I I

NASA-TM-111836 /t/ .'

AIAA-95-1 062

The Suitport's Progress

M. CohenNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA

Life Sciences and SpaceMedicine Conference

April 3-5, 1995 / Houston, TX

For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

370 L'Enfant Promenade, SOW., Washington, D.C. 20024

AIAA-95-106;

THE SUITPORT'S PROGRESS

Marc M. Cohen*NASA-Ames Research Center

Moffett Field, California

Abstract

NASA-Ames Research Center developedthe Suitport as an advanced space suitairlock to support a Space Station suit,based on the AX-5 hard suit. Several third

parties proposed their own variations theSuitport on the moon and Mars. TheSuitport recently found its first practical useas a terrestrial application in the NASA-Ames Hazmat vehicle for the clean-up ofhazardous and toxic materials. In the Hazmat

application, the Suitport offers substantialimprovements over conventional hazardsuits, by eliminating the necessicty todecontaminate before doffing the suit.

AX-5CCPSEMUEVA

ft 3

HazmatIVA

m 3

PLSS

psiSSFSTS

Suitport

V.E.R.

Definitions

Ames Experimental Suit 5Command/Control Pressure Suit

Extra-Vehicular Mobility UnitExtra-Vehicular Activitycubic feet

Hazardous materials

Intra-Vehicular Activitycubic meters

Portable Life Support Systempounds per square inchSpace Station FreedomSpace Transportation System(Space Shuttle)

An airlock design to allow rapiddonning & doffing of a protectivesuit through a rear hatch.Volumetric Efficiency Ratio

*Architect, Advanced Projects Branch,Space Projects Division, Senior MemberAIAA

Copyright © 1995 by the American Instituteof Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. No

copyright is asserted in the United Statesunder Title 17, U.S. Code. The U.S.

Government has a royalty-free license toexercise all rights under the copyrightclaimed herein for government purposes.All other rights are reserved to the copyrightowner.

Origins of the Suitport

The Suitport Extravehicular Access Facilityoriginated during the early phase of theSpace Station Advanced DevelopmentProgram. It grew from a recognition that theconstruction and operation of Space StationFreedom (SSF) would require severalthousand hours of EVA time (This findinghas not changed much for the new designfor "Space Station Alpha." To make the bestuse of SSF crew time, it will become

necessary to make the entire space suitdonning and doffing, and airlockegress/ingress as safe, rapid, and efficientas possible.

The Space Shuttle EMU suit and airlocksystems pose several potentialdisadvantages for frequent and routine

Space Station operations. The shuttleairlock would not be large enough toaccommodate two crew members suiting upinto the hard, rear-entry AX-5 as it is fairlytight even for the soft, pull-on EMUs.However, the solution for Space Station wasclearly not to build a bigger airlock becausethat would only increase atmosphere loss,pump-down time, power, and cooling.

All Space Shuttle EMU suit maintenanceoccurs on the ground. Perhaps the mostimportant departure from this practice is, thatthe SSF suit must be maintainable,resizable, and repairable on orbit. Thisrequirement suggested a radical departurefrom the traditional "dumb can" airlock

design. It would involve automatedservicing, and the ability to conserveatmosphere and other consumables muchmore efficiently than the EMU airlock system.Thus the problem definition for the Suitportinvolved considering strategies forconserving consumables. Secondarily, itinvolved additional considerations such as

potential for protection against outsidecontaminants.

Strategies for AtmosDhere Loss - The loss

of atmosphere varies directly with thevolume of the airlock. There are two

strategies to handle this situation: to

"sacrificetheatmosphere"fromtheairlockto vacuumandto saveonpower,coolingandcrewtimeORto "savetheatmosphere"andpaythecostinpower,cooling,time,andcomplexity.Undereitherstrategy,reducingthe totalvolumeof the airlockatmospherecontributesto savingson all the metrics,exceptperhapscomplexity.Theuseofvoidfillers can be a fairly inexpensiveway toreducethis pumpdownvolume Figure1illustrates dramatically the inverserelationshipbetweenelectricalpowerforairlockpumpdownandthetimerequiredtopumpdownvariousairlockvolumesfrom1atmosphereintoastoragetankona 10to 1compressionratio.Thisgraphshowsthattoachieverapidpumpdownunderthe savethe atmosphere approach for a large airlockdemands very large amounts of electricalpower, compared to the then-anticipatedSSF total capacity of 50 to 75 kW. Forexample, to pump down a 300 ft3 airlock inten minutes would require about 25kWcontinuous during that period. It may also be

possible to pump the airlock down to theSSF cabin atmosphere. However, pumpingto the cabin would pose potential hazards of

introducing external contamination into thestation proper, because it would dependupon filtration rather than upon physicalseparation.

Comparative Analysis - The first step was to

prepare comparative analyses of candidateairlock systems to support AX-5 suit

operations. 1 The four airlock designconcepts that received the closest attentionwere:

A. An STS-Type Airlock enlarged toaccommodate the rigid AX-5 suit.

B. A Transit Airlock, as an adaptation ofthe STS airlock reduced by removingthe suit servicing and don/doffing and

placing it inside the station.C. The Suitport EVA Access Facility in

which the AX-5 rear entry disconnectmounts to the airlock hatch, creating an

extremely small pump down volume inthe interstitial space between the suitrear hatch and the airlock hatch.

D. The Crewlock developed by WilliamHaynes of the Aerospace Corp., whichuses conformal void fillers to minimize

the pump down volume around thespace-suited crew member.

The Suitport seeks to resolve the dilemma ofpumpdown time versus power by saving onall the variables. By reducing the pump

down volume by more than two orders ofmagnitude, it saves substantially on power,cooling, and pump down time. The volumeof air in the interstitial volume between the

space suit hatch and the airlock hatch is sosmall that it may become economical tosacrifice it to vacuum without pumping itdown. Table 1 shows a comparison of the

Suitport pump down volume against sixother candidate airlock designs. Thesemetrics show the potential order of

magnitude improvements that the Suitportpromises. 2

Table 1. EVA Access FacilityVolumetric Efficiency Ratio (V.E.R.)

Suited Crew Volume = 0.22m 3 (8.0 ft3)for one crew member

V.E.R. =Suited Crew Volume

Pump-Down Volume

AIRLOCKOPTION

PUMPDOWNVOLUME

m 3 (ft3)

V.E.R.

A

,

B

C

C'

D

D'

STS-TypeAirlock

(enlarged)STS ExistingAirlock

TransitAidock

3.63 (129)

2.59 (92)

1.86 (66)

Suitport w/ .014 (0.5)PLSS Seal

2.28 (81)Suitport NoPLSS Seal

.062

.087

.120

16.0

.098

Crewlock w/ .056 (2.0) 4.00Void Filler

Crewlock No 1.49 (53) .150Void Filler

Strategies to Control Contamination - Two

strategies exist for donning and doffing aprotective suit without exposing the wearerto external contamination. These two

strategies are "decontaminate beforedoffing" and "exit to a safe atmosphere." Inthe decontaminate before doffing

approach, decontamination must occur whilethe crew member is still in the suit, before

opening its protective envelope. Currentprotective suits for hazardous material

cleanupfollowthisapproach,as wouldthecurrent NASA Space Shuttle EMU suit(should decontamination becomenecessary).Intheexit to a safe atmosphereapproach, the crew member can exit the suitto a safe environment without

decontaminating first. The Suitport takesthe exit to a safe atmosphere approach to an

integrated systems level for both spaceoperations and terrestrial applications.

Figure 2 illustrates a storyboard showing theoperational scenario of how a crew memberwould prepare the suit before routineoperations, don (enter) the suit, separatethe suit from the Suitport and egress thestation airlock. The Suitport offers a

substantial improvement over theconventional airlock technology. The crewmember enters the rear-entry hatch of thespace suit through the Suitport. Closing thenesting suit rear hatch and Suitport hatchtogether, it is necessary only to pump downor vent off the very small amount of air in theinterstitial volume between the two hatches,

less than .035 m 3 (1 ft3). Thus, the Suitportpromises substantial savings in spacecraftatmosphere loss, crew time, electrical power,and pump cooling. The way the Suitportseals the suit to the habitable "shirtsleeve"

atmosphere offers the additional advantagesfor contaminant isolation and control.

Suitport Design - A patent for a SuitportExtravehicular Access Facility

describes the design idea in detail. 3 Figure3 shows a cross section through a dedicatedExtravehicular Access module with a

Suitport in it. Note the berthed connectionto the SSF on the left and the "porch" on theright. Figure 4 shows a detail of an AX-5 typesuit mated to the Suitport. This crosssection identifies the interstitial volume

requiring pump down as "43".

Space Station "Transition Technology"- In

the later phases of the Space StationAdvanced Development Program, itappeared that the schedule-driven designprocess might require a rudimentary STS-type airlock before it would be possible tobuild an advanced system. Jimmy Cawthornincluded an "EVA Access Facility" in this"transition technology" phase. 4 He

proposed"

(1) to develop enhancements to theSpace Station IVA and EVA systems

that support productivity and safetyin EVA operations,(2) to develop advanced EVAairlock and servicing support systemmock-ups for high-pressure hardspace suits such as the AX-5 ....

Cawthorn described "expected products":

(1) an advanced EVA access facilitycombined airlock and servicingsystems,(2) an EVA suit servicing, donningand doffing, egress and ingresscomputer simulation ....

This advanced airlock initiative came to a halt

when NASA eliminated the Space Stationsuit from the budget. Instead, stationplanners proposed to stage EVAs out of theshuttle airlock to build the station, a schemethat proved inadequate and unworkable.Since that time, a there is a space stationairlock to support the space shuttle-typeEMU, but not an advanced suit. Without anadvanced station suit, there was no demand

for an advanced Space Station airlock.

Third P6rty Adaptations

Since the Space Station AdvancedDevelopment Program, a number of thirdparties evaluated the Suitport and proposedapplications for it. These ideas apply tospace exploration, seeking to exploit thecharacteristics that would make the Suitportadvantageous for Space Station and theNASA-Ames Hazmat program.

Boeing Lunar Airlock Analysis - The BoeingDefense and Space Group in Huntsville ALconducted an evaluation of several lunar

airlock concepts on a variety of criteria.Initially, they compared six candidate airlockdesigns, including the Suitport. 5 In theirfinal assessment, they compared four

design options: an STS-Type airlock, SSF"Crewlock," Suitport, and a "Doorlock" that

they claim as their own. Although theyprefer their own "Doorlock" for a Lunarsurface application, still, they rated theSuitport highest for dust mitigation andconsumables resupply. 6

It is important to avoid semantic confusionhere. The "SSF Crewlock" is an entirelydifferent design idea than Hayne's Crewlock.Ironically, the Boeing Doorlock derivesalmost directly from Hayne's side-entry

3

Crewlockwithvoidfillers.Table1 presentsCaseandCapps'summaryoftheirfindings.

This Boeingstudy is the mostthoroughanalysisofadvancedairlockoptionstodate.It is fascinatingfor a multitudeof reasons.TheBoeingassessmentof theSuitportandtheotherairlockoptionsis quiteprescient,exceptforthefewpointsnotedbelow.Theyarecorrectthatcomplexityis probablythebiggestsinglechallengefor designingaSuitport. Complexity affects suitmaintenanceaswell. Launchpackagingismoredifficultto assess,as it dependsuponone's presuppositionsof what shouldcomprisea launchpackage. The Boeinganalysisevokesthefollowingobservations:

Table2. BoeingComparativeAnalysisofFourAirlockOptions

fortheFirstLunarOutpost

{Options\ _ _ = _ _ Mass o 8ModifiedSTS O ",,/ ',/ O O O O X 0

1,749 kg

SSFCrewlock* X O X 0 X X O _/ 0

2,843 kg

Suitport O X X _/ _/ X X X _/1,904 kg

Doorlock _J O _/ O _/ _J O X O1,368 kg

Legend for Table 2._/= Good O = Fair X = Poor

Boeing's Comparison Factors - The nine

"comparison factors" represent unweightedevaluation criteria. Yet for long term EVA

operations, some criteria must receive moreweight than others. From the perspective oflifetime operating cost, surely minimizing

consumables resupply should rate muchhigher than initial mass to orbit. The Boeingestimated difference between the Doorlock

at 1,368 kg and the Suitport at 1,904 kg isonly 536 kg, or about 39% of the smalleroption. Table 1 suggests that the differencein lifetime consumables resupply on SpaceStation or a Lunar Base for the Suitport overthe Doorlock will amount to hundreds of

percent. For either the Suitport or theDoorlock over the STS or SSF type airlocks,the savings in consumables resupply willamount to thousands of percent. Therefore,the consumables resupply criteria mustweigh much more heavily than initial mass toorbit.

Dust Mitigation - On the Lunar or

Martian surface, dust mitigation and controlwill be one of the most critical factors for safe

and efficient operations. All the non-

Suitport options require decontaminationbefore the suited crew member can enter

the airlock. In a contingency situation thisdelay could be dangerous, and in anemergency, it could be fatal. Only theSuitport allows the crew member to doff thesuit and escape to a safe atmospherewithout undergoing decontamination first.

Hyperbarics - The Suitport patent

provides for a hyperbaric capability. 7 0.However, Boeing seemed to miss thisprovision in equating the Suitport to theModified STS and Doorlock, which provide

no hyperbarics."Off-the-Shelfness" - The purpose

of the Suitport was to achieve order of

magnitude improvements in airlockperformance. It is axiomatic that it could notattain this goal by using "off-the-shelf"hardware (of which little in fact exists).

New Comparison - If one adjusts the

comparison table to account for thepreceding comments -- hyperbarics, "off-the-shelfness," consumables resupply anddust mitigation -- the results looksubstantially different. Table 3 shows this

comparison revised to take into account theforegoing observations. Other thancorrecting the one omission underHyperbarics, it does not alter any of Boeing'sscoring. The outcome of this revision showsthe Suitport in a dead heat with theDoorlock. This new comparison brings theSuitport into parity with the Doorlock. Thisresult recalls the result of a 1986assessment that found the William Haynes

Crewlock (Boeing Doorlock) best for an

EMU-typesuitandtheSuitportbestforasuitwitharearentryhatch.8

Ethan Cliffton: "The Indigenous Architectureof Exploration," - As a subcontractor to

Martin Marietta Space Systems for Mars

exploration studies, Cliffton proposedmounting a pair of Suitports directly into thepressure wall of a Mars habitat. Heapproached this application of the Suitportfrom the perspective of a Habitat designer,with a focus upon what made the mostsense for habitat design and operation.Figure 5 shows a sketch of the "OperationalPlan" for this Mars Habitat. Cliffton hangs thesuits completely outside the habitat, whichmight expose the suits to excess

"weathering." 9

Table 3. Modified and Weighted Analysis ofFour Airlock Options Derived from the

Boeing Analysis in Table 2.

:_ eqe- e- X0 [31•-_ "3 >,

\o

Airlock_ I_

Options\ _ _-& Mass _ _ 8 8

ModifiedSTS

1,749 kgSSF

Crewlock*

2,843 kg

c m X"-- C._

c_ c ciu)a3 o

g13_ r'- -r-- ._

_ x:: "_ _ "_-

_, m m a _

O _/ O O O O X O 10

XXOXXO_O 7

Suitport 0 X _J _/ X X _/ _ 131,9O4 kg

Doorlock _/ _ O _J _/ 0 X O 131,368 kg

Table 3 Legend"J =2 O=1 X=0

Griffin Design Lunar Surface Suit - Brand

Griffin of Griffin Design, developed aprototype rear-entry space suit and airlockinterface on the Suitport principle. Griffin

developed his Command/Control Pressure

Suit (CCPS) as a complete integrated,architectural system for lunar EVA, includinghelmet and visor design, backpackmodularity, controls and displays, andmaintenance support. Figure 6 shows twoviews of the CCPS suit, including the rearplane disconnect and backpack which wouldinterlock with a Suitport. Griffin explains hisadaptation of the Suitport primarily in termsof dust control:

"A major feature of the CCPS is a

dust-resistant design. All displaysare internal avoiding problems ofdust buildup and except for thebackpack, all pressure joints remainintact until servicing, minimizingexposure to dust .... Anotherfeature which holds promise is a sealwhich mates directly to the module

exterior allowing direct entry/exitwithout an airlock. This approachwould not eliminate the airlock, butfor routine operation, would avoiddust contamination. "10

Griffin built a test suit flew it on the NASA-

JSC KC-135 aircraft, in a simulated lunar

gravity test. A photograph of the GriffinDesign suit demonstrator on the KC-135appears in Figure 7. Aviation Week andSpace Technology described this test:

"The unit could plug into othervehicles, such as lunar rovers, and ineffect become the cockpit or cab ofthe vehicle. The elimination of

ingress/egress requirements for

vehicles could become a hugeadvantage on the Moon wherehighly abrasive dust is expected topresent a major challenge to surface

operations. The life support systembackpack of the Griffin Design suitwould be on a door at the rear of the

torso structure that would open toone side for ingress and egress." 11

NASA-Langley / Department of EnergyLunar Rover - M.D. Williams led a team at

NASA-Langley and the DOE's Pacific

Northwest Labs (Battelle) who proposed alunar rover that included two Suitportsmounted on the rear bulkhead. Althoughtheir illustration does not show the Suitport,Williams et. al. describe their specificadaptation of the Suitport to a Lunar Rover.

"TheSuitportconceptplacesAX-5-type hard suits outside thepressurized interior volume,attached directly to life supportchargingand checkoutsystems.Entryisthrougha backpackdooronthesuit that lockstightagainstthepressurizedbulkhead. The suititself can be shieldedby a form-fittingcoverthatclosesoverit. ThisSuitporthasthe highestvolumetricefficiencyof anytypetestedsofar,meaningminimal loss of interioratmosphereduringpumpdownforentry and exit. It also preventscontaminationofthe interiorby lunardustthatadheres to the suits ....

The two Suitports proposed for thisrover could be housed in the aft end

of the lab space. The area adjacentto the Suitport could house areceiving station for surfacematerials on one side and an

enclosed hygiene facility on theother ....

Within the 2.4-m interior diameter of

the lab cylinder, two Suitports couldbe positioned side by side, leadingto an exterior "porch" on the aft ofthe rover." 12

A view of this lunar rover appears in Figure 8

This figure shows the rear "porch" recallingthe EVA Access Facility module, with arobotic manipulator arm at the aft workstation. Williams et al also provide aprotective cover for the suit when not in use.

The NASA-Ames Hazmat Vehicle

The merits of the Suitport for keeping outcontamination made it desirable as a designsolution for a hazardous materials clean-upvehicle vehicle. Like the NASA Langley-DOE idea, the NASA-Ames Hazmat vehiclemounts two Suitports in the rear bulkhead.In 1994, Ames took delivery of an M577A3

armored personnel carrier on loan from FMCcorporation. Philip E. Culbertson, Jr., thelead designer for the Hazmat vehicle, ismaking progress in adapting the Suitport toit. The two Suitports will provide direct, rapiddon/doff access to two protective suits. Inthe ideal concept, a crew member will enterthe suit through the rear entry, seal the twonested hatches behind him, decouple the

suit from the Suitport and go to work. When

reentering the Hazmat vehicle, the crewmember backs his suit against the Suitportand secures it to the hatch. He opens thehatches and backs out of the suit without

exposing himself or the vehicle interior tothe contamination on the outside. However,

in the prototype, a tender does the latchingand unlatching, not the person in the suit.To assist the suited person the Hazmatvehicle may have special hand rails or a rear"porch" in the manner of the NASA-

Langley DOE Lunar Rover. Figure 9 showsan artist's sketch of an early concept for theHazmat vehicle using its front-mountedrobotic arm to stop a toxic leak from anoverturned railroad tank car.

The Hazmat vehicle modifications will seal

the interior cabin to protect it fromcontaminants in the external environment. It

will have its own air-conditioning system.The circular hatches through which thedriver and crew members can project their

heads, will be covered and sealed with clearpolycarbonate domes. Although PopularMechanics referred to the Hazmat Vehicle as"the Cherno-Mobile," the entire effort so farfocuses on chemical hazards and does not

address radiation. 13

This Hazmat vehicle promises several

improvements over current hazardousmaterials cleanup procedures. It offers animproved level of safety for the crew both inthe vehicle and wearing protective suits. Itgives the crew members the ability to spendmuch longer periods of time in the "hotzone" without needing to retreat to rest ordecontaminate. The crew members mayreturn to the vehicle for a break or to eatlunch. A furture version of the Hazmat

vehicle may support a liquid cooling garmentsystem inside the suit, decreasing the heatstress on the crew member and increasingthe time he can work. The availability of theAmes Hazmat technology will enable faster

emergency response to hazardous materialaccidents, and help the evaluation andcleanup proceed more quickly and safely. Ifthe NASA-Ames prototype proves

successful, many agencies will want one,including federal, state, and regionalresponse teams, and perhaps some firedepartments also. The Suitport in theHazmat vehicle exemplifies the reinvestmentof advanced space technology to benefit

people on earth.

Conclusion

The Suitport derives from the application of asimple physical principle - minimizing thepump down volume - to achieve animprovement in airlock performance. In thisrespect, it is analogous to the economicpayoff of weight savings. Several significantbenefits follow from this innovation,especially the advantages for contaminantcontrol that Boeing, Griffin, NASA-Langley/DOE, andthe Ames Hazmat vehiclehope to realize. The next step in theSuitport's progress should be to build a fullscale, pressurized proof of conceptdemonstrator.

References

1 Cohen, Marc M., & Bussolari, Steven,

(1987, April) Human Factors in Space

Station Architecture II - EVA Access Facility:

A Comparative Analysis of Four Concepts for

On-Orbit Space Suit Servicing, NASA TM86856.

2 Cohen, Marc M., (1985, December 3-6)"Introduction: Ames Space StationArchitectural Research," in Cohen, Eichold

&Heers, eds, Space Station Human Factors

Research Review, Vol. III, NASA CP 2426.

pp. 44-58.

3 Cohen, Marc M., US Patent 4,842,224,

(1989, June 27) Suitport Extra-Vehicular

Access Facility.

4 Cawthorn, Jimmy M., (1986, July 7)"Space Station Transition TechnologyRecommendations," Space StationProgram Office -- Advanced DevelopmentOffice, NASA-JSC, p. 12.

5 Case, C., Capps, S., Ruff, T., McGhee, J.,Roberson, R., (1992, August)"'Doorlock'Single-Crew Conformal Airlock for First LunarOutpost Application," presentation byBoeing Advanced Civil Space Systems

Group, Huntsville, AL.

6 Capps, S., & Case, C., (1993, Feb 16-19)A New Approach for a Lunar Airlock

Structure, AIAA 93-0994, AerospaceDesign Conference, Irvine, CA

7 Cohen, (1989) op. cit., Figure 18D.

8 Cohen, Marc M., (1986, October 21)"EVA Access Facility Presentation to SpaceStation Advanced Development Review" atNASA-Johnson Space Center.

9 Cliffton, Ethan W., (1993, October 12)

"The Indigenous Architecture ofExploration," announcement of lecture,PG&E Architectural Series.

10 Griffin, Brand N. (1990, Sept. 25-28) A

Space Suit Designed for Lunar Construction

and Exploration, AIAA 90-3885, AIAA Space

Programs and Technologies Conference,Huntsville, AL, p. 2.

11 Aviation Week & Space Technology,

(1994, April 25) Vol. 140, No.17, "NASAtests new suit design at equivalent of lunargravity," p 61.

12 Williams, M. D., De Young, R. J.,

Schuster, G. L., Choi, S. H., Dagle, J. E.,Coomes, E. P., Antoniak, Z. I., Bamberger,J. A., Bates, J. M., Chiu, M. A., Dodge, R. E.,and Wise, J. A., (1993, Nov.) Power

Transmission by Laser Beam from Lunar-

Synchronous Satellite, NASA TM 4496, pp.19-20.

13 11. Popular Mechanics, (1994, Feb.)

"Send in the Cherno-Mobile," p. 16.

50

40-

30_

ztJJ

20_-

10

\

I I I

--150 ft 3

225 ft 3

300 ft 3

I I I [10 20 30 40

TIME, rain

I !

5O 6O

Figure 1. EVA Access Facility Power versus Time for three airlock volumes, showing pumpdownfrom one atmosphere to a pressure vessel at 150 psi on a 10 to 1 compression ratio,

analysis by Bernadette Squire Luna.

-11

_')

W

L

("

Figure 2 EVA Access procedures using the Suitport, adapted from NASA TM-86856.

"_.28

i.,.

i ,

iti

iii

t

Lfi,i

t!

d

f22

..._. =t."

G --

,. _ f-J;" T

NL..if

i , ;i.,_z

Figure 3. Suitport in a dedicated module, from US Patent 4,842,224

_ su, 2 Operational Plan

Figure 5. Plan view of 2 Suitports mounted in Ethan Cliffton's Mars Habitat.Drawing courtesy of Ethan Cliffton, Architect.

Figure 6. Two views of Brand Griffin's CCPS, showing the rear entry disconnect (9) between thebackpack and the suit's hard upper torso. Drawing courtesy of Griffin Design.

9

Figure7. Simulatedlunargravityflighttestofthe

GriffinDesignCCPSsuiton theNASA-JohnsonSpace

Center'sKC-135aircraft.photocourtesyof Griffin

Design.

Figure4. DetailofSuitportshowingrearplanedisconnectforboththeAX-5spacesuit's

PLSSbackpackandtheSuitportinnerhatch,

fromUSPatent4,842,224.

10

Figure8. SideviewoftheproposedNASA-Langley/DOELunarRover,mountingtwoSuitportsintheaftbulkhead,fromNASATM-4496.

t

Figure 9. Artist's rendering of the NASA-Ames Hazmat vehicle design,with two Suitports in the aft bulkhead, courtesy of Douglas Smith, NASA-Ames.

11