacecratlnose and Agenatargetdockingadapter ( T D A ) inter-
face.Themovement required 41-seconds.
Figure 5-1 shows the
comparison sequences of this movement f o r theflight and preflight
water and aircraEt simulations. Themovementtask in thepreflight
water simulation lasted 31 seconds and 8.1seconds in theaircratl
simulation. Thismovement is equivalentto an averagevelocity of
0.16 R / s e c f o r theflight, 0.22 f % / s e c f o r thewatersimulation, and
0.64 f t / s e c f o r t h e aircraEt simulation.
This particular movement task is very useful from the standpoint of
motion analysis.Allthreemodes yieldedexcellentfilmcoverageas
canbe seen fromthepictorialsequences. Aldrin madea180" turn-
aroundduringthis forwardtranslation. I n his orbital E V A , Aldrin
madethisturnaround in theoppositedirection f r o m that of the p r e -
flighttraining session.Whenviewingthesefilmstogether,thetwo
modesarekinematicallyidentical.Thesmalltimeditferencesbetween
the water simulation a n d the flight performance are probably due to the
astronaut 1s analyticalevaluation ofmovement in space.Thelarge dif-
ference between the aircart3 translationtimeinterval and bothorbital
and watermodessubstantiatesthepremise that m a n y t a s k s a r e " h u r -
ried f t due to the zero gravity parabola time limitations.

Rest EvaluationonWaist Tethers -

T h e astronautcompletedthis for-
ward movement b y attaching his waist tethers in preparation for a rest

62
period.The rightwaisttethek w a s attached first to an attachment
ringneartheforward end of thehandrail,Figure 5-12
attached to one of the u-bob on thedockingcone,
. T h e let%
waist tether was
Figure 5-13 . In opbit, A l d r i n began tlzk tetherplacement at 10:35
( E T ) and both tetherswere attached 25 secondslater.Thesame
maneuver in thepreflightwater simulation began at 7 : O l ( E T ) and
lasted 37 s e c o n d s .I n the a i r c r d simulation, A l d r i n attachedboth .
tetherstotheu-bolts on thedockingcone, beginningwith the left waist
tether.Thetether attachmentintheaircraftmodetook 26.4 seconds.
I n both thepreflight and Bight, the rest periodbeganimmediately after
thewaisttetherswereattached.Theobjectofthis rest wasto eval-
uate the effect ofresting on tethersonly.After attaching thetethers,
the pilot released his hold on thehandrail a n d ceasedactivity.
Aldrin Is observations on this evaluation are presented below.

Aldrin - Thetethers didn I t s e e m to jerkmeback in at all.

T h e y j u s t eventuallyassumedanaturalposition and I w a s d r i f t -
ing v e r y lightly,maybe in onedirection, a n d thenperhapsmy
foot would contact it and I would bound backa v e r y slightamount.
A v e r y comfortable rest position. ' 1

T h e orbital restperiodlasted 78 seconds,whereasthesamerest

period in thepreflightwater simulation wasonly 53 seconds.Aldrin
againnotedthat he did not need a rest period at this point, since he
feltnophysicalneedtorest.Once ha wassatisfied with histethered
evaluation he terminated the remainder of his rest period.

Agena Tether - After completingthe rest evaluation in thewatersimu-

lation mode,AstronautAldrinrepositionedhiswaisttethers in p r e -
paration f o r theAgenatethertask.This positioningoperationrequired
20 seconds of extra movement and thus extra energy expenditure.
Aldrinused thi8 simulation experience to hisadvantage in orbit. Pilot
Aldrin intentionally spread the tethersapart to "give a little broader
stancetogo ahead and hook up theAgenatether ' 1 in theflight.This
eliminated theneed for tether repositioning and streamlinedthetime
lineplacing Aldrin in an ideal position f o r immediateactivation ofthe
Agena tether.

.TheAgenatether task consistedof two separatesubtasks. First, the

pilotinstalled awire loop over thespacecraftdockingbar.Thiswire
w a s attached toanylontetherto be used in alaterexperimenton
gravity gradient stabilization A d i p -loop configuration allu wed the
pilot to tighten thiswireonthebar and position it at any desired height.
Figure 5-14 s h o w s theAgenatethercodigurationbefore it i s deployed
onthedocking bar.The deployed posibion is shown in Figure 5-15.
I n the second part of the Agena tether task, the astronaut removed the
docking bar clamp f r o m its position on the T D A and installed thecom-
bination clamp/handgriponthedockingbar.Thefunction of this clamp
w a s to hold thetetherwipeloopdownonthebarpreventingpossible
snagging of the A g e n a tether when the spacecraft and Agena parted

63
later in themission. Adthough thedeckingbarwasalsoto aerve a s
a handhold position,PilotAldrin later decided that theclamp w a s not
operating properly, and discardedthis use s o a s not to jeopardizethe
subsequenttetherexperiment.Thecomparison dsequences f o r thetether
activation task are shown in Figure 5-1.

Activationofthe Agena tether began at an elapsedtime of l2:23 in

flight a n d lasted 140 seconds.Inthewatersimulation, activation of
theAgenatetherbegan at 8:57 ( E T ) and took 100 s e c o n d s .T h e
Agena tether activation required 40 seconds more inflightthanthe
sametask in thewatersimulation.Thismaybeexplainedbythree
characteristics. First, installing the
docking
bar
clamp,
the pilot
removedasmalltwofoot lengthretainertetherfromthis unit. This
tetherwas not removed in thepreflight.watersimulation. Second,
AldrinfoundtheIftoadstool f fatop thedockingbarloosewhen attaching
thedockingbarclamp in Plight. Hepausedforashorttimetoeval-
uate thisproblem. N o read delay w a s causedhere, and theloose
IItoadstool f I posednoseriousproblem.Thirdly,whenAldrinbegan
the Agena tether task, both he and Command Pilot Loveld noticedthat
fastmovementaffectedtheAgenaspacecraft stability. T o eliminate
thisproblem,the pilot deliberatelysloweddownhismovements.This
third factorprobablyaccountsfortheentirevariation.The activation
taskrequired 35 seconds in theaircraftsimulation.Becauseofthe
lengthofthistask and the broken film sequences received from this
simulation, it is difficulttodetermine an exacttimeinterval.However,
it canbeseen in thefilm that thistaskappearedtoberushedduring
theaircraft simulation mode.

S-010 - At thecompletion of theAgenatethertask in flight,another

changeoccurred.Before movingtothe S - 0 1 0 experiment,Astro-
naut Aldrin begana rest period at 15:52 ( E T ) . T h e thirdorbital
rest period was the first to r e a c h the full scheduledtimedurationof
twominutes.The rest periodlasted 127 seconds and was preceded
b y a 38 secondrestpreparation.Duringthepreparation,Aldrin
alteredhistetherplacement so that he would be in thebestpositionto
immediatelyactivatethe S-010 after h i sr e s t . I n thepreflightwater
simulation,Aldrin did not takethisrestperiod.FollowingtheAgena
tetheractivation,the pidot movedimmediately into positiontoactivatethe
S-010 experiment at 12:32 ( E T ) .

S-010 activation w a s simulated in thewatertimelinebecauseoflow

fidelitymockupcharacteristics.Aldrinspent 55 secondsreachingthe
positions that heconsiderednecessary f o r S-010 activation. Thein-
terval, h o w e v e r ,w a s not readistic. T h e actualorbital s-010 activa-
tion lasted 21 9 seconds. Aldrin experienced minor positioningdifficultiee,
but no ma,jor problems occurred in his orbitalactivation.

In Figure 5-16 , the S-010 is seenfully deployedonthe TDA. A

comparison sequence of S-010 activationinflight a n d in the water simu-
lation is presentedinFigure 5-1 .

64
T h e addition of a rest period after the Agena tether task in the orbital
E V A and the fact that the S-010 waaS simulated in thepreflightwater
E V A causedfurther deviation f r o m theplannedtime dine. Uponcom-
pletion of the s-010 activation in flight,Aldrinrepositioned hi's tethers
in preparationfortheTDAwopk station setuptask.Thesame tether,
repositioning task was performed in the preflight water simulation at
13:27 ( E T ) . Thisrepositioningtasktook 40 seconds in orbit.Dur-
ing this time, he moved from the S-010 positionontheAgena to the
T D A w o r k station area. A t the end of therepositioningtask in the
simulation,AldrinremovedtheVelcroprotectioncoversfromthework
station area.Thisincreasedthe time requiredforpreparation to
75 seconds.
TD
- -A
." Wo-rk
- Station Prepara.tion - Aldrin immediately began the initial
portable handhold and pippinplacement in flight. T h e initial setup
preparationtook 66 seconds. - Aldrin comments on the purpose 02 this
task in hisdebriefing.
Aldrin - "Havingdonethis I thenmovedaroundtomakeanother
change in thetetherlocation,thepurposehere being todeploythe
portablehandholds and to prepositionthem and locatepippins on
thework station so that we'd have that muchmoretime left af-
ter theadapterwork to makethecompleteevaluationofthework
station. I f

T h e command pilot interruptedthis initial setuppreparation,suggesting

that Aldrin begin his fourth orbital r e s t p e r i o d , commenting that they
w e r e ahead oftheirtimeline.Aldrinelectedtoutilizethisrest per-
iod to sendmessagestoHouston.FollowingthesemessagesAldrin
completedhis rest period and his work station setup preparation.
Aldrin 1s description of these tasks follows.

Aldrin - IfWe had timeleft during thestatesidepass and I

wanted to deploy the two flags that I had stowed in theportable
handhold. It lookedlike in order to do this, in theway with
least jeopardy, would beto do it before I pulledthe p i p pinsout,
instead of trying to taketwohandsto do it. S o I pulled them
out and said a f e w w o r d s about Veteran& Day and said a f e w
morewords about t h e A r m y - N a v y g a m e . I tooktheVeteran Is
Dayflag and tossed it in the b r e e z e . I tooktheotherflag and
tucked it as tightly a s I could in therightsideofthe E L S S , be-
tweenwherethehoseswerebetweenthe ELSS and mychest.
I thenwent about the task of deploying portablehandholds. I
took each pip pin out a n d in turnput it into a holder that I wasn f t
going to use with theportablehandholds that w e r e going tocome
up f r o m theadapter. I c h o s ef r e e pippinattachments.They
weretheones that did not havestars. I wanted to theneval-
uate afterwards and compare a freely swinging pip pin as a hand-
hold with theones that w e r e rigidly mountedin the s t a r s . I put
thetwoportablehandholds in theoutboardposition, both on the
left and on the right leaving room for the others to go in the in-
board. I tooktheoneremainingpip p i n . at thistime a n d put it

65
 on the le& side of the Agena a s you. f a c e the A g e n a f r o m the
spacecraft, to get it out of t h e w a y f o r both the tomping opera-
tions and also so it wouldn I t be in the center when the chest
pack lights hit it. About this time I receiveda call fromHouston
to slowdowna littlebit. It w a s perhaps j u s t after the little
blurtabout Veteran 1s D a y a n d before deploying a portable hand-
hold, aspreviouslydiscussed in themedicalbriefing. I think
that some of the reasons for the change in heart rate was the
audience that I was addressing and I wanted to make sure that
I didn r t flub. There wasn I t much of a rest period while I was
deployingtheportablehandholds. I did pausethere for a min-
ute and before I started back, I did get the w o r d from Houston
thatthe r e c o v e r y w a s good which meant the return of the heart
rate back down to normal. 11

T h e task time intervals f o r the work station preparation a n d the rest

aregiven
camerachange,
in Table Xi . Thesubsequentmovementfollowedbya
GLV stripretrieval, a n d acameraretrievaltask
shows no significanttimevariationsbetweentheorbital and water simu-
lation modes. In all c a s e s orbitad tasktimeswereslightlylonger
thanthesimulation,Table Xm.
Aldrin -"I thenstartedmovingback along thehandrail. I had
to takethewaisttethers off now,one at atime. I tookthe
rightone OLY and put it backonthe ELSS. T h i s time I took
the left one and insteadof attaching it to thefoldingbar with two
ringson it, I stuck it with Velcroon top of the chest pack.
This bar that went across, I think w a s l e s s than optimum in de-
sign. I had someexperiences in training with it coming off' and
I thoughtthat I might just a s well leave it loose and not bother
using it and try using the Velcro instead. fI ..
P r i o r to the movement from the spacecraft hatch, Aldrin extended ad-
ditional umbilicalout of the spacecraft f o r the maneuver back to the
adapter. In thesimulationmodetheumbilical was not s'tored in the
spacecraft and extensionwasunnecessary.Themovement to the a d -
apter took 2 2 seconds from the spacecraft hatch to adapter pigtail -in
flight. In thesimulationthismovementtook 145 s e c o n d s .T h i s time
variationwascaused b y t w o interruptions in thesimulation to position
therfsnaking If umbilical. A description of this motion in flight was
given b y A l d r i n .

Aldrin -flabout that time, we fed out theremainingpart of the

umbilical. I stopped about thistime to makesure that theum-
bilical looked like it was routed in the proper fashion a n d wasn ft
tangledaroundanything. It s e e m s to m ea s I startedmoving
along the handrail that the umbilical did start to snake
ted moving back
...
I star-
f r o m that position d o n g the handrail going back
right hand first so that the left side of me where the umbilical
wasattached,wastrailing so that the umbilical w a s outbehind
me and moved back out toward the adapter toward the pigtail.
As I got to the edge of the equipmentadapter, I could s e e that

66
 the loose primer cord that I had noted during the first standup
E V A was not a s r e a l l y h o s e in that there were not so many
p i e c e s around there to present any problem at all. I just for-
gotabouttrying to pudd any of that off. With m y right' hand I
gota hold of the pigtail a n d made s u r e that it w a s s e c u r e and
locked and wouldn It swing€reedy. F r o m that position I pushed 3
little bit to the rear of the spacecraft a n d made sort of acombin-
ationturningmaneuvep b y pushing to the rear and then restrain-
ing m y s e l f f r o m going further to the r e a r b y holdingonthe pig-
tail. Theneteffectwas to turn me aroundthecorner. I
turnedaroundthecorner and with right hand first, I got hold
of thehandrailback in theadapter. I foundmyself in pretty
good body position to get r e a d y to thread the umbilical through the
pigtail. Around in thisarea it s e e m s to me that I did haveto
use a little bit of torque with one hand onthe pigtail to p u s h m y
f e e t downa little f u r t h e r b e c a u s e m y head was tending to float up
at thethat time I was going
corner.
around
the I
\

At thispoint in thetimelinethe pilot experienced an interesting infor-

mation c r o s s o v e rf r o mt h e simulation. T h e original Gemini X I E V A
misrsion planwas to evaluatetheastronautmaneuvering unit ( A M U ) .
Aldrin was training f o r thismissionwhentheAMUconfigurationwas
cancelled.Themissionupdateincludedchanges in the foot restraint
position.Whenpreparing to entertheadapterworkstation,Aldrin
experienced amoment of disorientation.

Aldrin - f f I then started moving toward positioning m yselt: in foot

restraints. I g u e s s that onebecomes so used to .going fromthis
position to the foot restraint directly as in the AMU operation that
I lookeddown f o r the €oot restraint andall I saw was a blank
r e c e s s in the thermal curtain where the AMU foot restraints
w e r e going to be. I thought, g e e , whathappened to thefoot
restraints. I can I t e v e ns e et h e m .T h e yw e r e up theother
w a y so I had to yaw around to therightwhichmeantthat my
feet now were goingabout wherethe umbilical was comingthrough
the pigtail.

This emphasizes a n important asset of theunderwatertrainingsimula-

tion whichtheastronaut.commented on in the debriefing.

Aldrin - ??There are two ways that youcangothroughtheum-

bilical;Youeitherfindyourselfgoingthrough it headfirst a n d
the umbilical would thenbearoundyou,oryoufind that theum-
bilical i s in front of your feet and you lve got to step over it.
Both of these situations I had experienced under water andhad
beenable to stepthrough it b y holding on the umbilical a n d with
its own stZness direct it with your hand away from your feet.
It tends to move away as you can bend your legs a little and
movethemthrough. iY it is thecase of moving it overyour
head,why that I s f a i r l y e a s y to do also. Then I moved so that
I had one handonboth of the handrails and sort of lowering m y
body down into the foot restraints.

67
Adapter Work Station Came= -
P l a c e m ~ e The flight time line contin-
u e d to lag behind the simulation timeline.The pidot spent considerable
timetryigg to Eix abroken dinkage in thecamera-bracket, and in try-
ing to determine if thecamera was operating in flight. T h k required
approximately 142 seconds. C a m e r a placement in the simulationtook
73 seconds.This task wasfollowed in thesimulation b y a period OE
neutral buoyancy aGustment.

Rest - Aldrinrestedfor 111 seconds after hisrebalancebreak.This

washisfourth rest period in theunderwatersimulation.Therest
period in flight lasted 5 7 seconds.Aldrininterruptedthisfifth orbital
rest period to begin the foot restraintevaluation.Thetasksequence
variedfromthe simulation at thispoint. I n flight,theastronautplaced
the umbilical in the umbilical clip before his rest periodcommenting
that it wasmoreconvenient at thetime. I n thesimulation,the pilot
spent 2 0.3 seconds prior to the foot restraint evaluationplacing the um-
bilical. H e r e again the simulation experiencestreamlinedtheastro-
naut flight performance.

Foot RestraintEvaluation - The foot restraint evaluationtook 2:5O in

flight.Thiswas 83 secondslonger than thesame evaduation in the
water simulation. AstronautAldrindescribedthe orbital footrestraint
evaluation and its purpose in hisdebriefing.

Aldrin - ' A t this point w e wentthrough an evaluation of the foot

restraintsasfaras totalmobility g o e s . m a t I really intended
doing wastocompare in a subjectivewaythe amount of mobility
that a person has with these foot restraints in comparison with
things that I had experienced both f r o m the z e r o gairplane and
underwater. I did this b y moving fromtheleftovertheright
and standing m yseE up a little bit and back down bending m y
bodydown to get to the top and the bottom oftheworkstation.
I wanted to s e e j u s t how well leaningbackcompared to under-
water operation and in theairplane. Up tothispoint,evsry-
thing w a s v e r y , very similar in the way that the foot restraints
allowedme to move mybodyaround.Even in leaning back, it
seemedas though I could do this quite well. I did notethat
there was a little bit morelegtensionrequired to leanback to
thesamedegree. Tha,t is, leaning back so that the axis of m y
back was essentially parallel to the spacecraft longitudinal axis.
T o hold this position required a fair amount of f o r c e on the l e g s .
When I releasedthis I gradzady driftedbackup. It is v e r y
e a s y to hold aneutralposition f r o m 3 0 to 40" rodled from the
footrestraintsto roll pight.You could alsopitch back about 40
to 4 5 degrees with very little strain 09 f o r c e and you could turn
yourbodysomewhat to eachside.Therealtestofcoursecomes
whenyoustart to do torquingtypeoperationswhereyouexert
f o r c e s againstthe top of theboots.This is theprimepurpose
of them to keep you from floating a w a y f r o m t h e m . I think both
Gene and I decided in Q U training ~ that the foot restraints, if they
operated a s t h e y had in training, that t h e y would enablea person

68
 to do just about anytask that he is ableto do in 1 g . I f we
establish that this was .!x fact true,thenwe would moveon and
do things on thewaist tether. I can s a y n o w that thebest r e -
straintsystem that w e have e v e ~s e e n for doing any EVA work
is undoubtedlyfootnz&Taints.We don It want anyone to think
that just because we lye, concentrated on waist tethers tha.t t h e y
arebetter.They are not.Footrestraintsgiveyouthebest
freedomof action. T h e y give youthebeetrestraintsystemfor
operating and a fairly wide region with respect to the foot re-
straints.Youcan I t movetoo farafield,justbythefact that
they are fixed. I think if I had to comparefootrestraintsloca-
ted in acertainplace for anoptimum work stationwith a waist
tetherhookup that was also located in anoptimum fashion for
that s a m e - w o r k station I thinkthat you have more freedom of
action with the foot restraints. I f

WorkStationPreparation - Followingthefootrestraintevaluation,
Aldrin deployedthework statiolz penlights and triedtoactivate
thecamera.Thesetaskstook 38 and 40secondsrespectively in
flight.The pilot beganhissixth orbital restperiod at thispoint.The
r e s t lasted 2:09, and wasfollowedbyanother attempt toactivatethe
work station camera.Thissecond activationattempt was also unsuc-
.
c e s s ful

I n the simulation thefootrestraint evaluation was 6okwed immediately

b y thefifthrestperiod.Thetasksequences difYered in theflight and
simulation modes because Aldrin 1s simulationtrainingallowedhimto
optimizehisflighttimeline. Thefailure of thecamerawas an unex-
pected problem and caused further slippage in thetimeline.

AdapterWorkTasks - Tables XZV and XV are detailed analyses of

theadapterworktasks f o r the flight a n d thesimulation. T h ef i r s t
worktaskperformedwastorque evaluation. DifKcuKty in removing
the torque wrench from its pogchcausedthe task toextend f a r past
its scheduledtime.Thetorquingoperationwastobeperformedfirst
on a 1 / 4 and thena 1 / 2 f t f i x e d bolt shown on the bottom center of
theadapterworkstation,Figure 5-27. Thetorquewrenchwas
equipped with avisualreadoutgauge a n d could operate in both clock-
wise and counterclockwisedirections.Theastronautevaluatedtorque
operationsfirst in clockwise and then in acounterclockwisemode at
the 12, 3 , 6 , a n d 9 o lclockpositions,commenting a s heproceeded.
The torque evaluation w a s f b s t pepformed using the foot restraints
only.Inasubsequentperiod,he attached both waisttethers and r e -
evaluatedthe task. H e noted no particulardifficulty in exertingtorque
at any of the positions evaluated fn either flight or preflight modes.
Aldrin describes this orbitad task in hisdebriefing.

Aldrin - IIGoing tosome of the t a s k s in theadapter,thepouch

opened up rathereasily;thewrench had astraparoundthe
handle and it lookedlike this wasn I t velcroedin; that it w a s
stitchedin.Evidentlytherewasa loop in thisnylonstrap that

69
 w a s madejusttherightsize€orthe handle toslideinto. Well
theheatmusthavegotten into this and shrunk it up because
when I wenttopull it out, it wasn't about tocomeunderneath
thisstrap. I looked to s e e if it wasvelcroed and it didn I t ap-
p e a r tobe at all. Thiscostmaybe a minute o r so to t r y and
figure out justhowtoget thatout. I pulled j u s t straightaway
on thewrench; it didn I t line up thewaythestrapwas on it.
It tended to betwistedwhich didn t t let it slide f r e e l y . S o , I
had to gettwohands in there and pullinthe areawherethe
strap was and pullthe wrenchout, and it finallycameloose.
Thewrenchlookedlike it was in good shape, so I proceeded
to thetorquingoperation,whichconsistedoflooking at clockwise
operation at four different places around the clock and then r e -
verting to a counterclockwiseoperation.Thiswas on the
1/4 inch headbolt. I found that thesecondtime I torquedthe
wrench up to what I felt w a s a n e a r maximumlevel without
really straining myself;thiswas in thevicinity of 200 to 250 inch
pounds, the wrenchsnapped in somefashion. B u t when I
looked at the pointer, it w a s nolongerzeroed. It w a s sitting
at about thehalf-waypoint. I didn I t think it wasparticularly
meaningfultoevaluateanytorquenumbers that I was able to
read out f r o m thatpoint on. I triedto j u s t torque it aroundto
r e a c h about 180 degreesfromwhere I startedout. I figured
thatthat was a nearmaximumtorque. n

Thesecondtaskwas an evaluation of an electricalconnector.Three

electricalconnectorswere available in theadapterworkstation; a
starboard, a p o r t , and a centerconnector.Thestarboard and port
connectorswere attached b y a multi-strandcable. A centercon-
nectorseparatedthecable into twohalves and required a two handed
operation. T h e connection broke into units ofapproximately equal
lengths and diameter.Thetwosectionswere mated b y lining u p col-
oredindexmarks and p r e s s fittingthem intooneunit. A l e v e r on
the le& sectionwasthen manipulated totighten a n d lockthe unit. The
disconnectprocedurewasthereverse of theconnectionDperation.

Aldrincommented that thecenterconnectorwasslightlymoredifficult

to line u p thanthe others.Thiswas accentuated on waist tethers
whenrestrainedbythefootrestraints.Aldrinsuggested the useof
onlyoneindexmark paintedwith a light color to expeditethecon-
nection. It becamedifficulttodistinguish and matchthemulti-colored
indexmarks on theconnector in low lightconditions in space.Using
a light colorsuchaswhite, and onlyonemark identification would be
simplified.

Aldrin - n Thecenterconnector;therewas no particularproblem

in doing that. I had tounpacktheVelcro firstbefore I could
get it f r e e . It I s a two handed operation. With twohands and
a good restraint system there is no problem at all in lining s o m e -
thing u p , because you hold it right in frontofyou, both ends
wereloose.That kind of an operation is v e r ye a s y .P a r to f

70
"

that made it difficultwas that onceyou had them dined up, a n d

while t h e y w e r e stilllined up a n d you were pushing them to-
gether, you had to f i n d a f i n g e r s o m e w h e r e o r thumb that you
could start turning this docking device that only had one pin that
stood out on it. Theremaybeanotherway to do it. Maybe
you could just grab a hold of that part right there a n d p u s h it
into theotherone and turn it.Maybe I lve been doing thewhole
thinga little bit more difPicult than it shouldhavebeen.But if
that Is the case, then the index marks are useless, because in
grabbing ahold ofthething,you would cover up completelythe
indexmarks. We ought tobe able toatfordtoputmoreprongs
out there than just that one f o r thatkind of a task. You just
don'thooksomething upand then take your hand off a n d find out
where this thing is. 1'

Love11 - ''Do you think thefourprong, that w e had on there

originally wasbetter than theoneprong?"
Aldrin - " T h e r e i s n o doubt about it; fourarebetter,you don I t
have to pre-positionthelockingdevice.Youcan j u s t leave it
wherever it i s and youcanalwaysget ahold of one prong or the
other. I f oneofthemdoesn I t engagethe f i r s t timeyouturn it
around, you cancatchthenextone a s it comesaround.The
situation that comes up withtheone prong is thatyou position
it where youthink it is.going tobe okay, you p u t the twoto-
gether, and you- findthat you've gotto push it all the way around.
S o , now you've got tobring it back again and recenterthe
things. ' 1

A t theend of the centerconnectorevaluation,Aldrintookascheduled

r e s t .T h e timeinterval f o p the restperiod in thesimulation wastwo
minutes, in flightthe r e s t intervalwas 1 :35. Aldrin noted duringthis
seventh orbital restperiod thata crease in hisrightglovewasbegin-
ning to"givemy hand a little bit of a problem. 11 Hemadeno mention
of this problem later in theflight o r in hisdebriefing.

Thesecondsession of adapter worktasks beganwith an evaluation of

thecuttertool. I n hisdebriefingtheastronautdiscussedthis task and
itscomparison with previous training simulations.

Aldrin - 1' Thecutterswere painted black. It lookedlikeaheavy

coatof black paint.Therestrainingsystem on the cuttersworked
fairlywell. It takes a little extratimetoopen it up,putthe
f i n g e r s with your hand into it, a n d then tighten thestrapon top
ofit, but I thinkthat work is well worththeeffortbecause dur-
ing anysubsequentoperation with it you j u s t don't worry about
where that cutter is because it is sittingright there on yourhand.
T h e unlocking ofthecutterswas nottoo difficult. I thinkthat
strap that was on themwas a little bit toolong. Cutting the
wires. .... .I cut the medium one first a n d took a little bit more
e f f o r t with one hand than I thought it was going to, but onthe

71
 secondsqueeze it cut through without toomuchdifficulty. Then
I tookthesmaller s t r a n d and cut through thatquite easily the
first time.Then, I went to thefluid QD. I Id neverbeen able
tocutone of these before in training periodsbecausethecutters
wereeitherrustedfromunderwateroperations or w e w e r e maybe,
savingthis f o rs o m eo t h e rw o r k . I had tried it with training
cutters, bothone hand a n d twohand, and w a s unable toget
throughthewire. I tried that acouple of times and s a w it just
wasn I t going tomake it. S o , then I movedovera little bit in
thefootrestraints and gotboth handson it and squeezed hard and
it cut it in t w o .

I thinkthat thispoints out that this kind of a task would have

beenimpossible without a v e r y good restraintsystem. I think
thewaisttethers would have handledthat ifyou could havestayed
in position, if thework station was up high enough.Thetwo
footrestraints enabled me to get over there in good workingcon-
dition toget both handstosqueezeon it. *
T h e command pilot realized that theirflighttime line w a s falling behind
thewater simulationflight plan, a n d from this point on he attempted to
keepthe pilot on schedule.Thewater simulation cuttertasklasted
3 :25. Aldrin used 3 :29 f o r this same task in flight.

T h e astronautstowedthecutters and began an evaluationoftheadapter

work station pippins and portablehandholds. I n thewatersimulation,
Aldrinspentonly 48 seconds on thisevaluation.He notedthat the
portable handhold Velcro did not s e e m tobe 11 holding up in thewater
mode, and hefelt that thiswasthereasonthetorque load capability
of these handholds was l o w . Hissubsequent orbitalevaluation showed,
h o w e v e r , that thewater simulation had ,been quite accurate in depicting
thetorquecapability of theportablehandholds.Aldrintook 2 : 04 to
evaluatethis task in flight

Aldrin - 1 1 T h e pip pins came out without any problems and

stowed in thestarfittings, and I positionedthem so that t h e y
wouldn I t get in the way of any torquing operation or theleft
hand disconnect.Handholdswererepositioned so that t h e yw e r e
in aslightlybetter location a s f a r a s not interferring with the
waisttetherhookup.TheVelcro ontheportablehandholdsgave
a v e r y s h a k y handhold really. I didn I t getachancetofully
evahate the handholds a s f a r a s howmuchtorqueyou could put
on thembackthere, but it w a s n l tv e r yi m p r e s s i v e at dl. I
think you Id be better off grabbing hold of just aboutanything you
know is s e c u r e . It m a y notbe a s good a handhold as thepor-
table onesare.Ofcourse, if youhave nothing on aflatsurface the,
youhavetoputsomethingon, but that Velcro j u s t didnltappearto
beadequate at all to go into that kind of an operation. 11

I n orbit,AldrinbegantheSaturn bolt task with a 1 :49 evaluation in

thefootrestraints.Thetaskconsisted of removing and replacinga

72
bolt mounted in thelowercenteroftheadapterworkstation.Aldrin
attached his waist tethers a n d r e m o v e d h i s f e e t f r o m the foot restrainh
after determining that bolt removal was extremely easy when usingthe
footrestraints.Aldrinspent 1 :5O removingthe bolt f r o m its r e c e p -
tacleusingwaisttetherrestraints.Therubberretainerstrapdesigned
tocapturethe bolt when it was removed did not function as was ex-
pected.Aldrindescribesthistask and theproblems involved in his
d e briefing.
Aldrin - 1 f . I tookthewrench off theVelcro and startedworking
on the Saturn bolts; torqued it out to about a haE w a y position
where it waa obvious that it was fairly easy to work from that
pointon. As in training, I found that in tryingtorachet it
backtothe f r e e wheelingposition it alsotendedtoturnthe bolt
back in again. S o , I had to p u t a sideforce onthe boltand
wrench duringthisoperation and enoughfriction in the bolt a n d
its threads so that it would overcometherachetfriction so that
I wouldn I t lose everything I had gained in the previous stroke.
m e n I gotto thispoint, I decided,well, I l l 1 take it out the
r e s t of the w a y with m yf i n g e r s . I said,well, it lookslikethis
operation will be fairly simple so I Ill stop at this point and stow
thewrench and do the restof it in thewaisttether. I hooked
up thewaisttether to the lower attach points and took m y f e e t
out of the foot restraints, tightened up thewaisttether to 3 to
4 inches from fullextension.Thewaisttether attach pointsrelq-
tivetotheSaturn bolt operation is farfromoptimum.The waist
t e t h e r sa r ef a r too close.Theright waist tethergets in theway
of the wrench a s it Is turned a n d theleftone is j u s t too f a r up
to get a good spread type of stability for anydifferentialbody
torques that youneed. B u t weknew that right f r o m thebegin-
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 away and started taking the boltout
with m y f i n g e r s , twisting it out, and I discovered that the r e -
taining washer that had been p u t on there attachedtothe rubber,
wasn I t coming out with the bolt. It was stayingattachedto the
protrusion in whichthe bolt wasscrewed into. S o , I gotthe
bolt all the way out and was holding it in m y right hand and then
with m y left hand I triedtoloosentherubberbecausethiswhole
arrangementwascovering up theother holethat I wassupposed
toputthe bolt backinto. S o b y pulling away at therubber it
finallycame loose. Thereason that it w a ss t u c kI t m s u r e again
w a s the heat problem melting a little bit oftherubberagainstthe
metal.

T h e ditficultyencountered with theretainerringcausedAldrintouse

both hands in removingthebolt.Theuse of twohands,closetothe
body, is sometimes a difficult task in the G-4C spacesuit.Theastra-
nautnotedthat thisparticularoperation wastiring,and, at thispoint,
he interrupted the Saturn bolt evaluation and took a 1 :04 rest period.
Followingthis eighthorbital rest period, Aldrin continued his Saturn
bolt evaluation f o r 3 : O l . Duringthisperiod,hereplacedthe bolt in
its receptacle, commentingthatthe # S a t u r n bolt workspace is w a y
tooclosetothewaisttethers. 'I

73
 Aldriq - I f T h e n I started trying to position the
and it didn I t wantto d i n e p r o p e r l y .
bolt to get it in
I was usingthelefthand-
hold, I think,tryingtoline it up. I startedtwisting,tryingto
very gently line it up so that it w a s lined up perpendicular to the
hole. I twisted it, tryingtoengage it, however,thistook,per-
h a p s , f o u r o r five attempts before I finally got the threads to
engage. I tightened it up with m y f i n g e r s to about thehalf way
point and picked up the wrench and changedthesettingonthe
wrench and started torquing it up again. A n d again I found
that I w a s unracheting about everything I was putting in trying
to tighten it up so I had to u s e that techniqueofeither holding
thesocket with m y lefthand, so that it didnttundo what I w a s
tightening up, or toputatwist on the bolt creating a torque
againstthethreads, while I was in the recovery position f r o m
the tightening operation, It finally tightened all theway up and
got it to a reasonable high torque level and then we forgot about
that operation.

I n thewater simulation timeline,Aldrin did not take a rest period

duringthe S a t u r n boltevaluation. After a 1 :43 evaluation ofthe bolt
usingthefootrestraints,Aldrin attached hiswaisttethers and spent
6:47 removing a n d replacingthe bolt. It is interesting that thesame
difficultywasencountered in the simulationwith therubberretainer
strap.The pilot commented that heIfbroketheretainerstrap II d u r -
ing thelooseningoperation.

T h e next scheduled task was an evaluation ofthe proper size hook

and ringstobeusedforsemi-permanentequipmentretention.The
hosk a n d ringevaluationtook 3:23 in space and lasted 3:20 in the w a -
ter qimulation. Inhisdebriefingthe pilot describesthe details ofthis
orbitalevaluation. E x c e p tf o r smallvariation in thehardwarethesimu-
lation task was essentially the same.

Aldrin - IrWe went into thehook and ringconnection and this

operation was quite similar to theunderwateroperation. I think
underwaterthehook and the ring both, of course, don I t float
asthey do in space. I tookthe big hook a n d hooked it tothe
big ring a n d the little hooktothe little ring a n d thenamodest
combination of hooking them all together. I could s e e that the
rings were bigger in this flightitemthan t h e y w e r e in thetrain-
ing item and I wasn I t goingto be successful at all in getting the
big hookaroundthe big and little ring a n d littlehook alsoaround
the big and little ringbecausethe littlehook was toosmalltoput
both rings in. S o I let it go. I actuallydecided at thatpoint
todisconnecteverything and hook it back up tothe original place.
T h e operation would haveundoubtedlybeensimpler in thefoot
restraints.But again it was a two handedoperation and you had
restraints - grossrestraints - with thewaisttethers.Youwereq 't
concerned about where the body was going a n d asexpected,the
body just had a tendency to rise up a s you started doing an oper-
ation with your hands, positioning thewaisttether attach points

74
 down f r o m w h e r et h e yw e r e attached t p yourbody.Thenyou
just had a natural tendency to d r i f t to a place where the lines- and
thewaisttether attachpoint to your waist to structure was in a
downward direction to. your body. "
N d r i n w ~ asked
s whetherthe big rings were better thanthesmall
ringp .
Aldrin - ? I I think the big d z e r e n e e is not the size of the ring
a8 much as it is the big ringhastherigidbar attached to it e--
abling youtogetyour hand a w a y f r o m the ping a n d hold it. with.
the little ring you pve got to get your fingers right on top of it to
k e e p it f r o m flipping back and forth. I think w e can deal with
little hooks about a s well a s big hooks.

After completion of thehook and ringevaluation in thewatersimulation,

Aldrin took a 2 minute rest period on waist tether restraints only.
Thiswasthepilot's'seventhwater simulation rest. I n flight,Aldrin
began his ninth rest period immediately following the hook and ring
evaluation. Theperiodlasted 1 :3l. Duringthistime,the pilot and
cQmmand pilot reviewed their check list for the subsequent task pro-
cedures.

T h e finalgroupof orbital adapter work tasks includedthe velcro strip

and electricalconnectorevaluations.The orbital Velcrostripevalu-
ation lasted 36 seconds.Aldrinusedthistask to evaluatetheoverall
work stationpositionwith respect tothefootrestraints, a n d also to
comparethevarioussimulations in termsoftaskdifficulty.

Aldrin - t?Pulling theVelcrostripsdown in one g takes a con-

siderablestretch.Inthe airplane it 1s convenientto d o and un-
der thewater it isfairlyconvenient. It was a se a s y to do in
z e r o g a s it w a s in both ofthetrainingsituations,water and the
airplane. S o , thatkind of aheight is accessible from thefoot
restraints. It is not onewhereyou Id liketo d o a lot ofeffort.
As I recall, I workedacrosstheVelcrostripsfrom left to
right a n d did them all with the left hand exceptthelastone on
therightwhichwasthe big Velcrostrip.

Command Pilot Love11 notedthat the orbital time line was?Ifourmin-

utes behind schedule t? at the beginning oftheVelcrostripevaluation.
The Velcro strip evaluationtook 30 seconds in the Simulation.

In Figure 5-28, Aldrin is s e e n during an evaluation of thecenter

electricalconnector.Theadapterwork stationcontained threeelec-
tricalconnectors.The??starboard t ? connectorwas notavailable for
thepreflightwaterimmersionsimulation.AstronautAldrinusedthe
fluid cpnnector,also ontherightsideofthework station panel,to
simulateoperationoftheItstarboard I? electricalconnector.Comment@
f r a m A l d r i n I s orbital E V A indicatethat he had no difti'culty whatsoever
with thettstarboardconnector whilein thefootrestraints or onthe
waisttetherB.Table XLT summarizestheperformanceoftheelectrical

75
. " _" ._

connector evaluation and detailsthetime intervals for the flight. a n d

hater simulation .
Connector evaluationw.as performed with tethers Qnly,

Aldrin, describes the overall connector task in his debriefing.

Aldrin - Thecenterconnectorwas a good bit moredifficult
'this timethan it w a s in thefootrestraints.Mybodytendedto
rise up a little bit. Again I think it wasmore a problemofthe
bar that was onthelocking device. T h e left connector in the
waisttetherconfiguration is a dzicult connector to make be-
causetheonlyplaceyoucan hold onwith theright hand is a
good waysawayfromtheconnector that yourremaking.The
waisttetherscannotgiveyouenoughstabilitytoline up thecon-
nector perpendicular to the surface and at the same time let you
play with the finger operation to get the locking bar into position
so that youcantwist it in.Thisrequirespushing againstthe
s u r f a c e .N o w it maybe that 3 youreally take pains and cinch
up the tethers fairly tight with thisspecialoperation that this could
be done in an easierfashion.The big point tomakehere is
that two handedoperations,whereyoucan hold on tobothend4
oftheconnectors a n d thenlinethem up right in front of you, are
simplerto dothan just aone handed operationwheretheother
surface is f i x e d and younowhavetopositionyourwholebody
a n d everything with r e s p e c t tothesurface.Anotherfactor that
I think had a bearing on this is that I Im righthanded and this
w a s a l& handedconnection. I thinkthat tendedtomake it a
little bit moredifficult. I would h a v e f a r p r e f e r r e d tohave done
thatwith therighthand. I snuck inaquickevaluation of the
right hand connectorbecausewe didnrthave thaton the check-
list a n d it is a fairlyeasyconnectortomake.We had them up
in thenose, and I wanted tocomparethat.Thisairlockcon-
nector ontherightside is a very neat connector, quite e a s y t o
hook and toconnect and disconnect. Itrs aright handed opera-
tion. It )s astraighttwisttodisconnect a n d fairly small force-
inward force-required to get it lined upand thealinement m a r k s
aresimple.There is noprepositioningofthebarrequired.
T h e alinementtoengagethe pins seemed to take care of itselE.
The only thing youhaveto do is positiontheconnector in the
right place and twist and p u s h in at the same time and just keep
doing it and you Ire bound to line them up.

Upon completionoftheadapter work task in flight,PilotAldrinbegan

hiswork station cleanup.Thiscleanuptasklasted 2:14, during
whichtimeAldrin retrieved hiswork station camera,retrievedhis
portablehandholds and madea quickevaluation oftheonefoot re-
straintconfiguration. It was at thistimethattheastronautdiscovered
the faultywork station camera.Aldrindescribeshis actions in the
debriefing.

Aldrin -
?'I hookedthewaisttetherstotheportablehandholds,
slappedthemonthechestpack and t h e y held fairlywell. I took

76
 onefoot out ofthefootrestraint,movedarounda little bit, and
thenwenttopicking up thecamera. I found that thecamera
wasn I t going tocome ofE, veryeasily.Incidentally,a little
earlier in theoperationswhen I discovered the camera wasn I t
working,duringthe rest period I decidedtogoeyeballto eye-
ball to the lens to see if I could s e e it clicking and I couldn I t .
S o , I thought,well, I haven I t s e e n it gobefore in training, so
just to make sure that it is operating, I put m y hand on it and
couldn I t feel anythingmoving at all. This is fairly early in the
operations. S o I askedJimtochecktheswitchestosee iE they
wereon. I hit the buttonagain, whichshouldhavestopped it,
a n d I checked it again and it wasn'tworking. S o werecycled
the procedure. I checkedtheplugs and at that time I gotthe
definite impression that thecamerawaswarm. I wasfeeling
thisthroughthegloves and there is no doubt that I had the sen-
gation ofheat goinginto m y g l o v e s f r o m thecamera. I couldn It
tellwhetherthiswasduetothecameraoperation and slipping,
just notengagingthe mechanism,orwhether it w a s d u e tothe
sun.Thischeckwas done beforesunset.. .
I wastryingto do this(cameraremoval) initiallywith onefoot
a n d when I had a little difficulty, I thought,well g e e , let I s s e e
how getting theproblemdone with onefootis going tobe. So,
I spenta little timetrying to do it and decidedthatthe best idea
w a s to put both feet back in again and go back after the task.
Finally, b y againsticking m y f i n g e r s into the latching mechanism,
I w a s able todislodge itand eventually to break it f r e e . I theq
pot theplugundone and attachment on. I attached it to the
ELSS.

Aldrincommentedonsuit heating d e c t s while in theadapterarea.

Aldrin - ItJust beforesunset also, I might add,thespacecraft

was held inertial and thesun orientation was such that a s it was
setting it was shining directly into m y buttocksregion.Theco-
vering on thesuit,ofcourse,coveredthezipperdownto a
fairly low pointin m y b a c k , but below that I could f e e l adefinite
warmth along thezipperline, in thecrotcharea. As I nestled
downagainstthesuit,justtocheck and seehowwarm it w a s ,
I could f e e l very localizedheat and it was obviously coming from
themetalzipper. It wasn I t objectionable. I didn f t noticeany
totalheating resultingfromthis.Therewasnowork that r e -
quisedyour, bodytobepositioned in thesuit s u c h that you were
f o r c e d againstthis f o r a n y amount oftime. It tendstoconfirm
the results that w e had from Gemini XI: that when those zippers
areexposedtoheat it absorbs a tremendous amountof solar
radiation and transmits it directlyto you.

Fsllowingtheadapterwork stationcleanup t a s k s , Pilot Aldrinmoved

out of the foot restraints and moved back to the spacecraft hatch.
Thismovementtasktook 31 seconds in flight.Figure 5-19 depicts
bhc pilot ' E position a s h e Itrounded t' the adapter pigtail.

77

I
 Aldrin - "I clipped the umbilical and stood b y tomaneuvera-
roundtothefront.Wewentthroughthenecessarystepstoturn
the camera off. I don I t recallfeeling atall tired at thispoint.
N o rw a s I warm.Thesuncame up and therewas nothing that
promptedmeto think in t e r m s o f changingtheflowsetting. I
just left it where it was and startedmaneuveringaround. I got
m y feet out of the foot restraints and camearoundtheedge and
just before comingaroundtheedgeunhookedtheumbilical from
thepigtail. T h i sw a s nominal. I got it free f r o m thearea and
incomingaround there was aslight t e n d e n c y f o r m y headto
d r i f t towardtheedge.Again I usedthe pigtail totorque m y
body down a littlebit.

I n the water simulation, Aldrin rested f o r 3 : l O immediately after his

work station cleanup.Thiswasthe ninth rest period in thesimula-
tion r u n , and wasfollowedbyan attempt to securetheportablehand-
holdstothe ELSS. I n thesimulation,this rest period and thesub-
sequent restraint evaluation task. were prolonged to ??eat up time ? ?
because the command pilot felt that t h e y w e r e ahead of their flight plan
schedule.Theseprolongedrest and restraint-periodswerefollowed
immediately b y a movementtothespacecrafthatch,whichrequired
64 seconds.
At thehatch area,Aldrinstowedthework station camera and acti-
vated theretroadaptercamera.Inorbitthistasktook 2:34. I n
the simulation the sametasktook 2 :33. T h e timevariationcanbe
attributed tothefact that the work station camera stowage was partially:
simulated in thewatermode.Aldrinrestedfor 4 5 seconds at this
point in thesimulation.Thiswasthetenthrestperiod in .thesimula-
tion.Immediatelyfollowingthecameratask in flight,Aldrinmoved
f o r w a r df r o m thehatchtotheAgenaworkstation. At thispoint in
theflight,film is againavailable forcomparison.In orbitthemove-
menttook 1 : l 4 . I n the simulation the samemovement took 1 :O5.

T D A WorkStationTasks - I n bothorbital and watersimulation,

Aldrinbeganhis TDA work tasks withan initial placementofthepip
pins and portablehandholdscarriedonhischestpackfromtheadapter.
I n thewatersimulation,Aldrinspent 2 : l O onthis initial placement
task.Hethen rested f o r ascheduled 2 minutes. I n his orbital E V A ,
A l d r i ns p e n t2 : l 3 onbasicallythesameplacementtask. A t the e n d
ofthistime,the pilot requested a rest period.He rested 3 : 07. T h i s
was Aldrin )s tenth orbital rest period.

It should be notedthat this was one of the few times Aldrin requested
a rest period.Usingtheonboardvoicerecordingas anindication,a
note oftrtiredness ? I wasdetectedasAldrin reque'stedthis rest. It
qppears that skbping the rest periods at the spacecraft hatch area
prQved unwise, and thecumulativeeffectofmovement,cameraplace-
ment a n d anothermovement caught up with the pilot as he began his
first T D A w o r k task. Subsequent biomedical analysis tendstosub-
etantiatethiq. Variation in thetaskprocedurebetweenthe orbital an#
simulationmode@ could also partiallyexplainthemarkedseparation be-
tween the work load rates during this final phase of the umbilical E V A .
78
 T h e pilot began his eleventh orbital rest period immediately after this
second T D Aw o r k station task,Group B. This orbital rest lasted
1 :54. F r o m theonboardvoicetranscript it appears that Aldrin did
not really rest duringthisperiod, but wasworking onthe TDA work
station. I n thesimulation, Aldrin Is final rest periodfollowedthe TDA
work task and lasted 1 :55. This was the pilot I s twelfth rest period
in thesimulation.

T h e final T D A w o r k station taskgroup(Group C ) in spacevaried

slightly fromthose in thewatersimulation. H e r e again,the simulation
trainingallowed theastronauttostreamlinehis orbital task and make
themostofeachevaluation.Thevariationbetweentheflight and simu-
lated performanceofthistaskgroupreflectthisadvantage. In the
simulation, Aldrin moved aft f r o m the Agena to the spacecrd hatch
followingthe TDAworktask.Thismovement took 1 :04.Aldrinre-
trieved the retro adapter camera and handed it into thecommandpilot,
making useoftheportablehandrail.Healso handed in theApollo
torquewrenoh,whichhe had r e t r i e v e d f r o m t h e T D A w o r k station.
T h i s took 2 :40, after which Aldrin ingressed the epacecraft and stood
erect in thecockpit. Ingressrequired 27 seconds.Aldrinproceeded
immediatelytodetach and jettisontheportablehandrail (28 s e c o n d s ) .

T h e finaltask in the simulation was hatch closurepreparationlasting

29 seconds.DuringthistimeAldrincheckedthehatchseal f o rd e -
b r i s , deployedthehatch hoiding device, and positioned and recovered
his umbilical. Of thesethreefinalsubtasks,onlythe umbilical r e c o v -
e r y was actually p e r f o r m e d .

Duringthe orbitalumbilical E V A , Aldrinwasaskedtoobservethe

left hand spacecrdt thruster system at theendofhislast TDA work
station taskgroup.Aldrinmadethisobservation whilecompleting his
work stationcleanup t a s k .T h e entiretasktook 41 seconds.
Followingthecleanup t a s k , Aldrinmovedfromthe T D A to thespace-
crafthatch.Thismovementtook 51 s e c o n d s .T h e pilot stopped on
theportablehandrail and performedthe optical surface evaluation. This
evaluation wasperformed at 4 :55 ( E T ) in thewatersimulation.Aldrip
spent 55 seconds attempting tocleanthecommand pilot I s hatchwindow.
Aldrindescribesthis operation in hisdebriefing.

Aldrin - I t I wiped off the windowon Jimtsside.Thehandker-

chiefcame out quite easily.Therewasn I t anyparticularten-
dencytohave it floataway.This is obviouslyaone-handed
operation. I held onto thehandrail againwithan arm and a
hand. I n otherwords,thearmwasalong-sideof it. and then
somehow I used my feet againstthehandrailbecause it went
back along thespacecra&.Thisgavemeenough actionwith an
elbowagainsttheside of thespacecraft, so that I could p u s h
againstthewindowfairlywell and w a s in a good position to rub.
I could s e e that I was obviously rubbing the film off the surface.
I g u e s s I got it o f f , e x c e p t f o r that one square thatheatedup. *

79
Ingress required 1 :24 in flight.Aldrinperformed a visualthru8ter
checkouttaek, and thenjettisonedtheportablehandrail.Handrail
jettison required 44 seconds.

Aldrin Is final tasks p r i o r to hatch closure were the same as in the

water simulation. T h e pilot recovered and positionedthe umbilical in
the hatch a r e a , deployedthehatchclosing device and checkedthe
hatch s e a l f o r d e b r i s . H e commented that the seal wasclearexcept
f o r s o m e f l e c k s of d u s t . Preparationforhatchclosurerequired 1 :O5.

Thepreflightwaterimmersion simulation of theGemini XZ umbilical

E V A established a target flight plan for the actud orbital E V A mis-
sion.The simulation w a s notintended toestablishadefinitivetime
interval f o r individual t a s k s .T h e resulting orbital v e r s u s simulation
t a s k s ,t h e r e f o r e , varied in timeduration.Figure 5-20 is a task time
comparisonofthe orbital a n d water simulation modes. It canbe s e e n
f r o m this comparison that in the early portion of the E V A most orbital
taskswerelonger thanthe simulation mode.Towardthe end of the
flight,thetimelinesbecamemoreconsistent but deviations of thetasks
w e r e still apparent.

Theastronaut'snaturaltendencies to proceed with caution in a n e w

environment could easily explainthe increased time for the orbital
t a s k s .I n hiswatersimulation,the pilot had practicedthetasksmany
times and thisenvironmentduring his finalpreflight simulation was more
familiar.Certainoftheprdlightwater simulation taskswerelonger
thanthe orbital m o d e .I nt h e s et a s k s ,s u c ha s thework station p r e -
paration and positioning tasks, Aldrin spent extra time evaluating the
bestpossiblemodeoftaskperformance.Hisobjectivewax to stream-
line these tasks so that he could spendmoretimeontheimportant
taskevaluations in flight.The total timeline in spacewasonly slightly
longer than the water simulationflight plan.

Figure 5-21 p r e s e n t s a s u m m a r y of the comparison of the time inter-

vals for the mq'or task categories of orbital and water simulation modes.
It is interestingtonotetheextremelyclosecomparison f o r thework
station t a s k s .T h e r ew a s arelativelylargedifferencebetweenthe
orbital and simulation modesfortheexperimentsupportcategory.Ab-
sence of high fidelity hardware in the simulation forced the astronaut to
rrfake orcompletely omit certainpartsofthesetasks.Thisgreatly
reduced this simulationtime interval.

S i n c e oneoftheprimeobjectives of theGemini XU umbilical E V A was

toevaluaterestraintmodes, it i s significantthat Aldrinspentmore time
inorbitthan in the simulation on the positioning and restraintcategory.
Camera placement and retrieval tasks were basically the same in space
as theywereunderwater.The timedeviation resultedfromthemech-
anical difficulty with the work station camera during the orbitad mission.
Aldrinusedextratime on thistask attempting to correct the mafiunction
in s p a c e . I n the simulation he noted asimilarproblem but continued on
with thetimeline.

80
 T h e closeagreementbetweentheflight a n d simulation for movement
t a s k s is alsoimportant.This data tendstosubstantiatesubjectiveob-
servations and measurements that motion in space and watersimula-
tion are closely related but are indeed s l o w e r thanmotionssimulated
in the zerogravityaircraft.Comparisonofthe rest periodsshows
the total orbital rests tobelongerthanthe rest periods in the simu-
lation, even though there were a greater number of rest periods in the
watersimulation.Althoughtheflight rest periodswerelonger,they
weremoreunevenlyspaced throughoutthemission. A t the beginning
oftheflight E V A thereappearedtobetoomany rests. T o w a r d s the
endofthemission, it appears that more rests could havebeenused.

5.3 - W O R K L O A D C O M P A R I S O N - Theperformanceofthe
Gemini Ix and X E V A emphasizedthequestionoftheexactdetermi-
nation ofthe efEects ofweightlessness on -humanperformance. Life
supportequipmentdesigned f o r theGeminimissionshad, f o r themost
part,performedaccordingtodesignspecifications.However, it
appeared that thesedesignspecifications did not adequatelyencompass
therangeoftheGemini E V A taskcomplement.Thecloseapproxi-
mation ofwaterimmersion simulation tothekinematicaspectsofthe
Gemini =-XE V A supported the premise that extensionofthesimu-
lation tomeasurementsofcertainphysiologicparameters would be
warranted .
The work load measurementtechniquesevolved along with thesimula-
tion techniques,starting with the initial preflight simulation runof the
GT-XU E V A . T h e initial instrumentation system utilizedthe Gemini
biomedical harness and s e n s o r s . RF interferenceprecludedtheuse
ofthissystem a n d the ultimate techniqueemployedthebiomedicalhar-
n e s s developed f o r the Apodlo program.Thissystemwas utilized
successfully throughout the subsequent simulation program and the r e -
sultspresented. A functional flowdiagramfortheinstrumentation
s y s t e m was shown in Figure 2-1. Hardwiresensinglineswererun
throughamodified dual-umbilical line,whichservedamultipurpose
function : (1) airintake and exhaust, ( 2 ) instrumentation, and ( 3 )
t w o - w a y communications.
Table XTm detailsthecomponentsofthefinalversionoftheinstrumen-
tation systemused duringthesimulation.Physiologicalvariablesmoni-
toredwerebodytemperature,respirationrate, and E K G . Informatioq
pertinenttothesuit inlet flow and sampled gas measurements were made
onadiscontinuousbasis in tabular form.Measurementsweremade
of .heart rate, respiratory rate, body tempergture, suit carbon dioxide
and oxygen concentration.

81
Breathing quality air (water pumped) was suppliedtothe G4C full
p r e s s u r e suit st 8-10 d m at a p r e s s u r e of 3.7-4.0 p s i above the am-
bient pressurerelativetothe depth at whichthesubjectwasworking.
T h i s p r e s s u r e gradient w a s controlled by means of the suit-mounted
relief valves describedpreviously.Theoxygenconcentration in the
exhaust gas was determined by a B e c k m a n E - 2 oxygenmeter with the
B e c k m a n model D-1 servingas an auxiliarymonitoringbackup.Cas-
bondioxideconcentration in the exhaust gas was primarily determined
with a Perkin-Elmeranalyzer(Apollosystem) with a Liston-Becker
meterserving a monitoring backupfunction.Respirationratewas de-
terminedfrom theoutput of an impedancepneumograph. EKGread-
ingswere accumulatedusing skin mounted electrodes.Bodytemperature
was measured by means of an ear thermocouple f o r theastronaut and
b y a rectalthermistorprobeforthe E R A subject.Biomedicalmea-
surementsweremadeunderthedirection of D r . E . L. B e c k m a n ,
M S C , with supportofCdm. L. J. Greenbaum, M S C , NMRI.
Initially, metabolic rateswere calculated by thedeWeirtechnique.
Later,estimatesofthe metabolic load w e r e m a d e b y m e a n s o f p r e -
flight ergometric-heartratecorrelations.Theselaterdeterminations
proved more useful for simulation-space performance comparison.
Particular attention wascentered on determiningtheeffectivenessof
the rest periodsinterspersed throughoutthetimeline. Also, a deter-
mination oftheproduction and accumulationofcarbon dioxidein the
full pressure suit w a s made since there was some evidence that this
mayhavebeenthe limiting factor on theGemini X. T o a s s e s s this
factor,air with 5.0% carbondioxideconcentration wasmeteredtothe
E R A subjectduringone of the checkout runs for a short period a n d
appropriatemeasurementsweremade.

T h e main purpose of the physiological measurements duringthesimu-

lation w a s todevelop a biomedicalbaselineofsufiicientcredibilityto
permit real-time monitoring of theastronaut ts flight p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e s e
data were used to establish a heart rate limit f o r the flight performance.
T h e limit established corresponded to a work load of 2500 B T U / H R
for slowdown and approximately 3000 B T U / H R for cessation of w o r k .

Concommitant with thedevelopmentofthesephysiologicguidelines, it

appeared that signiEicant benefits could be d e r i v e d f r o m thecomparison
of thepreflightbiomedical data withthataccumulatedduringtheflight.
It wasrecognized that directcomparisons would bedifficultsincelast
minute changestothe flight plan and flightcontingencies could arise
which would SigniEicantly alter both theduration and sequentialordering
ofthe E V A tasks.Thesechangesprovedtobe of a minornature
and, for the most part, the time line resulting from the find preflight
water immersion simulation run was followed duringtheflight.

T h e N A S A primarily utilized the physiological information from the

simulation f o r c r e w monitoring p u r p o s e s and toevaluatepostflight r e -
s p o n s e s .T h e followinginstrumentation wasusedduring umbilical
E V A: oneelectrocardiagramlead,onerespirationratelead, and one
lead for suit pressure.Inthelaterflights, =-XU, the pilotmonitored
his own suit pressure and thismeasurewasdeleted.
82
Figure 5-22 presents the results of the measurement of physiological
p a r a m e t e r s of theGemini XU E V A . 4 s mentisnedpreviously,prob-
l e m s developed as the E V A task line becamemorecomplex.Results
f r o m G T - X I indicatedthat excessive thermal loads due to the function-
ingofthe ELSS and carbon dioxidebuildup dueto high respiration
ratesmayhavecompromisedtheperformance.Direct determination
of these factors was not possible for the flight since data on thermal
conditions a n d carbon dioxide levelwas not collected. A l s o , nodirect
mearsurementofmetabolic load was made.

In theabsenceof direct calorimetricmeasurements,the N A S A relied

onextrapolation of the preflight a n d postflight ergometric measurements
ofthepilottoestimateworkload levels. Recognizingthefactors in-
volved, the feasibility of using heart rate as the primary indicator of
work load wasinvestigated.Physiologic,psychological,aswellas
pathological f a c t o r s , p l a y an important role in determiningthe r e s p o n s e
oftheheartrate to variousworkloads and w o r kr a t e s .S e v e r a l
factors mitigate theseconsiderations ( 1 ) thespecificwork load deter-
mination did not require generalization from a small sample population
toalargesamplepopulation, in fact,apreflight a n d postflightcalibra-
tion w a s done f o r e a c h pilot, ( 2 ) theheartrateparameterwasone
of the two existing for the measurement, the second parameter, res-
piration rate-energycorrelationwasconsidered but rejected d u e to
voluntarycontrol f a c t o r s and equilibrium responseconsiderations.

Heart rate-work load correlationsweredetermined f o r e a c h E V A pi-

lot b y bicycleergometry.Duringthese tests, theastronautperformed
ameasured amount of work onabicycleergometer at normal pressurg
and temperature. Pressure suitswere not wornduringthese tests.
Thework load wasincrementallyincreased, (+16) watt f o r e a c h one
minute increment and heartrate,respirationrate, blood p r e s s u r e w a s
measured on acontinuous basis.Samplesofexpiredgaswere peri-
odicallycollected forsubsequentanalysis.Figure 5-23 p r e s e n t s the
results of thepreflightergometry tests. The data f r o mt h e s et e s t s
wereconverted to theoxygen utilization curvesgiven in Figure 5-24.

T w o methodswereemployed to determinethework load of the GT-XU

task lineduringthe waterimmersionsimulation;thedeV.Weirmethod,
and heartrate-work load correlationusingthepreflightergometry. In
the d e V . Weirmethod,work load is determinedbymeasuringthe per-
centageofoxygen in theexpiredair and determiningtherespiratory
quotient ( R Q ) . I n direct calorimetry, utilizing open loop respiratory
gasanalysis,e.g.,theDouglas-Haldanetechnique,theenergy output
is most simply determined as the product of the volume of expired gas
b y thecaloric value oftheexpiredgas.Generally,formula ( 2 ) can
be used to determine the metabolic output E -kg. cal.

(1) E = 3.941 + 1.1 R Q

J. d e V . Weirhasproposeda modification ofthe above to account f o r
the precise O2 metabolizing mechanisminvolved. T h e d e V . Weir

83
form w a s used duringthisexperiment and is given in equation (2),
using a standard prdein correction (12-112%).

(2) C E = (3.941 Vo + (1.106) V . - (protein

correction)
2 c02
Since one liter of expired aircontains 0 / 2 00 liters of oxygen, where
0 is theoxygenconcentration,the (V e) oxygenconsumed is given
b? (3). O2
(3) vo = + (1 - (RQ))vo ] O./IOO - o e / l o o
1
2 2

Oi = oxygenconcentration in theinspiredair

T h e r e f o r e , equation (3) maybegivenby (4).

Combiningequation ( 2 ) and (4)

F i g u r e s 5-25 a n d 5-26 present the results of the work load determina-

tion b y thistechnique, of the simulation r u n s b y theastronaut, Col. E .
Aldrin.Table Xrmr summarizestheresultsof thedetermination of the
work rates for Aldrin Is simulation run.Figure 5-27 and 5-28 and
Table x7x present comparative data f r o m the simulation r u n s p e r f o r m e d
b y the E R A subject, including theeffectof altered carbon dioxide con-
centrations.

While the most consistent indicator of stress response proved to be

respiratoryfrequency,whencomparedtothecaloricchanges computed
b y the deV.Weirtechnique,thereappearedtobeagreatdisparity
betweenthe actual levelofactivity and work load computed in thisman-
ner. It canbe s e e n in Table xc/sm that theoxygen utilizationmethod
indicates that maximum work levels occurred at periodsoflowactivity
( r e s t ) while periods involving maximumsuit-flexure and f o r c e output
yieldedlowworklevels.

Thedisparitybetweenthe calculated workload,bodytemperature, and

expired C02 concentration wasevengreater.These,however,can
bereadilyexplained.Thebodytemperaturewasmeasured at one
pointonly(rectally f o r the E R A eubject,externally behind the e a r for
theastronaut). N o reliablemeasureof metabolic activityhasbeenob-
tained so f a r using single point temperature measurements since the
relationshipofthetimeresponse of temperaturetowork load increases
isr exceedinglycomplex. CO measurement duringthe
2 sirnulation proved
unreliablesincemeasurementtookplace at theexitoftheexhaustline.

84
N o effective determination of thesystemtimeconstants could bemade
due to thevariability of the system and since absolutecontrol of water
leakage in the s y s t e m could not be controlled ( C O is readilyabsorbed
in water).Thiswasdue, in p a r t , to theunavaizbility of thespace
suit until close proximity to the test.

Further,therewasnocomparativemeasurement of work load in space.

In theabsenceof'directmeasurement of metabolic load in space, the
N A S A placedmaximumrelianceonelectrocardiagram and impedance
pneumogrammeasurements of theastronautduringthe EVA. Severe
limitations wererecognized in theuse of thisinformation a s mentioned
previqusly. NASA indicatedthat the accuracy of these datashouldin-
c r e a s e with increasedoxygen utilization, and sincethearea of consid-
eration w a s at high relativeworkloads,anyerrors would tend to
elevatetheheartrate f o r agivencondition.This would yield amar-
gin of safety when using the heart rate-ergometry correlations for a
slowdowq cnd stopindicatoz.

Data frompreflight altitude chamber runs, correlations from results of

previousflights, and the initial results of theunderwatersimulations
s e r v e d to derivea quantitative measureoftheworkexpenditure.
N A S A concludedthatthe use of heartrate and respirationrate data
supportedbycontinuousonboardvoicecontactproved to be an e x -
tremely important and reliable method f o r r e d - t i m e monitoring of the
c r e w activityparticularlywhen coupled with a completeknowledgeof
thetasksinvolved.

Usingtheforegoingasabasis forcomparison,Figure 5-29 wasde-

velopedwhichdetailsthecumulative work load of thetime line f o r the
flight and simulation. Thisrelationship was derived b y developing an
expression for therelationshipbetweenheartrate and work load f r o m
thepreflightergometryforthepilot.Thefigurewasdevelopedby
usingthisrelationship and the heart rate versus time for theflight a n d
thesimulation.Thecurvesweredeveloped b y applying theheart rata-
ergometryrelationship and integrating with respect to time.Thistech-
niqueyielded a muchclosercorrelationbetweenobservedactivitylevel
and workload.

T h i s correlation is notintended a s an absolutedeterminate of work

ratebut,rather, is intended f o r comparative p u r p o s e s . It d o e s ,h o w -
e v e r , o f f e r distinct advantages for tasks of the nature of the GT-X11:
E V A tasks. Conventionalclosed a n d semi-openventilatorymeasure-
ment techniques generally require considerable response time for the
measurements to r e a c h equilibrium ( f r o m 2 - 5 minutes).Thistime
period is generally greater than the steady state task time of the indi-
vidual tasksand,therefore,directanalysis of oxygen utilization data is
exceedinglydifficult.Heartratemeasurements, on theotherhand,
respond rather rapidly to changes in work load.
Comparative evaluation of theheartrate data indicates an average 37%
greaterheartrate for theflight.Thismay be dueto several identiEied
r e a s o n s . First, there is theeffect of thevariation of ambient p r e s s u r e

85
and breathingmedium on heartrate-ergometriccorrelation.This ef-
fect is probably related to the density of the breathing gases but m a y
alsoberelatedtovariation in alveolar oxygen transport.Figure 5-39
preseqts the resulte of parallel research which indicates the effect of
variation of gas density.

The second mqjor factor causing the difference 'in heart rates noted is
probablythemostimportant. Inspace,theastronautwassubjected
toavaporsaturatedoxygenenvironment with limitedheat transfer ca-
pability. I n thesimulation,thewateracted ag aninfiniteheat transfer
sink.Further,thethermal load characteristics d i f f e r e d greatly. Fzw-
vious research has generally identified the effects of changes in the
thermalenvironmentonheartrate,Figure 5-31. I n thisprogram,a
standardworklevelrestcyclewas obtaiqed and thethermal load char-
acteristicswerevaried. It canbeseen that increasingthermal load
tends to increase the heart rate for a given work level and this rela-
tionship increases with time.

A third factor iF that of psychological effects ontheheartratedueto

operations in thespaceenvironment. I f psychologicalinvolvement weme
a first order factor, the heart rate in the initial p h a s e s of E V A would
be greater in space than in simulationwithagradqaltapering o f f if no
problemswereevidenced.Analysis of data showstheopposite.The
period where a large psychological involvement was thought to occur
w a s duringthetimeofthe m e s s a g e s t9 Houston a n d even in this, thema
is strongreasontobelieve that theastronaut w a s engaged in moder-
atelyqtrenuousworkofplacingpennants on the E L S S .

T h e r e is other parallel research which supports the use of the single

parameter determinationof e n e r g y cost f o r calibratedindividuals.
Mdhorta et. al. , have reported on the feasibility of using pulse rate
during w o r ka s ameasure of energycost.Studiesweremade using
bicycleergometry with workloadsvaryingbetween 50-600 kg-/min.
Cross-correlation of theresults with oxygen uptake methodswasmade
and regressioncorrelationlineswerecalculated. While asignificant
differencewasfound in thecoefficientofvariationbetweensubjects,a
linearcorrelationwas obtained betweenthe p u k e r a t e and energy cost
f o r all subjects.Typicalresultsofthisresearch s t u d y are given in
Figure 5-32.

Figure 5-32 also p r e s e n t s the results OF a similar study by N . L.

Ramanathan,ReliabilityofEstimation qf Metabolic Levels from Reswira-
t o r yF r e q u e n c y . Ramanathanhasdemonstratedthereliabilityof esti-
mating taskenergycostforrelatively high energymetabolism. A
correlation of E(kcal/min) = - 3.06 -+ 0.198 R F (no. /min) was ob-
tained betweenenergyconsumption and breathing rate.Thiscorrelation
w a s highlysignificant (€YO. 01 ) with a correlation constant of 0.93 and
standard errorof 0.46 kcal/min.These data are includedtoindicate
the factors involved in using the heart rate-ergometry correlation tech-
nique. A more exteqsive r e s e a r c hp r o g r a m is requiredtoevaluate
the exact numerical correlqtion factors involved.

86
 Table X X presents the data derived through heart rate-ergometry cor-
relation and compares the results of the space performance with the
simulation. These rdsultsare depicted in Figure 5-33. It can be
seen that, in most cases, the energy costs OE the tasks were greater
f o r thespaceperformance.Figure 5-34 presentsthesameresults
recodigured to show relative rates of energy expenditure, since the
tasktimeswere also generallygreaterforthe orbital c a s e , T h e re-
sults OE thils comparisonshow that there is a relationshipbetweensimu-
lation and spaceperformance.Theratioofenergycostbetweenspace
and water simulation averagedapproximately 1.57 and variedbetween
0.69 and 3.44.

P r i o r tothisstudy it had beenconsidered that drag efEects and other

associated problems would result in a higher enekgy expenditure for a
giventask in thewaterimmersion simulationthan in actual s p a c e p e r -
formance.Sincethishasbeenshowntobe not necessarily t r u e , it
i s importantto properly identify the elements of the simulation and the
effectofeach on the energycost in taskperformance.Theseelements
include:viscousdrag ( d ) ; gravityeffects(g);buoyancyeffects(b);
planing e f f e c t s( p ) ; and hydrostaticeffects(h).Theseelementsmay
increase o r decreasetheenergycost ( a ) foranygiven task. The
relation oftheenergyrequiredfor task performance in simulation ( E )
W
and in space ( E takesthefollowingform (6).
S)

I f theagregateofthe a t e r m s i s negative for a particulartaskthetask

r e q u i r e s l e s s e n e r g y in the simulationthan in space i. e . certain factors
in thewaterhaveacted in such a mannerastoreducethe total e n e r g y
expenditure for that t a s k . S i n c e thesuit p r e s s u r e is regulated at the
waistlevel,portions of the suit abovethislevelhave a greater differ-
ential p r e s s u r e than in space while portionsbelowthislevelhave a
lesserdifferentialpressure than in space. A s an example,tasks that
involvearm and hand motions result in a positive a t e r mf o rt h e up-
rightsubject h
a n d a negative a f o r the inve.rted subJect.Inlikefashion
h
theotherelementscan exhibitboth positive and negative e f f e c t s .

T h er e s u l t s of theGemini XU analysisshows E > EW f o r themqjor-

ity ofthe EVA. T h e r e f o r e 9t h e combination of%eelementsacted to
reduce the energy cost of these specific tasks in thewateroverthe
cost of the same tasks in s p a c e .

T h e t e r m s (+ ad + a ) arerelated to thesubject 1s motion in the

watermediumand-c&beexplicitly d e r i v e d as a functionofthevelocity
vector and body attitudeof thesubject. I n general, thespecificterms
of therelationshipcanbeuniquelydetermined f o r onesuit and body
codiguration, i.e. changes in thebodyconfigurationaffectthedrag
coefficientofthewholebody as well as the individual limbs.

87
T h e predominatingelement as the velocity increases is the ad t e r m .
This relationshipcanbe seenfromFigure 5-35, whichpresents cal-
culated valuesofdragforseveralsuit attitudes. Fo,~ theGemini X U
tasks thevelocitiesofmovementweregenerally < O t . 5 ft./sec. and
the number of movements was small in condderation' of the total E V A
time.Therefore.thetermsof ( 6 ) f o rt h e Gemini XU E V A a r e
approximately given b y (7).

(7) - ab +- ag +- a h
EW = ES +

Kinget.al. , has calculated thegravitational w o r k f o r limb motion OF

manunencumbered b y a p r e s s u r e suit. Gravitational workexpressed
as percent of muscle work ranged to approximately 15% in the studies.
Translating these factors to p r e s s u r e suited man would tend to reduce
the gravitational work factor since the work required to overcome the
p r e s s u r e suit is f a r g r e a t e r thanthe workrequiredtomovethelimbs
unsuited.Gsn.erallythe a element is apositiveterm.
ff
I n s u m m a r y , although thewaterimmersion simulation oftheGemini
E V A w a s notintendedto produce data f o r p u r p o s e s OF comparison
with space flight E V A , therewas, in fact,much dataavailable from
whichcomparisonshavebeenmade.Therearealsoelementswhich
havebeen identified and which areunresolvedastotheir contribution
toenergycost.Theseunresolvedelements am thehydrostaticeffects
(a J and thebuoyancy (a,) t e r m both total body and specificlimbs.
.h
Hydrostatic and buoyancy effects cannot m w beevaluated f o r the
Gemini XU simulation and indeed would be extremely difficulttodeter-
mine for subsequent simulation sincethesuitbuoyancycharacteristics
changerelative to timeduring anyparticularrun. It is important,
however,todeterminetherangeofthiseffect in future work.

I n addition,the effedts OF heat load and breathing gasdensitymustbe

evaluated. A determination ofthesefactorscanbemadeexperimentally
and a moreexactrelationshipgoverningthecomparisoncanbe deter-
mined. Until this is done the etttnulative workloadsdetermined b yp r e -
flightergwmetryshould be usedas a relativecomparisonparameter.

.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
&objectives.
a compilation b y categories of the E V A - t a s k s identifying specific t4bk
Thefirstcategory,
"

E V A evaluation t a s k s ,a r et a s k s de'-
signedtodirectlyevaluateman Is performance in the extravehicular

88
environment.Thedesignoftheseexperiment-taskswas intended pri-
marilyto yield subjectivedata.Comparativefilm and motion analysis
w a s applied to these tasks where possible.
E V A Evaluation T a s k 8

T h e objective8ofthe E V A evalyation t a s k s included thedetermination

of restraint modes, suit mobility,torque Capability a n d thefeasibility Q f
simplemaintenance t a s k s .T h e E V A evaluation taskawerecomprised
ofvarioussubtasks.Table X X l I liststhetask evaluationobjectives fQr
thevarious E V A subtasks.

RestraintEvaluation - Restraint evaluation comprisedtheperformance

of various representative E V A tasks usingfootrestraints,a4ustable
waist tethers and a system of portable pip pins a n d handholds f o r r e -
straintpositioning.Bothportablehandholds and pip pinswerecon-
structed with l q g e ringstoacceptthewaisttether quick release mech-
anism.Theastronautwae able toevaluate q a n y dzerent restraint
positions in a relatively short time period using the pip p i n arrangement@.

I n F i g u r e 5-36, AstronautAldrin is shown placingarestraint attached

to apippin into the star receptacle on theAgenawork station. Fig-
u r e 5-37 showstheastronautaGustinghispositioning with arestraint
attaohed toaportablehandhold.Stationaryattachmentpointswere al-
so used in restraintevaluation. T h e s e tookthe formof small rings
attached to thetargetdockingcone a n d asinglestationaryring on the
f f n o s e end n oftheportablehandhold. T h e s e suppliedampleattach
points f o rt a s k ss u c ha st h eA g e n at e t h e r , S-010. T h e first rest
period, on waisttethers,wasperformed whileattached tothesesta-
tionarypositions.Similarattachmentpointsweresupplied on theadap-
ter work station. AstronautAldrinusedthesestationaryrings almoBt
explusively duringhi8 I f waisttethersonlyadapterrestraintevduatjoqs.
Theportablehandholds, while showingsomemerit on the T D A , p r o v e #
inadequate in theadapterworkstation.Aldrin notedthat only minimum
torquing f o r c e s w e r e r e q u i r e d tobreakthehandholds f r e e from their
positions.The T D A handhold positionsprovedadequateprimarilybe-
causenoexcessivetorqueswereplaced on theseuqits.Inmost
q a s e s , it appears that the T D A waist tetherconfiguration aided in main-
taining the pilot f s g r o s s position on the Agena, but w a s not particu-
larlyusefultoreacttorques.Duringwork tasks theastronautemployed
his art;ns t9 reduce the forces transmitted f q the tethers and portable
handholds.
Figure 5-38 shows the effect of restraint modes for both theadapter
and T D Aw o r k station tasks. Therestraintmodesare indicated b y
thelegend at theupper I& ofthefigure.Thecrops-hatshedareas
indioatp rest period&.Number (1) indicates t a s k p e r f o r m e d b y the
qetronaut while he had one o r both feet in fbe m d d e d f9ot restrqintls.
T h e t a s k s p e r f o r m e d while in the foot restraints w e r e restricted to the
qdapterwherethefootrestraintswere 1Qcazted. While in tbe adapter,
the aqtronaut repeated the task performance with waist tethers only.
Comments from the astronaut indfcated a strong preferenoe for the foot
rtwtraint mode.
89
 The foot restraint mode requiped slightly largea, performance times than
the waisttethermode both in space and in the simulation, h o w e v e r , the
rate of energyexpenditure was significantly less. T h i s esnt8.adicts the
resultspreviouslydescpibed f o s theGemini Ix AMU donning t a s k . A
f i x e d restraint position such as evidenced with the foot restraints per-
mits a greater envelop of operation in the suit, particularly f o r two;
handed t a s k s , while decreasingthe level of energyexpenditure.

The Gemini suit afforded easy control of the rest position 06 the suit
duetothe rrstiErr leg and torsocomponents.Inlaterspacesuit ver-
s i o n s , having greater mobility,this wild not betrue and extra energy
will need to be expended to keep theastronaut in the proper orientation
for w o r k t a s k s for fixed restraint modes.

The restraintmodes evaluatedwhile on the T D A included twowaist

tethers, onewaisttether, and norestraints.Therewas a greater
variationbetweenspace and the simulation f o r these t a s k s .T h e re-
sultsofthe evaluation of restrain2modes for the d z e r e n t w o r k station
t a s k s is.given in Table Xxm.
S u i t Mobility Evaluation -Themq'orsuit mobilityevaluation was performel
in thead3ptersection while theastronautwasrestrained b y the foot r e -
straints.The pilot performed a task in whichheleanedbackwarda-
w a y from the s p a c e c r a whilein thefootrestraints,Figure 5-39
demonstrates two aspects of this task in whichthe pilotattempted to d e -
terminethe angle and radius of action ofhis G-4C spacesuit.In
general,suit mobilityevaluation w a s acontinuousaspect of theoverall
taskevaluations.

T h e limb flexure analysis d e r i v e d from film analysis for theleanback

I task in the preflight a n d postflight simulation is presented in Figure 5-40,
Duringtheflight,the pilot commented that the lean back task was more
difficultthan i n .theprdlightwater simulation.Henoted in thispost-
flight r u n that the task was very muchlike that performed in the orbital
mode.Theincreasedforcerequirements f o y theflight a n d postflight
simulation were caused by the use of the more rigid extravehicular space
suit ( F P S ) . Theextraprotectivelayerscausedanincreased.suit
rigidity.Thisfactorrequiredtheastronauttoexpendextraenergy
using the E V suit o v e r that eqperienced in the preflight simulation with
his trainingsuit.

Torque Tasks - T h e evaluation of theastronaut ?R ability to exert tor-

quing f o r c e s w a e p e r f o r m e d in theequipmentadapter and Agena work
station. Torque capability of arestrained and unrestrainedastronaut
is considered of primeimportance for futurespacemissions.The
adapter work station torque evaluations were performed on a fixed bolt
configurationlocated at the bottom center of theworkpanel. I n both

torquingoperationwhile
.
the flight and simulation modes, Pilot Aldrin evaluated clockwise and
counterclockwisetorquingoperations Aldrin first performed the adapter
in thefootrestraints.Hethen attached his
left and right waist tethers and re-evaluated this task with tethers only.
Table X?CU 'summarizes the time allocated to torque evaluationan$ the
energy expenditure involved' f o s the orbital and' simulation modes.
90
 The astronaut used a special torque wrench fog, $he A g e n a w o r k station
portion of hie torqueevaluation. This tool w a s xnwually ac(fustable and
designed to ??breakfree" if the qet value of torque w a s exceeded and
w a s designatedtheApollotorquewrench. The Apollotorquewrench
shown in Figuse 5-41 employedamale *key type drive. The bolt
receptacle on the Agena work station was fixed mounted iq atorque
box.

The adapter torque wrench malfunctioned during both the flight and the
simulationtqrque t a s k s . In both ca.ses the visualreadoutgauge f+fled.
It i4 alsoworth notingthat in thewatersimulation, Aldrin broke the
"fixed bolt f r e e w h e n usingthemaximumtorqueqetting on, thewrench.

Quantitativedata oneither the flight o r simulationcannotbe derived due

to equipment€ailure. However,Astronaut A l d r i n noted in hisdebrid-
ingthat a y torque task found practical in the water simulationwould
also pnove practical in space.
'

.
Maintenance Tasks - T h o s e tasks, specificallydesigned as an evaluation
of propoged future space maintenance, included bolt removal and r e -
placement,electrical m d fluidconnectoroperationstcable cutting gpera-
tions,hook a n d ringconnection, and theVelcro strip evaluation. The
initial camera placement and the work station preparation and cleqnup
targkrs w e r p also included in this task category.

The first camera placement task was an evaluation to determine an op-

timummode of camera.handling. The results of this evaluationshpwed
that camera placement and retrieval was optimized when the pilot utilized
a semi-unrestrained positioning technique requiring only the use of his
f r e e hand to place his body in the proper relative position.

Maintenance task evaluation was per€ormed on the Agena work station.

A n electricalconnector,similar to theconnector in theadapterwork
station,was moqntedon theside of the Agena work station panel.
Aldrin notedthat he found no problem in connection o r disconnection of
this unit in his pre€light or orbital EVA.

7n general,.thetaskperiormancewas very similar, both from atime

endworklevelbasis. The astronaut did notexperience any dBiculties
in per€orming the tasks. as prescribed. Work loads and timeallocations
w 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 SupportTasks

Camera Placement a n d Retrieval -

Astronaut A l d r i n Is first umbilical
E V A camera placement task in bothorbital and simulationtime lines
wascategorizedas an E V A evaluation task. All subsequentcamera
tasks were entirely support tasks designed to produce a 16 mmcolor
€ilm record of the umbilical E V A . Exceptforthecameramechanism
failure. in theadaptersection, Aldrin notednoproblem with the camena

91
placement tasks in orbit. He did comment that his initial cameraplacc-
ment seemed even easier in flightthan it had been in the Bimulatione.
This fact may certainly have been the result of training experience.

Movement - Movement d o n g theEpacscraft and from theBpacecraft to

theAgenatargetvehicle in previous Gemini missions was considered
animportanttaskobjective. F o r theGemini A Z E V A mission, a sys-
tem of motion aidswasdesigned to expeditethismovement.The utili-
zation of the motion aids provided increased time f o r the subsequent
E V A evaluation t a s k s . Movement fromthespacecraft hatch area to the
A g e n a w a s aided by the installation of theportablehandrail,Figure 5-42.
Analysis of the film record from the water simulation shows this forward
movement to have the greatest velocity among all the gross movement
t a s k s of theGT-XU umbilical E V A . T h e velocity of thismovementwas
approximately 0.3 f e e t p e r second.This is less thanthelimitsestab-
lished f o r drag-degradation d e c t s , 0.5 f e e tp e rs e c o n d .T h em o v e -
ment from hatchto T D A w a s 10 seconds longer inflightthansimilar
movement in thesimulation. Fromanalysis of theflight film,them9-
tionsappear to beidentical, although thevelocitywasslightly l e s s than
that of thewatersimulation. It is significant to notethat even though
thevelocity in the simulation washigher and thetimeshorter, that the
energycostwashigher for the orbital movementtask.Thisfurther
substantiatestheabsence of perceptibledrageffects in thewatersimu-
lation for movement tasks of velocities under 0.5 feet p e r s e c o n d .

Rests - Figure 5-43 compares the rest periods for theflight a n d water
simulafion mades.Cross-hatchedareas on thefigure indicate thereqt
p e r i o d s .T h e single reversed cross-hatchareaindicatestheduration
of thewater simulation rebalancebreak. A comparison of the individual
rest p e r i o d s , f r o m a time and energy cost basis,
The most significantvariation between space performance
is given in Table
and simulation
XX$V.
is thenumber and f r e q u e n c y of restperiods.Thereweretwelve
rests in thewater simulation and onlyeleven in theflight. T h e total
time of the rest periods, however, was longer in flightthan in thesimu-
lation.Althoughthe total orbital rest timewas in e x c e s a of thesimula-
tion time, it appears that the rest periods duringthe simulation w e r e
better spaced, thereby contributing tominimum energyexpenditure.

T w o flight rest periods, numbers ( 4 ) a n d (10 ) , a r e of particular sig-

nificance. Rest period ( 4 ) wasparticularlylong,yettherate of e n e r g y
expenditureincreasesrapidlythroughthehalf of theduration.Although
thistimeperiodwasdesignated as a rest, Pilot Aldrinusedthistime
periodtodelivermessagestotheworld.The detailedactivityduring
this rest periodwasdiscussed in a precedingsection.Analysishas
shown that this rest period included periods of relatively high physical
activity. Theenergycost is probablymisleading,however,since miti-
gating psychologicalfactorsmaybeinvolved.MissionControlwas
warned of the increase in heart rate to the 140 beats/min. level by the
telemetry readout and Astronaut Aldrin was advised of this increase.
I n the middle of this rest period the pilot was advised to slow down his
activity and completetheperiod ina restingposition.Theresult ot; this
slowdownwasevidenced in thedecreasingenergyexpenditure rats to-
wards the end of the rest period.
92
 Orbital restperiod (15) w s s ~ S an O extended restperiod.Reference
tothecumulative energy expenditure dine s h o w s a marked inacsea~e.in
the rate of energy expenditure just prior tothie Pest period. FOP an
explanation of this Fate incpease and the subsequent extended Feet period,
thefollowingcorrelationbetweenthe sirnulation and orbital t h e lines is
postulated.Immediately folhwinng theqdapter work station .taskB in the
simulation,Aldrinmovedtothespacecrafthatch. At thispointhe ex-
ecutedacamerachange and r e s t e d f o r 45 seconds. After this rest,
Aldrin moved forward to the Agena w o r k station tobeginhis TDA
worktasks.Followinghis first work station task group,the pilot
tookhisscheduled 2 minute rest period.Fromthevoicerecord, it
does not appear that the astronaut w a s excessively ?'tired f P at this point.
T h e r e w a s a slight increase in energyexpenditureduringthemovement
f o r w a r d f r o m adaptertoAgena.Incontrast to theperformance in the
simulation,afterAstronautAldrincompletedhis orbital adapterwork
t a s k s , a n d movedtothespacecrafthatch,he did nottakeadvantage of
a restperiod.Instead,hemadehiscamerachange and activation and
contiouedimmediately to theAgena w o r k station. On the A g e n a , Aldrin
immediatelybeganhis first TDAworktask.Afterapproximatelythe
same task timeinterval a s in thesimulation,thepilotcompletedthis
work task group and rrrequestedrfa r e s tp e r i o d .F r o m thevoice re-
cording it appears that theastronautwasready for thisrest.This
was the extended duration rest period (10 ) . It lasted 3 .-O7 and w a s the
longest actual restingperiod in eitherthe orbital or watersimulation
modes.

I n s u m m a r y , the rest periods generally proved successful in maintaining

a relatively normal energy expenditure f o r both theflight and the simu-
lation. T h e onlydifficultypertaining to interpretationofthe r e s t s is that
the astronaut performed minor tasks during his resting sessions.

ExperimentSupportTasks

T h e finaltaskcategoryincludesthosetaskswhichwere not direatly

related to EVA butwhichrequiredsupport b y the EVA astronaut.
T h e tasks includedthe Agenatether and S-010 activation, a n d the r e -
trieval of the GL V strips. Figure 5-44 p r e s e n t s thecornparkon of the
experiment support task category.

The Agena tether activation was a preparation for the gravity gradient
experimentlater in theGemini X U mission.TheAgenatether task
took 40 seconds more in flightthanthe same task in thesimulation.
Theenergyexpenditurewas also g r e a t e rf o r thg orbitalmode. The
inoreasewas due totimetheastronautspentevaluatingtheloose rrtoad-
Btoolff on top of thedocking bar. This in itseE wouldnot appearto
justirytheincreasedenergyexpenditure.Theastronaut f~ motions were
essentiallythesame for both modesofthistether task. Thedifference
in energy aost could be attributed to eithervariationsinduced b y the

93
aimulation o r actual undefined variations due tq work in a grgvity free
environment. The dserence noted could easilybe attributedtothis
later factor as d i s c u s s e d in the preceding section.

T h e remaining tasks, the S-010 activation a n d the GLV &rip removal,

will not be discussed since the actual S-010 hardware was not avail-
able f o r t h e simulation and since the GLV strip removal proved to be
negligible f r o m a time a n d e n e r g y standpoint.

94

_-
 TABLE X SIMULATION TIME LINE - FINAL ITERATION Page I of 6
-
EHYll INMENTAL RFlSEARCH ASSOCIATE!

Task Eubtask Position

c
-
m
>
Camments
.-nc
-
i
V
).
.

ii 1
:

-". "-7 --
Star.5x.a familiarization Standing in space :50 :50 Command pilot marks begin-
crafthatch ning of standup familiarization
'8 minutes into umbilical E V A )

Selectian of optimumcarneri Standing in space 1 :50 :60 Pilotsf tetheredpositionin

place.-xent mode crafthatch, leg cockpit w a s simulated in this
tethered time Iine, Pitot attempted to
" b r a c e himseE.* in the cock-
Dit.

Seiezt'zn of optimum ca:ne-: Standing in space 2 "55 :65 PilotsL6odydrifted 80% out of
placsnent mode craft hatch, cockpitwhileattempting
untethered c a n e r a installation untethered
W
UI
F=sitioning/.?estrainn Preparation f o r camera Spacecral? exter- 3:20 :25 Pilot posa'fions his b o d y out-
placement evaluation outside ior, hatch area side and o v e r the s p a c e c r d t
hatc.? z r e a -
hatch p d l e l with the f o r e -
& axis of the spacecraft.

Came.-a Plecement- Selezric.7 oi aptimumcame?# SpececraEt exter- .IC :25 :65

.?etrieyal/F'iim pla=e.zent m o d e , spzcecra!! ior, hatch area
C.hge exterior body position

Positioning/Restrain Preparatfon for r e s t on
handrail
Spacecraft exter - 4 :35 :10 Pilot moves from r e t r o adapk
iop, OIL handrail camera position to handrail
using both hands to maintain
a resting position with hi;s
torso and Legs eatendcd o v e r
command piIoL hatch.

Rest (1) 4 :5: .si5

Optical S u r f a c e Attemptto c t e a s / c windon ,5:5c "55

E valu'ation with wiper cloth
It 6 :2L t3C
TABLE X - Cont'd. Page 2 d 6

Position

Pssitioning/Restraint Un5:ilicd extenaior: prior to
forward translation to
A TD-4
i
5pzcecraft exter- Pilot simulatedthistasksince
or, on handrail rmbilical wasalreadyextend
I1 During rest and umbilical
extension tasks pilot m u l e u -
vered p a r t i a l l y up handrail.
A t beginning of movement tas
pilots-positron was f o r w a r d
> f hatch.

Posikioning/R&raint Evalxation of tether dynamic Spacecraft/ATD/

hterface
PI
Prepration f o r Agena N
tether task.

A g e n aT e t h e r I1 Pilot tethered to A TDA rings

wi€h both waist tethers.

Positioning/Restraint Repcsitioning on A TD-4 p r b I1 Pilotrepositionrrboth waist

to S-10 deployment tethers to S-10 a r e a loca-
tions.
:

j5-10
Communications
, Pnot tethered to A T D A
withboth waist tethers.
task simulated&cause of
low ETdelity mockup character
istics .
Positioning/Restraint Repositioning on A T D A prio A T D A work
to Velcrostripremoval station

A T D A Work S t a - Initial pip pin placement

I1

tion Preparation
TABLE X - Cont'd. Page 3 of 6

k tk Position

Rest (3) 4 T D A work Zommand pilot notesttat end

station > f rest period, flight plan
h e is 28 minutes into day-
'ight period ' 1

Positioning/Restrait: Preparation for translation Pilot notes thathook up oE

a€t to hatch w a i s t tethers to E L S S w a s
made dzicultbecauseof
! y g e I'D ring catching on
JIP pin.

Movement Translation along portable Spacecraft exter-

handrail f r o m A T D A to :or on handrail-
spacecraft hatch s p a c e c r d hatch

Camera Flacement- Retroadaptercamerafilm Standing in space

Retrieval/Film change c r a f t hatch
Change
ll
GLV Strip Retriev
d
Camera Placement- Unstow work station camer. II Pilot secures work station
Retrieval/Filrn camera to E L S S .
Change
Movement Translation on adapter Adapter handrail Pilot pauses twice to position
handrail toadapterwork umbilical during af? translatiol
station T d a l intervalof'umbilical w a
30 seconds

Positionmg/RcstraiJ Evaluation of work station I n foot restraints

and initial body positioning in adapter

2amera Placement- Work station camerainstal- I1

?etrievd/Film lation
Shange
TABLE X C ont 'd. Page 4 d 6 EWf
I
-t
I-
Task Cubtask Fositian U
Y
n
-m
U
L
m m
UI z
~~ - "-
Febalancing B r e a k rn adapter 1O:Ol '0:01 3lotundertakes short unas-
sistedneutralbuoyancy
:heckoat.
!?est (4) II I1 :01 f1 :01 Cvaluation of resting with
rarious restnaint points.
4dapter Work W 12 :52 32 :52
StationPreparation

Positianing/Restrainl Foot restraintevaluation rn foot restraints ?4 :35

34 :3f 36:02 1 :27
'n adapter

Rest (5) II 36: 02 36:02 37:55 1:53 Sommand pilot notes mission
time as 44 :15at elapsed
h e of 36:20.
AdapterWorkTask a1 - A,? II
37:55 37:5! 44:45 6:5Q Pilot switchesworkstation
(A) ,amerato 6 F P S at beginnin6'
of these subtasks and r e t u r n s
:amera to 1 F P S at end af
subtasks.
(simulated)

Rest (6) II
14:45 44 :41 46:45 2:OO
AdapterWorkTask E1 - E5 Inadapter 46:4! 46:4! 6.?:4816:03 Subtasks El - B3 in foot
(E) restraints
S u b t a s k s B4, B5 on waist
tethers only.
Rebalance Break @:4€ e:44
Rest (7) Waist tethers only 69:52 69:5.
in adapter
AdapterWorkTask c1 - c 4 II
71 :52 71:5. Velcro strip and connector
f C) e valuations
 Page 5 d 6
-
ErIrl’ )NMEHTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE!

F
I
Tar k EuStask Fositim J I
Commcnts
Y
ul 2
-n
W
rJ
-
L
0
44
I:

- -
Positioning/Restrainf Return to foot restraints 5 foot restraints 77: 08 :22
nadapter

R e s t (8) tt 77:30 2:00

Adapter’ Work Preparationtoreturnto 1 :33 Pilot s e c u r e s handholdsto

StationCleanup spacecraf? hatch E LSS

Poaitioning/Reatrainl One foot restraint evaluation 3 1 :03 2:12

Adapter Work 33:15 2:17 Camera and penlight retr13val

StationCleanup

Reat (9) 95 :32 3:lO Command pilot requests pilot

to extend his rest period
because they are ahead OC
achedule on their task/time
line.

Pos;tioning/Restrainf 98 :42 :60 Pilot m.&es several attempta

t~ Velcro portable handholda
to E L S S . Lowfidelity
mockup prevents aucceaa.

Movement Translation forward to 4dapter handrail 99:42 1 :Oh

spacecraR hatch area.
Camera Placement- Stowage of adapterwork 5pacecraR hatch 90:46 1:33
Retrieval/Film station camera and activatiol cea
Change of r e t r o adapter camera

Rest (10) 92:15 :45

Movement Translation forward to Portable handrail 93 :04 1 :05
A T D A work station and A T D A

A T D A Work A1 A T D A work 94 :OS 2:lO Initial portable handhold

Station T a s k (A) station placement.
TABLE X .Cont'd P e e 6 of 6
" - -
ENVll NMENTAL RESEARCHASSOCIATE!

Task 8uStask Posirion -0

Comments
2
-0
c.
u

~ ~~ -
?est (11) 4 T D A work 2:00
station

i T E A Work Statio El - E 3 If 3 :40 Pip pinlhandholdconnector

?ask (E) m d torqueevaluation

?est (12) 1 :55

1 T D A Work Statio Cl - c3 6:lO Torque and connectorevalu-

rask (C) stion with single and both
Lethers

1 T D A Work Static Jettison of pippins,waist 11 :35

3leanup t e t h e r s and portablehand-
holds

9 T D A Work. Static Dl - 02 3:oo Connector and torque

Task (0) re-evaluationusingnotether,

Wovement Translation aft to.spacecr& Portable handrail 1 :04

hatcharea and s p a c e c r d

SameraPlacement Retrieval and stowage of Spacecraft hatch I :40 Torquewrench stowage

Fetrieval/Film retroadaptercamera are a
Zhange

[ngress Standing in spacl :27

crafthatch

Handrail Jettison If :26

Hatch C l o s u r e . Umbilical r e c o v e r y , hatch If :2 s

Preparation holdingdevicedeployment
and hatch seal checkout
Hatch !Closure Assuming seated position in S e a t e d in c o c k - Hatch not closed in simula-
cockpit pit seat of space tion timeline
craft
 1

"I -

PositioninglRestraint
Task
S t a n d u p Familiarization S / C hatch i
I'
0:oo 42: 1 4 2 :
51 :O$. 52:441
i 1 :40;Pilot
evaluates f r e e floating
tendency while standing in
1
'

! S / C hatch. Pilot states that 1

, h e cannot percieve any forces
largeenoughtocause floating
, 1 {of large
objects
!
j!
ti
Communications
I 1 :40 42: /I 4 2 :
52: 4352 :54
:09' CP calls f o r a 2 minute r e s t
Period i
1 :52 42: ; 42: :52 Pilotcommented that this r e s t :
52:52 53:49 did not appear necessary as'
no r e a l activity had occurrec

Camera Placement- Selection OE optimum camera Standing in s / c 3 : 01 42: I 42: 1 :39 Optimum (time)placement
RetrievallFilm placementmode hatch 5 4 : 0 6 55:45 mode- utilized a combination
Change of positioning aid f r o m s / c
with increased freedom of
PositioninglRestraint Preparation Eoor camera S / C hatch. area
movement while outside s / c
4:40 42: 42: :45
placement evaluationoutside 56:30 55:4 hatch
hatch area
1
Camera Placement- Selectionof optimum place- It
5:25 42: 42:
Retrieval/Film mentmode 56:30 57:25
Change

Positioning/Restraint Preparation Eoor rest period If 6:20 4 2 : 42: :27 Pilot statedthat he had to
57:52 57:25 get proper position and'hold I
on tosomething 1' toget
complete r e s t
Rest ( 2 ) S / c exterior 6 : 54 42: 42: 1 :43 Pilot r e s t s while holding on
5 7 : 5 9 59:42 to handrail
Positioning/Re&aint Umbilical extension prior to If 8 : 3 i 42: 43: 1 :05
movementto docking bar 59:42 00:47

I
Movenient Translation f r o m s / c hatch 9:4i 43: 43: :41 Pilot noted slight tendency to
todockingbar along portablc 0 0 : 5 2 01 :33 ' g o head over heels 1 , count-
handrail eractedby light torque.
. A ". . . - " .. .
TAKE P - -Cont'd. Page 2 of 9
-

t
i=
Task Eubtask Position U
0)
ul
-w
Y
a L
m
4
5;

-
?ositioning/Restraint Tvaluation oP tether dynamic2 S / C exterior, 10:3: 43 : 43 : Concomittantevaluation OE
:ethered to hand. 01 :4r 08 :2f E L S S cooling capacity.
rail Evaluationsimilarto eEEects
during
standup E V A . Slight
cooling of extremities.

4genaTether S / C exterior, 12:2- 43 : 43 : 2 : 2 0 Slight disturbance to Agena

Lethered to A T D 03 : 2
1 05:4C during task due to speed of
rings movement. Slight
problem
trlith hookup of dockhg bar
lamp.

Dositioning/Restraint Preparation isr r e s t S/C - ATDA 14 :5: 43 : 43 : :38 Zommand pilot states thatpex
interface 06:03 06:52 brmance so Ear i s Easter
hantarget a n d calls Eor res
>eriod.
11 15:5, 43 : 43 : 2:07 Pilot notes rough edged mst-
06:5 09:01 rid on s / c s e p . p l a n e .
If 18:O. 43 :
09:0
43 :
l2:4:
3 I::39
Some' difEiculty evidenced due
io; requirements for fine han
Dperation, a n d to avoid touch
ing experiment surEace .
PositioninglRestrain Repositioning on A T D A prio; A TDA wsrk 21 :4 43 : 43 : :40 C P photographed pilot tether
bo w o r k stationsetup station 12:5 13:3. restrained position

A T D A 'Work Statioj Initialevaluation - setup oE I1 22:4 43 : 43 :

Preparation A T D A w o r k station 13:5 14 :c 1 :06 Pilot commented on possibii
ity d kicking L band antem
Rest (41 23:5 43 : 43 : 43:16:05 - 43:17.:45 (mea,
15:c 20:l. 5:08 sagestoHouston) 43:18:21
CC suggestedslowdown du
toelevatedheartrate
 ;I
TABLE - Con1 Id. ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCHASSOCIATE!

1
Task Subtask Position
1 Comments
Y
L
(0
iE
E -
c
E
0

3;

-1- I
Initial A T D - 4 work station A TD.4 work 43: 43 : :4: Initial evaluation of Velcro
setup station 20:l 21 :03 handholds and placement of
handholds for later wDrk
station t a s k s . C P o r d e r s
return to hatch at 41 :21:03
Communicatiszs Evaluation of ice form.ation S / C exterior 43: 43: 1 :1, Pilot comments that docking
GI: H2 vent 21 :o 2i':22 damp shouldnot be used as
handhold since it might come
loose.

Movement Peturn to s/c hatch S/C exterior on 43: 43 : : 4, Pilot a s k s C P t o c h e c k umbii

portablehandrail 22:2 23 :08 ical condition
standing in hatch
Camera Placement - Zilm change f o r 70mm S / C hatch 43: 43: :2
Retrieval/Fi!m hkurer. 23:2 23 :51
Change

GLV S t r i p l e l r i e v a 43: 43: 1:3 S t o w e e of 4 strips slight

24:O 25:43 concern to pilot

Camera Plasement
RetrievallFiin
- Stowage of adapterwork
station camera on E L S S
If 43: 43: 1:l. Required pilot to connect
auxiliarytetherthenVelcro
25:4 26:59
Change cameras to E L S S .

Positioning/.?ascraint Umbilical f e e d out prior to S / C exterior on 43: 43: :2

movementtoadapter portablehandrail 27:1 27:36
Movement Translation from portable Along retro-equi, 43: 43: 2:0, Includesrouting umbilical
handrail along retro-handrai, mentadapter 27:4 29 :44. through pigtail and initial
to pigtail exterior entry into the foot restrainta.
C P comments th& pilot is
perturbing entire E / C due -to
-motions
TABLE P- Con1 'd. Page 4 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

Subtask Position
U
L
rn
3;
.-
5,
E
ir
1
0
L

-
0
.
->
CI
E
Comments

- - -
Camera Placement - rnitial setup and checkoutof Foot restraints - 38 :40 43: 43: 2:22 Pilot o b s e r v e s that linkage
Retrieva!/Film chacg 2dapter work station carnerz facingadapter 29:4. 32: 0 on camera bracket is brokez
w s r k station (pushbarmechanismwhich
operates ball detent)

In foot restraints $1:02 43: 43 : :57 Piiot c o m m e d s that his left

in adapter 32: 0 33 :0, heelseemstoberidinga
little high in thefootrestrair

Foot restraintevaluation
I (greater leg force)
In foot restraints 4 2 : 0s 43: 43 : 2:50 Pilot observes neutral suit
in adapter 3 3 : 1 # 3 6 : 0, position,movementinfore
and a f t directionreturnto
neutralposition.Pilot leans
back parallel to longitudinal
spacecraftaxis(similarto
e x e r c i s e in waterimmersior
simulation). Pilot
commentc
that thismaneuver is Ita
little bit harder 11 than the
samemaneuver in thewatel
.

1 Communications

WorkStationPre- Penlightdeployment
In foot restraintr
in adapter

I n foot restraints
4 5 : 02

45:4: 43 :
43:
36:0
43:
36:4

43 :
:41

:3 E
Pilot a n d C P discuss adapte
camera condition a n d umbili.
cal condition

Pilot o b s e r v e s that one pen,

paration in adapter 36:5 37:3 light is Itbulged I f apparently
f r o mh e a t .

Cameraactivation In foot restraintr 46:2: 4 3 : 43: :4( Pilot o b s e r v e s that camera'

in adapter 37:3 38:. appearsto be working
If 47:l' 43: 43 : 2:05
38:; 40:.

WorkStation Pre- Camera Activation If 49:3 43: 43 : 2:3t tttempt to activate work statio.
40:4 43:- camera not successful

-
 Task

AdapterWorkTask
( A)

ldapterWorkTask
(B1)
I'
Eubtask

Torque evaluation
Connector .operation

Cutter evaluation

Pippin and portable handholc

~

,
~
Position

In footrestraints
in adapter

It
.5 2 4 43:

59:3843:
~

I
43:2

50 :4,

t3:
j2 :22
$3:
50 :43

43 :
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

7: 21

5 2 : 1 ~ 1 :35

44::
03:15
.0:53
Comments

Pilot notes that he had diffi;

culty removing wrench
work station pouch.
from

Pilotnotes cutting wires is e

one handed t a s k ; cutting fluid
disconnect is relatively diffi-
cult- a n d isatwo
operation
handed

Pilot comments Ifmedium

1

evaluation ELSS flow with monitoring

i s adequate 11 f o r w o r k t a s k s
accomplished so f a r

Saturn bolt removal tt

Removeright waist tether It

f r o m E L S S ; attach to work
station r i n g . R e m o v e l a
tether from E L S S a n d attach
towork station

Saturn bolt evaluation
Waist tethers only Pilot encounters difficulty wit1
in adapter melted rubber retainer on
Saturn bolt causingincrease
work load because of need
to use both hands t o r e m o v e
bolt.

(8) 72:ll 14 J 54 :
?3:1t 04 :2 C 1 :04
TABLE X- Cmt'd. Page 6 of 9 EHVll DNMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE5

Task Pubtask Position Comments

c 2
U
.-
u1

-
L L
m E 0
.L
J ii E

--
9dapterWorkTask Saturn bolt evaluation W3ist tethers only 44 : 64 : 6:24 Pilot notes that IfSaturn bolt
(BPI in adapter 04 :3( 20:54 workspace is w a y tooclose
to the tether ' 1 .

Hook a n d ringevaluation Pilotcomments that flsmall

ringrequiresmoredelicate
handling to get proper positior
in h a n d f f .
If 44 : 44 : 1 :3; C P a n d pilbt consult their
1 0 :5< 12:2 respectivetaskchecklists.
Pilotnotesrfeetareactually
chilly 1 1 .

4dapterWorkTask Velcrostripevaluation 44 : 44 : 3 : 4 ; C P comments Itrunning 4

(C ) 12:3 16:l: minutes behind schedule
beEore thistaskbegins.

Centerconnectorevaluation Pilot notes that body position

i s not a problem Eor center
connector.

LeEt hand connector Pilot notes that left hand con-

e valuation nectortask is Ita bit m o r e
1. diEEicult 11 because of lack of
'j handholds.

Right hand connector If Pilot notes that right hand

e valuation '1 connector is Ifquite an e a s y
onelf

Adapter Work Sta- Retrievework station In foot restraint2 44 : 44 : 2:14! Pilot reports ,difficulty detach-:;
:ion Cleanup camera in adapter 16& 18:X ing camerafrombracket. .i
~ Task
completed after only I,
.I slight delay.

Movement Translation along r e t r o / e q u ~ A d a p t e r handrail 44 : 44

.I
:31;Pilot notes that work station
',I
1

mentadapterto s / c hatch 19:4 20:l camera almost tangled in pig-'#

!/ tail as he Bounded t h e
i separation plane.
 P, 7 of 9 EHVII BNMENTAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
-
E"
Task Cubtask Position
i=
U
w
-(0
Comments
ul i:
-n
C

-
L
m m GI

W x C
c

- -
Camera Placement - Exchangecameras. Pilot Spacecraft 89:21 44 2:34 Pilot installsretro-adapter
Retrieval/Film hands in work station came. exterior hatch 20 camera and m.&esexposure
Change C P gives pilot retro-adapte are a settings l/25O at 6 f r a m e s
camera Der second
dovement Translation from s/c hatch SpacecraH exter 91 :5: 44 I :14
to A TDA wark station ior Portable 23
handrail tospac
c r a f t / A TD.4
interface

1 T D A Work Station Pip =in a n d portablehand- A T D A work 93 :21 44 : 2:13 Pilot requests a rest period
rask (h) hold evaluation.(Initial plac station 24 : after initially placing pip pins
ment) and handholds.

?est (10) 11 95 :54 44 : 3:07

26:
1 T D A W o r k Station Pip pin and portablehand- I1 99:lO 44 : 3:46 Pilot comments"pippins
rask ( b j hold evaluation.(Dynamic 30: that swivel are not adequate
evaluation) a s handholds 11

Fluid and electricaldiscon-

nect evaluation

Apollotorquewrenchevalu
ation

?est (11) :02:2; 44 : 1 :54 Pilot commentsIILookslike

34 : a panel on theback of the
Agena is a little loose 1 1 .
Closer examination during rea
period revealed electrical
umbilical panel that failed t o
lrslam shut on l e f t - o f f ~ l

-
 P a g e 8 of 9

t
i=
Task Eubtask Position '0
Comments

a
Y
ul

-a
U
L
a .-
x
ul
E
W ;
; iL

-
4TDA Work Statio1 Apollotorquewrenchevalu- A T D A work !04:5 A4 : 44 : 6:25 Pilot notesfiat'Itheonly
Task (e/ ation station 35: 56 42 :21 :hings that a r e comingclose
:o being warm.are m y a r m s !
H e attributesthistothe
ttclose fit of thesuit in the
a r m s 1'.

Torquere-evaluationusing tI Pilot notes his contact points

onlyonewaisttether io be"rightarm,rightwaist
bether, and right foot 11.

Torquere-evaluationusing
no tethers

Observation and Jettison of pippins,waist I1 111 :1 44 : 44 : :4. Pilot makesonelastcheck dc

Final W o r k Station tethers and portable hand 42:2: 43 :02 left hand t h r u s t e r s
Clean up holds
T D A worktaskusingno
tethers(electricalconnector
evaluation)

Movement Translation to s / c hatch dol; S p a c e c r a f t e x t e r - 111 :5 44 : 44 : :5:

portablehandrail ior/portable hanc 43 :01 43 :52
rail
Optical S u r f a c i Attempttoclean s / c windoa Spacecraft exter 112:5 44 : 44 : :5. Pilot notes that ItAgena tethez
Evaluation with wiper cloth ior 44 :01 44 :5! looks hooked up and the dock -
Portablehandrai ing barclampisengaged"
and C P window
Communications S p a c e c r a f t e x t e r - 113:5 44 : 44 : :44
ior on portable 44 :51 45:41
handrail I
t
Umbilical S t o w a g e Positioning Spacecrafe exter- 114 : 3 44 : 44 : :4.
ior on portable 45:4. i36:24
handrail,hatch
area

- ---
TABLE XI- Cont'd. Page 9 of 9

I
ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCHASSOCIATES

E
i=
Task tubtask Position U Comments
0

-n
u) CI
L
IE 9
W k

Ingress Tquiprnent S t o w a g e Standing in s p a c e 44 : I :24

craft hatch +6:24
ThrusterCheckout 7isua.l observations Standing in space. c4 : 1 :4s Pilot notes that on comparisor
Task cr& hatch 4 8 : 01 thethruster in questiondoes
not appeartowork efEiciently
Handrail Jettison i4 : :44
50 :01

Hatch Closure -,
~ e a r i ~sfg hoses and equ k4 : 1:05 Pilot comments that hatch
Preparation nent.
Checking hatch see 50:45 seal is clear except f o r some
;rea.Deploy hatch holdir W e c k s of dust 11.
ievice.

Hatch Ciosure Yatch locks in locked posi Seated in cockpit 'c4: Final hatch lock activated at
ion seat of s p a c e c r d 52: Ot 2 minutes before sunset.

I
TABLE= - AIRCRAFT SIMULATION TIME LINE - FINAL
ITERATION rage IOT L

I1

klovement

13estraint
Task Subtask

Translate up handrailto
dockingcone

Attach left waisttetherto

Position

Handrail

Handrail
-
U
L
m
x

8.1
-
s
.-ul
E
L'

8.1

20.8
Comments

Aircraftsimulationdoesnot
useaspacecraftmockup
:his scbtaak : onlythe
T D A and handrail.
for
I

T D A ring
11 Attachrightwaisttetherto I1 ?O.8 34.6 N o tether was attached to the
TD.4 ring handrail ring.

34.6 37.1 Blackout : Timebetween zerc

gravity parobolas on film.
1Restraint Evaluatingposition with
tetherswhile attached to TDA 37.1 55.5 Camera is faded out as sub-
TEA ject appears to lose h i s z e r o
gravity mode.

55.5 56.1 Blackout

Positioning
J AGustingposition on tetherr TDA 56.1 59. 7
4 g e n aT e t h e r Attachtethertodocking baz TDA 59.7 75.0 Time measured to point whel
tether is pulled tight on dock-
ing bar

75.0 76.2 Blackout

Positioning Maneuver to favorable posi- TDA 76.2 82.6

tiontoactivatedockingbar
clamp

AgenaTether Dockingbarclampactivatio TD.A 92.6 95.8

35.8 101.5 Blackout

L
TABLE= - Cont'd. P q e 2 of 2
- ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCHASSOCIATE!

Task Eubtask Position

U
h
9
-* I
a
Comments

3;

-
. .....
" -"
.- -
I S - 1 0 Farringremoval and TD-4 01 .9 13.5 Appearstobetimemissing
I jettison at the beginning of this task

s - 10 S - 10 removal fFom slots I1

15.4 4.5
19.9 9.1 Blackout

s -10 S - 10 placement on Velcro 29.0 20. c

49.0 1.6 Blackout

Restraint Detach right waisttether TEA 50.8 5.2 Pilot re-attaches this tether
f r o m TD.4 o his E L S S

II Detach left waisttether I1

56.0 14.3 Pilot re-attaches this tether
f r o m TDA tohis E L S S

Movement Translationback handrail 11 70.4 15. S Pilot moves back to end d

f r o m TD.4 towardsspace- handraiLI3uring this transla-
crafthatch tion he turns 180" at approxl
mately half way down hand-
rail.

CameraTask InstallWork station camera Adapterwork 38.5 12.j This task is not complete
station on film
TorqueTask Torquingoperation on fixed It 50.8 42.4 Film ends bdore this task
bolt iscomplete

. ".
 TABLE Xm
TIME COMPARISON OF CAMERA RETRIEVAL AND PLACEMENT TASKS

TASK

MOVEMENT FROM TDA TO SPACECRAFT HATCH 40 44

RETRO CAMERA RETRIEVAL 8 INSTALLATION 24 26

GLV
STRIP
RETRIEVAL 80 96

WORK STATION
CAMERA RETRIEVAL 60 72
-
* TIME - SECONDS

112
 - DETAILED

r
TABLE aP. FLIGHT
TIME
LINE-WORK
STATION
TASKS ANALYSIS Pam I of 3 EIIYIRC
"

1
!
I
Rsition

b
t -J
Adapter W o r k Task Torque In foot restraints 43 :
'i
43 : 5:40 Pilot notes difEiculty removing
(A) 43 :22 49: 02 wrench €rom pouch.
Electricalconnector(center, I1
43 : 43 : I :41 Pilotnotes that Itcrease in
I 49:02 50 :4, glove on thumb I t is beginning
his hand trouble.

Adapter W o r k Task "utter 11 43 : 43 : 3 : 2 9 j Pilotcomments that Itmedium

(ElI 52 :22 55 :51 , E L S S flow with monitoring
i s adequate f o rw o r k tasss
accomplished so €a.
Pip pin and portablehand- 43 : 43 : 2:04
iold 55 :51 57:s;
Saturn bolt 43 : 43 : 1 :49
57:55 59: 44
4ttach waist tethersto work 43 : 44 : I :41
station, remove feet from 59 :44 01 :2:
vestraints and evaluatebody
dynamics
Saturn bolt 44 : 44 : 1 :so Pilot encounters difficulty with
01 :25 03:1; melted rubber retainer on
S a t u r n bolt causing increase
work load because a€ need
to use both hands to remove
bolt.

AdapterWorkTask Saturn bolt rt 44 : 44 : 3: 01 Pilot notes thattFSa€urn boit

@,I 04 :30 07:33 workspace is way too close
to the tethers I t .
Hook and ring It 44 : 44 : 3:23 Pilotcommenta that IIsmalL
07:31 10:51, ring requires more delicate
handling to get propes posi-
tion in hand.

--
 3

TABLE m- Cont’d. Page 2 of 3

Task Cubtask Fosition Cammeats

4dapterWorkTask Waist tethers only:36 :3; 44:

91 44: CP comments tcrunning 4
(C) ‘n adapter 12:37 13:13 minutes behind schedule It
before this subtask begins.
Centerconnectorevaluation :39 44:
08 44:
f2: Pilot notes that body position
1 3 : l j 13:52 is not a problem for center
connector.
Left hand connector evalu - It 8 2 :454;: 4 4 : :35 Pilot notes that left hand
ation 14:02 14:37 connector i s I t a bit m o r e
diEficult11 because of lack of
handholds.
Right hand connectorevalu- It 83 :3 2 Pilotnotes that right hand
ation 14 :37 connectoris Itquite an e a s y
one 1 1 .

TDA WarkTask Pip pir? and portablehand- TDA work Pilot requests a rest period
( aI hold evaluation (initial place- station using 24 :26 after initially placing pip pins
ment) waisttethers and handholds.

Pippin and portablehand- tt Pilotcomments Itpip p i n s

hold evaluation(dynamics that swivel are not adequate
evaluation) as handholds. It
Fluid and electricaldiscon- tt 44: 44: 2:12
nectevaluation 31 : I 3 33:25
Apollotorquewrench tt
44: 44: :36
evaluation 33 :25 34 :01

Apollotorquewrench It 2 : 24 744: 4 : Pilot notes that- Whe only

evaluation 3 5 : 5 6 38:23 things that a r e comingclose
to being w a r ma r e my arm-8
H e attributes this. to the 11
Itclose Eit OE the suit in the
arms ‘1.
TABLE IIP- Cont 'd.
-
t Task EuStask Position Qmmcnts
.-*
&

C
G

1 '" Work Task

(C)
(Continued)
rorquere-evaixation
mly right waisttether
using TDA work
station using right
waisttether only
44 :
40 :2L
Pilot notes his contact points
to be !!right a r m , right
waist tether a n d right foot I t .
Torquere-evaii;ation using TDA work 44 :
IO tethers station k 2 :21
n o restraints
 -
i
TABLE XV E r M l NMENJAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

.-
c
i
Task Eubtask Position a I
Cammcatr
ra

-B
>

W
rJ
c

s
6 ..I
L
0
1:
I

-- -
AdspterWorkTask Torqueevaluation In foot restraints 37: 55 37:55 :60 Pilot removes torque wrench
(A) in adapter i.om pouch and adjusts torquc
jial f o r loosening operation
xi fixed bolt .
Torquetask-loosening II 38 :55 38 :55 1 :25
evaluation
Torquetask-tightening I1 $0:20 +0:20 :60
evaluation
Torque task-l/2 inch bolt II $1:20 + 1 :20 1 :20
evaluation
Center .connector evaluation I1 C2:40 k 2 : 4 G 1 :10

AdapterWorkTask Cutterevaluation 11 $6:45 $6:45 325

(E)
Pip piz and portablehand- 11 50:lC 5 0 ~ 1 6 :4 8
hold evaluation
S a t u r n bolt removal 11 50 :56 50 :5 6 1 :43 Pilot hoc) k s up left and righIt
waist tethers.
S a t u r n bolt removal Waist tethers onlJ 52 :41 52:41 6:47 Pilot r e m o v e s both f e e t f r o m
inadapter restraints at beginning ofthis I
subtask.
Pilot comments that Ithe tiroli
rubber retainer strip around
bolt'!duringremovaltask.
Hook a n d ringevaluation 59 :2 E 59 :2€ 3:20 Pilot seta camera at 6 F P S
for this task.
 1

TABLE font'd Page 2 af 2 EllVlRONMEHTAL RESEARCH ASSOCifilE

. I

-I
-
.C

Task Cubtask Position Cammcnts

'I
1

-c
I
AdapterWorkTask Nylon a n d steelVelcrostrip Waist tetheronly Pilot adjusts his tethers and
(C) .valuation in adapter and changes camera setting
at end of thissubtask
Centerconnector evaluation ll

CeEt hand connectorevalua- It Pilot changescameraback

:ion '0 1 FPS at 73:03
Right hand connector ll
svaluation

TEA Work
Task Pip pin a n d portablehand- T w o waisttether
(a) $old evaluation (initial place-
ment)

TDA Work
Task Pip pin a n d portablehand-
(b $old evaluation
Fluid a n d electricaldiscon-
lector evaluation
Apollo torquewrench
Evaluation

Apollo torque evaluation Onewaisttether

only
Electrical and fluid connector II
evaluation
Torquere-evaluation II

TDA Work
Task Connector evaluation N o tether
(4
Torque re-evaluation
 TABLE XEI
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR
TASK
COMPARISON
L

CONNECTOR DESCRIPTION ORBITAL U WATER #

SIMULATION

PORT 35 180

CENTER 39 20

STARBOARD I02 so

e TIME- SECONDS

118
I

TABLE Xvrr
BIOMEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION COMPONENTS FOR THE
WATER SIMULATION

I==
02
SENSOR

Content (exhaust)
PRIMARY

Beckmantype E2
BACKUP

Beckman type D I

Per kin E lmer

COe Content (exhaust) Liston-8ec ker (nd)
Type A S

Fisher-Porter
0
Airflow 'Florater' (nd)

SkinMounted
0
Electrodes
(sternal)

Impedance
1 Respiratory Rate Pneumograph
0

Thermistor Probe 0
Skin
Temperature (posteriorto earlobe

119
 T A B L E XSZIU
RESULTS OF BIOMEDICAL
ANALYSIS OF GEMINI XU PREFLIGHT
SIMULATION
ASTRONAUT ALDRIN
'I

BTU/Hr. HEART RESP. BODY

CODE TASK RAT E RATE TEMI? CO,
Ft.*

A Resting Water
In 63.7 65 12 971 .47

B Agena Tether Task 38.2 05 15 1 97.0 .57

C Adapter Work Task 53.I 90 24 97.0 .62

D Torque Wrench
Evaluation 40.6 95 18 96.6 .50

E Velcro Evaluation 51.2 75 18 97.6 .70

1

F Apollo Torque Wrench Evaluation 37.3 80 12 97.0 -50

1 G
II Working On Line 1 39.0 I 65
'I
i/ 21

Working On Line 1
I
69.3 1 100 1 27 1 98.2 I .75 1
 TABLE XU
RESULTS OF BIOMEDICAL
ANALYSIS
OF GEMINI XE PREFLIGHT
SIMULATION

I
1 CODE , TASK
I
BTU/Hr. I HEART \
I
RESP. BODY 1.
i F t 2 i RATE / RATE TEMP. I co2
I
1I
I

1 A Resting 37.5 65
i
1
I
6
97.9 ~ -
I

1
I I

B Working - NO Suit

I I I
1

1 i

-f
1, D Working -No Pressure 68.2 ,! 100 !
I
18 1 927

E 1 -
Resting Pressurized 19.0
I
1
I
65 i 15 970

Working-Pressurized 27 98.2 .9
82.1 j 150
G
Resting-Pressurized
I
I 21.1 1
I
100
15 90.4 .4

- -
Resting 5 % CO, 12.6 130 27 99.4 - .6

- -
Worklng 5 YOCO, 165.0 I35 20 '9.9 off
scale
 TABLE 3cI TASK TIME - TASK ENERGY
-
COMPARISON
-"a
Page I of 3 ENVIRONMENTALRESEARCHASSOCIATE!

I ELAPSED TIME TASK TIME TASK ENERGY COST

I
(min.:sec.) (min.) (BTU)

Flight Preflight Flight Preflight Increment Flight Preflight Increment

Simulation Simulation Simulation

Positioningpestraint 0:oo 0:oo 1:40 :50 + 0.84 12 5 + 7

!?est (1) 1:52 4:35 :52 :25 + 0.45 10 5 + 5
Camera Placement- 3 :01 : 50 1:39 :60 + 0.65 31 11 + 20
R e t r i e v a l F i l m Change
Positioningzestraint 4 :40 2:55 :15 :25 + 0.33 11 9 + 2

Camera Placement-
RetrievaJ./Film Change 5:25 3:20 :55 :65 - 0.06 12 17 - 5
Positioning/Restraint 6: 20 4:25 :27 :10 + 0.28 3 2 + 1
' Rest (21 6:54 5 : 50 1:43 :30 + 1.22 11 2 + 9
Positioning/Restraint 8:37 6:20 1:05 :10 + 0.91 13 1 + 12
I
Movement 9:47 6:30 :41 :31 + 0.16 12 1 + 11
c.
N
N Positioningpestraint 10:35 7:01 1:45 1:56 - 0.18 24 5 + 19
Agena T e t h e r 12 :23 8:57 2 :20 1:40 + 0.66 37 17 + 20
PositioninePestraint 14 :59 10:37 :38 1:30 - 0.87 5 23 - 18

Rest (31 15 :52 18 :09 2 :07 1:40 + 0.45 19 9 + 10

s-10 18 :03 12 :32 3 :39 :55 + 2.73 72 10 + 62
Positioning/Restraint 21 :48 13 :27 :40 1:15 - 0.56 14 13 + 1
TDA Work S t a t i o n
Preparation 22:47 14 :42 1:06 3 :27 - 2.35 28 56 - 26

Rest (4) 23 :58 31 :01 5:08 1:51 + 3.28 198 26 + 172

Positioning/Fkstraint 29 :09 19 :49 :49 3 :00 - 2.12 20 6 + 14
Movement 31 :19 22 :49 :44 :40 + 0.06 14 4 + 10
Camera Placement- 32 :20 23 :29 :26 :24 + 0.03 + 6
R e t r i e v a l F i l r n Chanpc 9 3
GLV S t r i p s 33 :02 23 :53 1:36 1:20 + 0.27 33 15 + 18

- -
TABLE P Cont'd. Page 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHASSOCIATE!

ELAPSEDTIME TASK TIME TASK ENERGY COST

TASK (min.:sec.) (min.) (BTU)

Flight Preflight Flight Preflight Increment Flight Preflight Increment

Simulation Simulation Simulation

Camera Placement-
34 :42 25:13 1:12 :60 + 0.20 .24 17 + 7
Retrieval/Film Change
Positioning/Restraint 36 :05 - : 26 - + 0.43 8 - + 8
hvement 36:37 26:13 2:02 2:25 - 0.38 42 41 + 1
Camera Placement-
R e t r i e v a l F i l m Chanpe 38:40 26 :48 2:22 1:13 + 1.15 73 7 + 66
Rest ( $ 1 41 :02 36 :02 :57 1:53 - 0.93 24 25 - 1
Positioningzestraint 42 :09 28:38 2:50 :10 + 2.66 54 1 + 53
Hork S t a t i o n Prepara-
tion 45 :47 32: 52 1:18 1:43 - 0.42 18 25 - 7
Rest ( 6 ) 47 :17 44 :45 2 :09 2:oo + 0.15 28 21 + 7
iyork S t a t i o n Prepara-
Cion 49 :37
4
- 2:36 - + 2.60 36 - + 36

Adapter Work Task 52 :17 37:55 7:21 6:50 + 0.52 146 110 + 36
(A)
Rest (7) 59 :38 69:53 1:35 2 :oo - 0.42 18 33 - 15
Adapter Work Task 61:17 46:45 10:53 6:56 + 3.57 187 79 + 108
(Bi)
Sest ( 8 ) 72 :11 77:30 1:04 2 :oo - 0.93 19 45 - 26
idapter Work Task
(E2) 73:25 52 :41 6:24 10:07 - 3.43 146 126 + 20

Rest ( 9 ) 79:53 85:32 1 :31 3 :10 - 1.65 21 21 0

Adapter Work Task
(C)
81 :32 71:53 3 :42 5 :15 - 1.33 71 140 - 69

Adapter Work S t a t i o n
Cleanup 85:36 79:30 2 :14 3:50 - 1.60 59 58 + 1

Movement 88:37 89 :42 :31 1:04 - 0.55 12 20 - 8

-
TABLE 11 Cont'd. EIVIRONMLWTAL RESEIRCH ASSOCIATE!
~

ELAPSED TIME TASK TIME TASK ENERGY COST

TASK (min.:sec.) (min.) (BTU)

-
Flight Preflight Flight Preflight Increment Flight Preflight Increment
Simulation 5imulat ion Simulation

Camera Placement- R9:21 90 :46 + 1.01 39 + 24

R e t r i e v a l F i l m Chanpe 2:34 1:33 63

qovement 91:59 93 :04 1:14 1 :05 + 0.15 32 24 + 8

TDA Work S t a t i o n
Task ( a ) 93 : 2 1 5l+:09 2 :13 2:lO + 0.05 58 33 + 25

Rest (10) 95:54 92 :19 3 :07 :45 + 2.37 58 12 + 46

T D A Work S t a t i o n
Task (bl 99 10 19 3:16 3 :40 - 0.40 65 38 + 27

Rgst (11) 102 57 19 1:54 2:oo - 0.10 30 20 + 10

TDA Work S t a t i o n
Task (c) 104 51 54 6:25 9:lO - 2.45 159 66 + 93
Observation and F i n a l 111 16 110 :04 :41 + 0.10 18 10 + 8
Work S t a t i o n C l e a n u p :35

Movement 111 57
I
113 :39 : 51 1:04 - 0.22 20 11 + -9
OpticalSurface
Evaluation 112 55 4:55 :55 :55 0 30 7 + 23

UmbilicalStowage 114:36 - :43 - + 0.72 21 - + 21

Ingress 115 :19 116 :23 1:28 :27 + 0.95 37 6 + 31
T h r u s t e r Checkout 116 :56 - 1 :49 + 1.82 31 - + 31
H a n d r a i lJ e t t i s o n 118: 56 116 50 :44 :28 + 0.26 8 6 + 2
Hatch Closure 119 :40 + 0.60 6 + 11
Preparation 117 18 1:05 :29 17

Hatch Closure 121 :01 117 47 - - - - - -

 TABLE. XH

GT XI1 Task Complement

.:I[ EVA EVALUATION

, . TASKS I
O RESTRAINT EVALUATION

O SUIT
MOBILITY EVALUATION

O TORQUE

O MAINTENANCE

1 EVA SUPPORT TASKS 1

O CAMERA PLACEMENT 8 RETRIEVAL

O MOVEMENT

* REST

I EXPERIMENT SUPPORT
TASKS I
O s-IO

AGENA TETHER

O GLV STRIPS

125
 TABLE XXLI
EVALUATION
OBJECTIVES FOR VARIOUS EVA
SUBTASKS

Camera Placement
Evaluation X

Rest (2)

Foot
Restraints X
~

X X

Connector X X

I Cutter
I x X

I -
Pip pins 8 Handhold
I x
1 Saturn Bolt
l x X X

I Hook 8 Ring
l x
Apollo
Torque Wrench X X X

Velcro
Strips X X

Optical Surface Evaluation x

126
 TABLE mXm
EFFECT of RESTRAINT MODES ON WORK TASKS FOR TLtGHT AND WATER SlMULATIO)I

ADAPTER WORK TASKS

I

I
I

FOOT
RESTRAINTS WAIST TETHERS
I I ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ I

FLIGHT SIMULATION -FLIGHT SIMULATION

Min : sec. Min:sec.. BTUlhr.

BTU/hr. . Min,tec. BTU/hr. . BTU/hr. Min:sec.

TORQUE 7:29 1177.5 6:23 1096.6 431 1339.8 6:47 782.3 I

I

CONNECTOR 1:41 1042.9 1:IO 810.3 2:56 1240.0 440 1664.8

CONNECTOR 242 1153.6 39 722.5 - - 3:37 371.3 - - 145 432.0

TOROUE 3 ~ 0 3 1158.9 1:35 410.1 1:57 1600.0 2:33 555.3 2:Ol 1835.8 1:45 356.6
 TAQLE XXlX
REST PERIOD PERFORMANCE

5 0.95 1515.8 I .88 797.9

6 2.15 781.4 2.00 630.0

7 1.58 683.5 2 .oo 990.0

a 1.07 1065.4 2.00 1350.0

8 1.52 828.9 3.17 397.5

IO 3.12 1115.4 0.75 960.0

II 1.90 947.4 2.00 600.0

12 - - I .92 625.0

TOTAL 22.13 - 20.16 -

AVERAGE 2.01 987.t 1.68 706.9
I

128
Handrail Erection

Figuro 5-1 GEMINI 1[IT COMPARISON . OF ORBITAL

FLIGHT,
WATER a A I R C R A FSTl 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 2 2

- ~ ~ ~~~

Waist TetherEvaluation Rest

(no aircraft filmavailable)

Figuro 5 - I Cont 'd. P a g o 5 of 2 2

 Rest

(no aircraft film available)

Flguro 5-1 Cont'd. Pago 6 of 2 2

Agena Tether Task
 AgenaTetherTask

(no aircraftfilmavailable)

Figure 5-1 Cont 'd. Page 8 of 22

 Agena Tether Task

(no aircraft film available)

Figuro 5-1 Cont 'd. Page 9 of 2 2

 AgenaTetherTask

(no aircraft film available)

Figuro 5-1 Cont 'd. Pago IO of 22

 Movement
From
Hatch To TDA Work
Station

(no aircraft film available)

Flguro 5 - I Cont Id. Page I1 d 22

 Movement (Cont'd.) TDA Work Tasks: Pip-Pin 8 Handhold Placement

(no aircraft film available)

Figure 5-41 Cont'ct. Page 12 of 22

 Pip-Pin S Handhold Placement

Figuro S-I Cont'd. Pago 13 of 2 2

 Pip-Pin 8 Handhdd Placement

I'

'iguro 5-1 Cont 'd. Pago 14 of 22

 Pip-Pin - & HandholdPlacement

Figuro S - I Cont'd. Pago IS of 22

 Pip-Pin & HandhddPlacement

Figure 5 - 1 C o n t ' d . Paga I6 of 22

 ~

Pip-Pin 8 Handhold Placement

(no aircraftfilmavailable)

I
 Pip-Pin & Handhold Placement Rest On T D A

(no aircraftfilmavailaue)

-
Figure 5 I Cont 'd . Page IO of 22
 Rest On TDA

(no aircraft filmavailable)

Figuro S - I Cont'd. Pago 19 of 22

 Rest On TDA

(no aircraftfilmavailable)

Figure 6 - I Cont ' d. Page 2 0 of 22

 Rest On TDA Waist Tether Adjustment

(no aircraft film available)

Cigurr 5 - 1 Cont 'd. Pago 21 of 2 2

 Apollo Torque
Wrench
Evaluation

(no aircraftfilmavailable)

Figure 5-1 Cont'd. Pago 22 of 22

 HANDRAIL ERECTION
MOVEMENT FROM HATCH TO DOCKING BAR

AGENA TETHER TASK S-010 DEPLOYMENT

TDA WORK STATION

PREPARATION

RETURN TO HATCH MOVEMENT TO ADA,PTER

SECTION
I J

Figure 5 - 2 Gemini XII SEQUENCE OF PREFLIGHT WATER SIMULATION (30 SECOND INTERVALS)
CAMERA
SECTION
ADAPTER
MOVEMENT TO

WORK
STATION
PREPARATION

F O ORTE S T R A I NETV A L U A T I O N

ADAPTER WORK TASKS

Figure 5 - 2 Cont'd.
ADAPTER WORK TASKS
I

FOOT RESTRAINT EVALUATION

ADAPTER WORK TASKS

5-2 Cont'd.
 ADAPTER WORK TASKS

CAMERA RETRIEVAL
MOVEMENT 1

1-

Figuro be2 Cont 'd.

TO HATCH EXCHANGE OF CAMERAS MOVEMENT TO TDA

TDA WORK TASKS

Figure 5 - 2 Cont'd.
 figure 5-3 PIP
PIN
DEVICE

Standup
Famlfiarlzatlon s-IO

Tasks
Work
Adapter T D Tasks
A Work

To Adapter To T D A

Plume
Observation lnpress

"

Figure 5 - 4 MAJOR TA3K-EVENTS OF THE GEMINIXU UMBILICAL EVA

156
connotar time line not contlnuour

HANDRAIL
ERECTION

ir) MOVEMENT
TO DOCKING BAR (4 AGENA TETHER TASK

bri) REST

(4 S - 0 1 0 a TDA WORK STATION

PREPARATION

Figure 5 - 6 SEQUENCE OF AVAILABLE

FILM FROM THE
GEMINI XIt FLIGHT
( T H I R T Y SECOND
INTERVALS)
Hconnotmstimeline not continuous

TDA YORK TASKS

Figure 5 - 6 Cont’d.
 w) connotestlme
~~~
line not continuous ~ ~~

EGRESS
SPACECRAFT (*I MOVEMENT
FROM HATCH TO DOCKING BAR

TASKAGENA TETHER (*) S-010 DEPLOYMENT

(a) T D A WORK TASKS

Figure 5-7 SEQUENCE OF AVAILABLE

AIRCRAFT SIMULATION
FILM
(THIRTY SECOND INTERVALS)
N A S A -5.66-1179 9

STRA P OE
SUIT 1.E G

FI.WW 5 -B LEG TETHER C'ONFIGURATION FlOuIe 5 - 0 CAMERA

PLACEMENT
EVALUATION
WHILE
STANDING IN COCKPIT UNTETHEREO

Flwra 5-10 CAYIA PLACEMENT

EVALUATION - BODY Flpura 5 -I1 PILOT'S
INITIAL
RESTINQ
POSITION ON
OUTUDI SPACECRAFT
HATCH PORTAOLE
HANDRAIL

161
 Flgure 5-12 RlQHT WAIST TETHER
TO PORTABLE DOCKINQ CONE U-BOLT ATTACHMENT POIN1
FOR WAIST
TETHER
HANDRAIL RING

Figure 5-14 AGENA TETHER CONFIGURATION RllOR TO

ACTIVATION BY ASTRONAUT

162
 FIW8 6 -16 5-010 FULLY DEPLOYED 011 TDA

. ..I . .,:.".
, . '- .. ( .
. ~
-1

NASA.S.66-11852
GEMINI X n I

EVAADAPTER WORK STATION

” .. .

?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..........................
' """~ii:"""
I
r --
I I
:. : 8
I
1-1
,

I
Pg -, .................................................................................................................................. ~ .................................................................

f -z
- .. ",",11 ""
..... ~ .. ....................................................
2
-, .I" ........ " ~ ~ .............................................................. -...........-....

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

-a

165
 4

I I Total Time (min.)

Task Category
IO 20 30 40

1
-
I
Positioning .8 Restraint

Camera Placement 8 Retrieval

n m m m I I 9.13 .
6:25

Movement * . !

I Rest

Preparation 81 Cleanup p m = ?.FS8 I .

I Experiment Support

-
Residual

1 1 1 1 Flight
Simulation

Figure 5 -21 COMPARISON SUMMARY OF MAJOR TASK

CATEGORY
AtLlcB GATV tether
7 ..
4
station
r M o v e to adapter

work TDA
r evaluation

160 r
M e s s a g e s for Houston r Evaluate foot restraints
4

r
Return to
cockpit

Elapsed time, min

NASA-S-67-817
200 -
180

160
-
55 140
m

y’ -------
-- -- -
OGcmIniIX-A

- --
3 120
OCemini X
I AGemini P
0 Gemini m
100

Flgura 5 - 2 3 P R E F L I G H TE R G O Y E T R I - GEMINI II - III

167
 -0- Heart

- rate
Blood
pressure

I:
W
I
ln
U
S 300
400

0 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 14 16
Time, min

Flgure 5 - 2 4 OXYGEN
UTILIZATION
CURVES FROM PREFLIGHT
ERGOMETRY

168
 ........ - .

r- - 1
160

140

130

0
I
A
I I
C
I
0
I
E
I
F
I
0
L o
n r
lo
I
TAOK z :

Flgura 6 - 2 5 OEMlNl nl BIOMEOICAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE

SIMULATION

.. .-
I
C.l/Wfd
Tavumua
-
..............
-2 ""
...
....

F l w a 6-28 OEYlYl DIOYEOIC

UUUllEYENTS OF THE
IIUAATIOY ( da V. WEIR TLCYYIQUE)

169
 . - ......... - - ......
. B

r BTU/hr/ft2
Heart Rate
-
..............

-130
30
- 120

-SO

-80

-70

-60

I I 1 I I I 1
A C 0 E F 0
TASK

*s f

Flyre 6 - LT PREFLICHT SIWLATION BIOYEOICAL YEASUREYENTI

USlNB E R A SUBJECT

15s 2 -
E?U/hr/ff2
T.rnp.,0,"r,
-
..............
co2 ""

' .....
\\ ..........

,
:
'
..4
:'
\
,
" \
\

Flaure 8 - 2 8 PREFLIQHT SIYULATION BIOMEDICAL YEASUREYENTI

U S I W ER A SUBJECT

170
 Cumulative Workload

FIwYre 6-7.I CUYULATIVE WORK LOAD FOR THE OT-XI TAIK 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 ..................................
c
e 72.F. 50Y. R.H.

80 I I I I
I 2 3 4
WORK CYCLES

Fl9UIa 5-31 EFFECT OF HEAT LOAO ON

HEART
RATE
AT
CONSTANT WORK RATES

4 <200

i - A I I
70 90 110 130 I50
PULSE COUNT / MIN

Flvura 5 - 3 2 SINOLE
PARAMETER WORK LOAO CORRELATIONS

172
 i
............................................................ :.. .....................................................
n
:......................................
I
:. .......................
I
....................................................... i.......... ........................... r............................ ;................................................ :.......................
I D I . m I
D I - I
.................... ................................... ........I........................... ................................ I..........
I........................
, I I ,

............................

I
I
I
....................................................................
I
.......................................................... .-, ..... -, ............................................

173
z ,.L"".. Y.
..
."" I."".-."l...".l.""'I
1- l
" ..

174
Flaure 6 - 3 6 CALCULATED DRAC FOR NOTION OF A PREWRE
8UlTLD 8UBJECT THROUOH THE WATER

175
 " I

176
 The Effect of Restraint On Task Work Load

Flqrro 8 - 3 # THE CFFECT OF RESTRAINT 011 TASK

WORK LOA0

177
 Dearer Of Flexure At The Hip

ol" 10 20
"
30
" I I
40
I-
50
~
I
60
OEOREE OF BEND

Degree Of Flexure At The Knee

20 40 60 BO 100 120
DEORLE OF B E N 0

"

Flaure 6 - 4 0 WIT MOBILITY ANALYII8 FOR LEAH BACK

TASK

179
Flaw. 5 - 41 APOLLO TORQUE
WRENCH

Flgura 5 - 4 2 TELESCOPING
HANDRAIL

180

I
 TI".* lrnl",

Figura 5 - 4 3 COYPARISOU OF THE EFFECTIVEUEII Or REITI

Incidence and Duration of Work Tasks

F1-m -
I 44 CX?LRlYLNTAL SUPPORT TAIKI COYCARllOH

181
 6.O-CONCLUSIONS
While waterimmersion simulation provedtobe vary useful ita mzpport-
ing theGemini E V A program, the Gqpini E V 4 program in turn cause#
a rapid evolution and re-evduationofthewaterimmersion simulation
technique at ERA. The inclusion of biomedical measurements toward
the end of the program particularly heightenedthevalue of water im-
mersion simulation of E V A .
Ingeneral,thewaterimmersiontechniqueoffers a simulation medium
whichcloselycompares with actual spaceperformance.Directnumer?
ical correlationmust await missionswhereinexperimentaltaskscanbe
designed f o r direct one f o r onecQmparison and where more extensive
biomedicalinstrumentation i s included in theflight. Theresultsof the
s t u d y strongly&firm:the validity of waterimmersion a s a simulation
tool f o r support of future E V A and I V A activities.
6.1 - CORRELATION- W T M SPA-CE PERFORMANCE . I , -

TimeLine - Thetask timelinedevelopedduring thewaterimmersion

simulatiqn wasusedtoestablishtargettimes and wae not intended a s cr
rigid performancespecification.The tasks were not performed in
space in exactlythesamesequence as wa8 rehearsed in the water.
A s an eeaqple, thetaskof collecting deposits on the spececrdt wind-
Bhield was performed early in the simulation and v e r y late in space.
Additional tasks such as theinspectionof a vernier rocket were not
performed at all in the simulation. Therewere,however,various
task groupings that occurred in sequence and formed the basie of the
detailed comparison.Thesecomparisonsconfirm a v e r yd o s er e l a -
tionship betweenpreflight training and flights.The data gtrongly S U P -
p o r t e theuse of waterimmersion to establish time lines for future B V p .

Velocity - The most serious limitation imposed b y theuseofwater im-

mersion a s an E V A trainer and simulator i s that of thedragassociated
with movement,Thisfactorbecomes o€ minorimportance f o r lowve-
locities in therangeof 0.5 f e e t p e r second or less, since as the velo-
cityapproaches a e r o the d r a g approaches z e r o .T h e velocityassociatad
with a typical movement sequence in the traveldownthetelescoping
handrail,proved to beapproximately .25 f e e t p e r second in both water
immersion g n d orbital flight.Theperiod involving thegreatest distanqe
excursion during E V A w a s themovementsequenceback to theadapter,
This sequence i4 not recorded on film f o r theflight since there was nq
cameraooverage,Analysisofthewaterimmersionpneflightfilmshows
this 9 foot distance to be traversed in 27 seconds f o r an averqgevelo-
city of 0.33 f e e t p e r second or the same a s in thesimulation.
While future E V A tasks may result in grepltey velocitiqswhichbecome
a problem in w d e r immersion simulation, theGemini XLT w a s perfQrrJ?sd
within a velocityrangewherewater d r a g $id not ppovetobe +m im-
portapt factor.

182
Kinematic8
whichasplit
-
Thefilmsupplementtothisreportincludesaportion
<Fame techniquehasbeen U E to~ maperimpope three
in
ducedsige f r a m e s onone 16 mmframe.Theuppercentershows
the film Prom orbit -
the lower left Shows the film from preflight water
immersion -
the lower right shows the film from preflight zero graviby
aircraftwhenavailable.Althoughthecameraanglee aredifferentfor
each view, a careful s t u d y s h o w s that performance is very similar in
both time and mQtion between orbitalflight a n d waterimmersion.The
comparison between orbitalflight and zero gravity aircraft shows siqi-
Iarity in motion but amajordBerence in time.Performance in the zerp
gravityaircraftwaealwaysfaster but was not aconetantratio.The
ratioappearstobetaskdependent with thetime in the zero gravity
parabola controlling the s p e e d of the task.

WorkLoad -
Biomedical data from preflight has been carefully analyzed
and indicaters, that f o r GT-XU typetasks,heartrate is a valid indi-
cator of therelativework ,'cad oftheastronaut.Oxygenuptakeme-
thodsrequireatimetoreach equilibrium whit* is notconsistent with,
thetasktimesexperienced.Heart rate, on theotherhand,increase@
during periodswhentheastronaut is obviouslyworkingharder and de-
c r e a s e s during periodsoflesser activity. I n additioq, heartrate and
respiration rate were the only measures of physiological output made
and currentlyplanned for future missions andwill,, of necessity,
f o r m thebagisofcomparison for tasks in the near future.

Heartratecomparisonsbetweenthe simulation and spacewhendeter-

mined on the basis of the preflight ergometry, shows that the p e r f o r -
mance of the tasks in orbit requiredahighermetabolic output than w s s
required in thesimulation,particularly for moderate o r higher work
tasks. L o w levelworktasks and re&periodsareaffectedbysecon#
order balanceoonlsiderations in the isimulation rgince theastronaut is not
at z e r o grgvity. inside the suit.
Since early considerations of waterimmersion simulationconcluded that
work in the simulation would begreater than work in space,the GT-m
data showing greater work load in spacewasunexpected and calls f o r
a reviewof the aimulation ver8us orbital conditions. A c u r s o r y evalu-
ation indicates that thermal load a n d atmospheric pressure effects may
account f o r theunexpectedlowerwork load in simulation. Therewas
no attempt duripgthe simulation r u n s tocontrol theseeffects.Table
summarizes the impgrtantconclusionsdeveloppd aa a result of this
study.
6.2 -
" U.~T I L I T Y
~ OF TME SIMULATION

Training -
Astronaut Aldrin accumulated more than 20 hours of water
8imUhtiOn priorto flightincluding the original GT-XIl taskline.The
lasteeseion,6Izours, was held 14 dayrsr priorto orbital EVA. T w o
weeks after return from orbit he performed a pQstElight evaluation of the
~imulation. M e r eachses$ion, an informalde-briefingwae held to din-
cussperformance,procedures, agd suit operations. A s a reeuft of
these discussions, 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 suitoperationwasmodified in a r d e r ctP optimizetheastro-

naut I s performance. A s a result of thi4 o r b i t 4 p e r f o r m a n c e p r e v i e w ,
Astrongut Aldrin gave special attention to continuouslyrelaxingspecific
muscle groups in o r d e r t o b e s u r e that he wae not performing unnece6-
g a r yw o r k . Even d e r thepostflightsimuJation,theastronautcommente#
thathe wae still learning how to work within a p r e s s u r e s u i t .

G T - m trainingincludedCommandPilot Love11 performing the control

and monitoringfunctionheperformed in space.Subjectively,thecrew
reported thatthesimulationtraining 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 s
ofthe GT-XU EVA. T h er e s u l t s of the analyses performedduring
thiscontractsupportthisconclusion. A completecomparisonofthe
availabledata, h o w e v e r ,s h o w s thatwhilethesimulationwasadequate
f o r the t a s k s performed during Gemini X U EVA, future tasks requiring
greater work loads will require higher fidelity more closely controlled
simulation.

EquipmentEvaluation - Contracts NAS 1-4095 a n d NAS 9-6584 w e r e

primarily for the purpose of evaluating p r o o e d v r e s and training p e r s o n -
nel. It wasimmediatelyapparent,however, that the simulationalso
offered a m e a n s f o r evaluating potential flight equipment configurations.
T h e p r o b l e m s of handlingportable hardware, such a s cameras and
tools,becameobviouswhenviewedthroughthemeansof high fidelity
simulation.Thisdoesnotmean that eachpieceofequipmentneedbe
an exact copy which has been made neutrally buoyant for high fidelity
simulation.Importantoperatingconceptsmustbefaithfullyreproduced,
h o w e v e r , and w h e r eg r o s s uncontrolledmotions occur,thehardware
mustbemadeneutrallybuoyant without changing its geometriccharac-
teristics.

Restraints - T h e speciEic taskscomprisingthe EVA timelinewere not

performed in thesamesequence in theflight a n d simulation. Both the
number and spacing OE the rest periodsweredifferent.Consequently,
the astronaut's subjective analysis of thetaskcomparisonparticularly
of thevalueofrestraintsmustbegiven first priority.Subjectively,
theastropautreportedapreferenceforthe molded footrestraints.Thie
p r e f e r e n c e is partlyduetothecombinationoftheserestraintswiththe
Gemini suit which is relativelyinflexible in thefoot and leg area thus
providinga preferred attitude positionmaintenancecharacteristic.Waist
tethersprovidecontrol of themaximumexcursiondistancebetweenthe
tether points and theastronaut but provide little control over attitude.
Future plans for the use of the molded foot restraints should take into
account that the Apollo suit, being reasonably flexible in the foot a n d leg
ar%a, will not providethesamepositionmaintenancecharacteristics as
did theGeminisuit.

Another factor complicatingtheevaluationofrestraints is thelengthof

individual tasks. Sincethe individual t a s k sw e r e OE shortduration a n d
w e r e not performed in the same sequence in simulation and s p a c e , it
becameadvantageoustoevaluatethecontributionofrestraints in the

184:
other Gemini E V A Is. In theGeminiprogram,theonly long t e r m
E V A task performed in arepetitivesequentialmannerwasthe AMU
activationtaqk.Informationonthistaskincluded.:

(1) AstronautCernanperforming a postflightevaluation of GT-w

using Eoot stirrups.

(2) AstronautAldrinperformingpreflight GT-XU usingmolded

foot restraints.

( 3 ) E R A subjectperforming G T - X and GT-XU with footstirrup?.

( 4 ) ERA subjectperforming activation t a s k s with norestraints.

Thedifferencebetween G T - I X a n d GT-XU activation wasthetype and

location ofthefootrestraints. GT-IX had stirrups mountedona bar
relatively highwhilethe GT-XU versionusedthemoldedfootrestraints
mountedbelowthe AMU.Comparative evaluationsupportea b y subjec-
tive comments rstrongly suggest that the overall task of AMU activation
w a s e a s i e r without restraints.

The unrestrained subject moves during the task a n d optimallypositionB

the suit relativetotherequiredsubtask.The G T - M restraint r e -
quires gross suit bending to reach lower portions of the AMU and the
GT-XZT restraint requires much higher level effqrt duetothe preferred
work locationofthetorso(asuitproblemreported b y E . Aldrin dur-
ing debriefing).Insummary,restraintsmustbeconsideredforfuture
missionrequirements on thebasisoftheir valuetotheperformance of
particular tasks.

Table XYLZ summarizes the utility ofwaterimmersionsimulationrelative

totheGemini E V A program.Starting with theGemini IV E V A with
nocontribution,waterimmersionsimulationcontinually had an increap-
ing role in support of the E V A . A majorvalue of the sirnulation
provedtobethe capabilitytovisuallypreviewspaceperformance,thus
allowingmissionplannerstosynthesize and coalescetheflightplan into
afinaltaskline with assurance that theastronaut wouldnot be r e -
quiredtodrasticallyalterhisrehearsalprocedures.Further,the re-
sultsindicate thatcandidate hardwareconfigurationscanbeadequately
evaluatedpriortouse in space. Also, theastronautneednotbe re-
quiredtopre-evaluateeachpiece of hardware and choosewhichhard-
wareconfiguration and procedurehe will u s . Rather,arepetXve
analysiscanbemade utilizing personnel of equivalent performance capa-
bility to narrow down the range of choice.

Water immersion simulationshould form the basis for the development

of time line a n d hard data relativetoequipment a n d equipmentlayout
forfuturemissions.TheGemini XU E V A consistedofawellidentified
set of Casks of relatively low work load interspersed with many rest
periods.Also,thetasktookmaximumadvantageofrestrainttechnique@
evaluated priortotheflight. Care mustbeexercised in applying these
techniquestonewareasof E V A requiring high workloads. Continuoug
water immersion simulation is required as well as support from other
modes such as the zero gravity aircraEt tosupplyinformationunobtain-
able fromwaterimmersionsimufation.
185
 TABLE XXP
CONCLUSIONS
# WATER IMMERSION
SIMULATION
-TRAINING
CONTRIBUTED MATERIALLY TO
THE SUCCESS OF GEMINI H1:

+FOR NEAR FUTURE EVA TASKS THE WATER IMMERSION TECHNIQUE

SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY SIMULATION
MODE

*TIME CORRELATION IS ADEQUATE WITH WATER IMMERSION SIMULATION

0 HEART RATE - WORKLOAD CORRELATION IS THE PRIMARY METABOLIC

MEASURE DUE TO SHORT TASK
TIMES AND SLOW EQUILIBRIUM

RESPONSE TIME OF OXYGEN UPTAKE METHOD

*MODERATE TO HIGH WORK TASKS EXHIBIT GREATER HEART RATES IN SPA'CE

#LOW WORK TASKS

E.G. RESTS ARE AFFECTED
BY 2nd ORDER BALANCE

CONSIDERATIONS IN WATER

0 AIRCRAFT
SIMULATION IS VALID
KINEMATICALLY
BUT REQUIRES TIME

INCREASE

#EXACT NUMERICAL CORRELATION REQUIRES RESOLUTION OF THERMAL AND

PRESSURE EFFECTS
 TABLE XXPI:
SUMMARY OF GEMINI EVA
RESULTS
AND
APPLICABILITY OF WATER IMMERSION
SIMULATION

FLIGHT OBJECTIYES I PERFORMANCE COMMENTS

APPLICATION OF WATER
IMMERSION SIMULATION

GT - 4 - Feasibillty
Demonstrated mans -Lowtaskworkload - None
- E. V.Motion
capability
perform
to
(HHMU) EVA
~~ ~~~ ~ ~
7

GT-SA
-E.V.
Motion Terminatedearlydue - Problemsoftimeline -Postflightevaluation
(AMU) t o excessive
workload and trainingvalidity byastronautandERA
-inadequate body subjects
restraint
system -Demonstrated preliminary
u t i l i t y o f waterimmersion
tralnlng
GT-IO .-E.V.
Motion Flrsttransferbetween -Emphasized need -Partial
preflight
(HHMU) spocecraf t for
simulation slmuiatlon by E R A
-Retrieval of lnadvertant loss o f - Body restraints, subjects only
equipment
experiments handholds a n d - Showdd possiblllty of
Terminatedearlydue to equipment tledownr equipment l o s s

- Preflightslmulatlon
~

Terminatedearlydue - Emphaslzedneed
for
pilot
training by E R A subjects
only
in water Immersion - Partiallyrestructered
mode timeline
and
operation
-Raisedserious - Pllotperformedtask
questions a st o d i f f e r e nt ht aEn R A
E V Aw o r k l o a d subjects
capability
GT-12 -Evaluctlon
of : Success!ui performance -Provedutlhty of - Extenslvepreflightand
restraints, of all t a s k s water
Immersion postflight
training by
Workload
potential
remained
below training
technique astronaut,
supported
prescribed
limits
hardware, -Ertoblishedadequate by E R A subjects
piann!ng and basis f ofru t u r e EVA -Tark simulation closely
operational corresponded t o f l i g h t
procedures performance
 " .
F-
.&"

7.0-RECOMMENDATIONS
T h e s u c c e s s f u l u s e of waterimmersionsimulation in the Gemini pro-
gram supported by the anabysiB of this study provides the basis for the
mqjorrecommendations of thiscontract. Insomeinstances,theae
recommendations are a direct result of the data developedduringthis
contract.Certain of therecommendations are synthesizedfrom data
developedduringprevious E R A contracts with the Langley Research
Center.Themasorrecommendationsaresummarized in Table Xxrm.

Waterimmersionsimulationshouldbe u s e d a s thebasic simulationmode

for the zero gravity extravehicular tasks f o r boththeApollo and the
Apolloapplications programs. F o r theseprograms,thewaterimmer-
sionsimulationmodeshouldbe u s e d toestablishbasictimelinesfor
continuoustagkperformance.Thefilmrecordofthetaskperformance
shouldthenbe u s e d to determine the need for additional sirnulation in
other modes, particularly the zero gravity aircraft.

Waterimmersionsimulationshouldbeusedtodeveloponeormorehu-
man factors experiments for near future missions, and toprovidea
completepreflight data b a s e f o r evaluation of the results from the ex-
periments.Inthismanner,theneed and justification f o r the experi-
mentscanbeclearlyidentified.Preflightevaluationcanbeperformed
underconditions admittinghigh fidelitymeasurementtechniqueswhich
canthenbe adapted totheorbitalexperiment. I n thismanner,the data
returnfromspacecanbeproperlyevaluated after theflight,yielding
themaximumpossibleefficiency.

Althoughwaterimmersionsimulationhasprovedextremelyuseful,its
valuetothespaceprogram will be limited until additional information
f r o ms p a c e flightexperimentsisavailable. It i s important that thewa-
* ter immersionsimulationmodebethoroughlyunderstood so that it may
beused in anoptimum fashion.Additionalinformationneeded for opti-
mum utilization of thewaterimmersiontechniqueincludes:

Previously uncontrolled simulation parameters of p r e s s u r e

and heat load effectsmustbeevaluated and a resultant tech-
niquebedevelopedtomorecloselysimulatespacecraften-
vironmental f a c t o r s .

A consistentmetabolicratemeasurementsystemmust be
developed so that futurespaceexperimentscanbeproperly
p r e a s s e s s e d in thesimulation and be properly correlated
afterflight.Thissystemmustbecompatible with astronaub
performancecriteria.

Additionalstudy is neededtodeterminetheexactnumerical
correlationbetweenwaterimmersionsimulation and z e r o
gravityaircraftsimulation and onegravitywalkthroughs.

188
 (4) Themerits of theair-filled versuswater-filledpressure
suitsmustbecompared on aspecific task basistodetermine
task applicability.

(5) A careful s t u d y shouldbemade to determinethose potential

astronauttasks applicableto waterimmersionsimulation.
T h e s e shouldinclude both I V A and E V A categories.

A s t r ~ n a u t sshouldbetrained for zero gravity extravehicular activitieq

by means of waterimmersionsimulation.Eachastronautcandidate
f o r extravehicularactivitiesshouldberequiredtohave a minimum Q f
20 hours pressurized in watersimulationperforming t a s k s whichhave
beendeterminedtobesimilarto those tasks he is expectedto even-
tually p e r f o r m in space both f r o m a functional and activitylevel. A
measurement system shouldbedevised for scqring performance to
assist in planningtheexactconfiguration of the space tasks.

189
 \

TABLE XXPII
RECOMMENDATIONS
O DETERMINE
CONSISTENT TASK
FOR
SPACE
EXPERIMENT

O PREFLIGHT
EVALUATION OF SPACE EXPERIMENT

O METABOLIC RATE MEASUREMENT

SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT

O RESOLVE PRESSURE- HEAT LOAD EFFECTS

O CORRELATION OF WATER SIMULATION

WITH GROUND - A / C

O EXTENSION TO INTRAVEHICULAR REDUCED

AND GRAVITY
TASKS

O EVALUATION OF "WATER FILLED" SUIT

O DETERMINATION OF TASKS APPLICABLE WATER

TO SIMULATION

O APOLLO EVA TASK

SIMULATION

O AAP TASK SIMULATION

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
LuqienBrouka,Mary E . M d i e l d , Paul E . Smith, J r . , and Gordon
J. Steppe, Haslqqll L a b o r a t o r y 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 and Co., Wilmingtpn, Delaware, ttEia-
orepancy Betweep Heart Rate and OxygenConsumptionDuringWork
in the Warmthlf,Journal of AppliedPhyiiology(Wovember, 19651,
V a l . 14, No. 6.
Ikf.
S . Malhorta, et. d . , *PulseCount 3s g Measure of E n e r g y ,.
Expenditure I t , Journal OE AppliedPhysiology (1963), Vol. 18, p . 992,
N . L. Ramanathan,ReliabilityofEstimation of MetaboJic' L e v e l s from
Rgspiratpry Frequency", Journal of Applied Physiology (1964),
Vol. 19, p 497. 0

G. FJsover,"Feasibility of Techniques f o y Monitoring Physiological

Variables Without AttachedSensorstr, N A S A ContractNo. N A S 124
( N o y e m b t r 4 , 1966), NorthAmerican Avia'ation, Inc., S p a c eI n f q r -
metion SystemsDivision, Life SciencesQperation.
&. J. Greenbaum,et.al., It Report on th? Physic$ogical R e s p o n s e s of
M a n in a SimulatedGravity-FreeState While PerformingVarious E V A
WorkSchedules 1 ) ( D e c e m b e r , 19661, Naval Medical ResearchInstitute,
Bethesda,
Maryland.
E . L. Beckman,PrivateCommunication(October 29, 1966), G T - w
Simulated E V A at E R A .
Gemipi W TechnicalDebriefing(November q2, 1966), N A S A Manned
Spacecrat?Center,FlightCrew S u p p o r t Llivision,MissionOperations
Branch,
Houston,Texas.
Gemini XU VoiceCommunications(Air-Grpun?,Grouod-Air) and On-
boardTranscription, N A S A Manned SpacecraftCenter,Houston, Texw.
Gemini 8 TechnicalDebriefing, N A S A Manned SpacecraftCenter,
Houston, Texas.
Gerniqi X TechnicalDebriefing, N A S A Manned SpacecraftCenter,
Houstpn,Texas.
Cyril A . Keele, E . Neil,Samson Wright 1s AppliedPhysiology,
X Edition, Oxford University Press (196i) '

VtSumtqary sf Gemini Extravehicular Activity" ,

WSC-G-R-67-2
( F e b r u a r y , 1967), National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration,
Manned SpacecraftCenter,Houston, Texas.
B a r r y King, Mitchell M a n s , "TheFeasibility of EstimatingtheEnergy
Expenditure of Astronauts Through Partial Simulation of Weightless -
n e s s 1 1 , TechnicalReportNo. 170 ( F e b r u a r y 28, 1962),Operations
ResearchIncorporated,SilverSpring,Maryland.

NASA-Langley, 1969 - CR-1146 191

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
WASHINGTON,
D. C. 20546 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
OFFICIAL BUSINESS ' FIRST CLASS MAIL

If Undeliverable (Section158
Postal Manual) Do Not Return
-
. ... -~
. .

" T h e a e r o n a d c a l andspaceactivities of the United Stnies shall be

c o n d z ~ t e dso as t o contribade . . . to the expansion of hmvan knowl-
edge of phenomena in t h e atm0Sphel.e and space. T h e Ad?ninistration
shall prpzide for the widest prclcticable and appropriate dissemination
of infornlntion concerning its actitdies and the res&thereof."

-NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
A N D SPACE ACT OF 1958

NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICALPUBLICATIONS

TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and
technical information considered important,
complete,and a lastingcontributiontoexisting
knowledge.
TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad
in scope but nevertheless of importance as a
contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS:
Information
receiving
limited distribution
TECHNOLOGYUTILIZATION
because of preliminarydata, security classifica-
tion, or other reasons.
CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and
technical informationgeneratedundera NASA
contract or grant and considered an important
contribution to existing knowledge.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information
published in foreign
a language considered
to meritNASAdistribution in English.
SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information
derived from or of value to NASA activicies.
Publications include conference proceedings,
monographs, data compilations, handbooks,
sourcebooks, and special bibliographies.
PUBLICATIONS:Information on technology
byused NASA
that may be of particular
interest in commercial and other non-aerospace
applications. Publications include Tech Briefs,
Technology UtilizationReportsandNotes,
and Technology Surveys.

Detailsontheavailability of thesepublications may beobtainedfrom:

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICALINFORMATIONDIVISION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C. 20546