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