Page No. 1 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations

Exploration EVA Results

EVA-EXP-0052

December 9, 2015

David Coan (XX4/CX3)

EVA Strategic Planning & Architecture Integration 

Integrated EVA Testing & Operations Concepts

This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)
Page No. 2 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Office (XX) Goals for Operational Field Tests

Background

• Future Exploration missions will potentially take humans to destinations where EVA work will be done 

on natural bodies that don’t have built in aids

• These missions will also be at distance that precludes instantaneous real-time communication with the 

crew

• There are numerous technology and operations gaps associated with translation and stabilization tools, 

science sampling tools, and operational techniques for dealing with comm latency

XX4 / Integrated EVA Testing Duties

• Advance the future of the EVA system and operations through integrated operational field testing

• Understand EVA gaps and operations concepts for a wide range of Exploration destinations being 

considered by NASA

• Determine and document closures to gaps in EVA capabilities for Exploration missions and inform the 

EVA Systems Maturation Team (SMT) 

• Develop and document operations concepts for EVA at the Exploration destinations (EVA-RD-004)

• Realize the needs of EVA tools and hardware and enable the development of requirements and designs

Benefits of Operational Field Testing

1. Operations concepts can be accurately tested to determine their viability and changes

2. Purpose built prototype hardware can be evaluated in a field test to provide data for design maturation

3. Communication latencies can be simulated in an operational environment in order to assess the ops 

cons and needs associated with EVAs

4. A range of destinations and gravity gradients can be evaluated
Page No. 3 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

What is NEEMO?

NEEMO is a project that utilizes Aquarius, the only 

operational undersea research facility in the world, as a 

setting for accomplishing a host of NASA and 

synergistic partner objectives

• Managed by XM (Exploration Mission Planning 

Office)

• Funded by partners and collaborators each year

– Partners come from across JSC, other NASA centers, 

DoD, universities, and industry

• 1-2 missions/year, 10 – 20 days in length

• Rapid prototype environment

• Highly responsive to user needs

• Robust comm infrastructure

• Shore side Mission Control, staffed by experienced 

operators

• Crew largely consists of astronauts from CB and IPs

• Missions have high operational rigor by design

– Timelines, Flight Rules, Procedures, etc.

• Enables evaluation of both IVA and EVA objectives
Page No. 4 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Partners / Collaborators

• NASA

– JSC

• XX: Investigating micro- and partial gravity EVA techniques, tools development, funding

• XM: Leadership, EVA tools and techniques, (esp. related to Mars moon)

• XI: Science backroom support, consulting for tools development

• EA (EC, ER): PI for multiple evaluation objectives, building EVA tools

• CB: Crewmembers

• SA: Co-investigator on some mission objectives

• PAO: Public Affairs activities

– ARC: Mission planners and timeline tool 

– JPL: Co-investigator on some mission objectives

– KSC: Communications, data management, and logistics support

• IPs (ESA, JAXA): Crewmembers, research objectives, funding

• Academia

– Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU): Research objectives, funding

– Naval Postgraduate School (NPS): Synergistic robotic objectives (ROV & AUV), funding

– Air Force Research Labs (AFRL): Research objectives, funding

– Florida International University (FIU): Aquarius owner and operator, marine science support

– Georgia Institute of Technology: EVA Cognitive Work Analysis graduate study

• Industry

– Teledyne: PI for research objective, providing engineering management and support for ERAU objectives

– Shark Marine: Providing a diver propulsion and navigation system for man-machine work system evaluation, in-kind 

contribution

– VOXER: Providing communications application and support for time-delayed voice playback, in-kind contribution
Page No. 5 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 2015 Missions Program Relevancy

Category Gap/Risk Experiment Program

Geo Sampling Kit ARCM ----> Exploration

ARCM Boom ARCM ----> Exploration

Microspines ARCM ----> Exploration

Phobos Boom Exploration

Exercise Countermeasures Bluetooth receiver ISS ------> Exploration

Mobile Crew Planning Tool Playbook ISS ------> Exploration

MobiPV (ESA) ISS ------> Exploration

HoloLens telementoring ISS ------> Exploration

Human Factors Capture iShort ISS ------> Exploration

Augmented Reality Procedures ISS ------> Exploration

Pinnable Procedures ISS ------> Exploration

Crew Self Scheduling ISS ------> Exploration

Integrated Science Team Exploration

Man-machine work systems Exploration

Low Latency Teleoperation Exploration

Use of 3D printers ISS ------> Exploration

Incapacitated Crew Exploration

Pure Science N/A Coral Science N/A

CDR upgrade ISS ------> Exploration

Rookie mission experience ISS ------> Exploration

PAO events ISS ------> Exploration

Educational Outreach ISS ------> Exploration

Outreach Opportunities N/A

Crew Task Efficiency

Sample Collection Tools 

and Techniques Technology Maturation 

for Ops

Ops Tools Maturation

Ops Concept Maturation

Crew Preparation

Crew Task Efficiency

Expeditionary Training

Exploration Surface Ops

with Comm Delay

Note: EVA evaluation highlighted in yellow
Page No. 6 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Operational Field Testing at NEEMO

Why NEEMO for EVA?

• Provides a flexible environment that can mimic microgravity, milli-gravity, and 

partial gravity missions with EVA crewmembers performing tasks

• Allows for end-to-end testing of techniques and hardware in an operational 

scenario, with the crew in-situ and the ground team separated from them, 

which drives out problems not found in standalone testing and things that do 

and do not work in a mission situation

• Enables evaluation of ops concepts pertinent for exploration in large areas, 

which is something that can’t be done in smaller facilities (like the NBL)

• Supports ability to conduct real analogous science

– Marine science is an analogous proxy to planetary geology science

– Similar tools and instruments are utilized 

– Real scientists in MCC with a vested interested in the results debate 

priorities with actual mission time pressure provide a high level of realism

• Facilitates integration of time latency for evaluation of the EVA ops con that 

integrates an active Science Team on Earth

EVA Office Goals for NEEMO 20

• Inform updates to the EVA Ops Con document (EVA-RD-004)

• Evaluate objectives that facilitate SMT gap closure

• Address Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials 

(CAPTEM) findings for EVA collection of science samples

• Provide data for hardware design maturation to assist in road-to-flight, 

especially the EVA science sample collection tools

• Assess ops cons and needs associated with EVAs that require input from MCC 

over a comm latency

• Explore a range of destinations and gravity gradients

– Micro-g at asteroid/cis-lunar

– Milli-g at Mars’ moons (Phobos)

– Partial-g on Mars and lunar surface
Page No. 7 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Exploration EVA Objectives & Gaps

EVA Objective Applicable 

Mission

EVA SMT Gap Closure & ARCM CAPTEM Hardware and 

Technique

Evaluate EVA hardware and operations for science sampling Asteroid

Moons of Mars

Mars surface

502: Micro-g tool for loosely adhered particles

503: Micro-g tool for chip samples

504: Micro-g tool for subsurface samples

505: Sample Storage and Curation

801: DRM Maturity 

805: Scientific Objectives

CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 g from two sites

Integrated 

Geology 

Sampling 

System

Investigate crew driven multi-day planning of EVA operations 

utilizing scenarios with variables and a task list that must be 

planned and carried out over the course of multiple days

Mars surface 703: EVA use model 

801: DRM Maturity 

Playbook

Assess potential operations of a robotic asset for EVA and 

inform functional needs of a robot for EVA tool management

Mars surface 510: Tool management device

801: DRM Maturity 

NPS ROV

Continue to enhance understanding of comm limitations by 

including MCC/ST response time and comm with IV, and 

continue to investigate practicality of directing EVA operations 

from MCC over a comm latency

Moons of Mars

Mars surface

703: EVA use model 

801: DRM Maturity 

Science Team

Comm latency 

ops con

Evaluate an EVA tool for identifying and high grading samples Mars surface 509: In-situ High Grading, EVA Tool

805: Scientific Objectives

Sample markers

Helmet cams

Assess hardware and techniques for incapacitated crew rescue Mars surface 406: Rescue Incapacitated Crew Member

801: DRM Maturity 

ICM rescue

gurney 

Investigate building EVA hardware in situ Mars surface 512: Common tools for vehicle maintenance

801: DRM Maturity 

3D printer

Examine a manually deployable truss structure for EVA 

translation and sampling ops

Moons of Mars 501: Microgravity stability and anchoring tools

511: Microgravity translation aids for nonengineered surfaces

801: DRM Maturity 

Phobos 

Deployable 

Structure (boom)

Begin looking at types of hardware needed and techniques for 

navigating on a foreign body

Mars surface 214: Navigation Short Range

801: DRM Maturity 

Navigator
Page No. 8 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Mission Summary

Dates

• May 18-22: Engineering runs at ARB

• June 2-3: Crew training at JSC (non-EVA)

• June 30: Crew training at JSC for EVA

• July 13-18: Aquanaut training and mission prep at 

ARB

• July 20-Aug 2: 14 day saturation mission

Crew

• Luca Parmitano (ESA Astronaut)

• Serena Aunon (NASA Astronaut)

• Norishige Kanai (JAXA Astronaut)

• David Coan (EVA Operations Engineer)

• Mark Hulsbeck (FIU Habitat Technician)

• Sean Moore (FIU Habitat Technician)

High Level Objectives

• Exploration EVA evaluations

• ISS Objectives (Playbook, HRM, JITT, Hololens,

ODG, etc.)

• IP Objectives (mobi-PV)

From left: Sean Moore, Mark Hulsbeck Luca Parmitano, 

David Coan, Norishige Kanai, Serena Aunon
Page No. 9 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 EVA Team

HAT Moons of Mars Objectives

Lead – Steve Chappell (SK)

PI – Mike Gernhardt (EA)

Co-PI – Chappell / Abercromby (SK)

EVA Objective Integration & Prioritization

PI – Jesse Buffington (XX)

Lead – David Coan (XX4/CX3)

Exploration EVA Ops Con (XX)

Lead – David Coan (XX4/CX3)

EVA Plan & Timelines

David Coan (XX4/CX3)

Steve Chappell (SK)

Marc Reagan (EA/XM)

Exploration EVA Hardware

Lead – Drew Hood (EC7)

Lead – Adam Naids (EC7)

External Stakeholders

ERAU (CORAL Towers)

FIU (Marine Science)

NPS (ROV/Robotics)

Commercial (Navigator)

MCC 

Marc Reagan (EA/XM)

External Integration

Bill Todd (XM)

Jason Poffenberger (XM)

Study Design & Metrics

Steve Chappell (SK)

Exploration Science

Paul Abell (XI)

Kristen John (XI)

Trevor Graff (XI)

Science Team

Trevor Graff (XI)

Matthew Miller (SF)

Exploration EVA Hardware

Drew Hood (EC7)

Adam Naids (EC7)

Mary Walker (EC7)

XX – EVA Office

XM – Exploration Mission Planning Office

XI – ARES

EA – Analog Project Management Office 

EC7 – EVA Tools

SK – EVA Physiology

SF – EVA Cognitive Work Analysis

HAT – EMC Moons of Mars

CX3 – EVA Operations
Page No. 10 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Exploration Missions Evaluated During NEEMO 20

Asteroid in cis-lunar space

• Micro-g environment

• Retrieve geology samples 

with tools while based on a 

stabilization boom 

deployed from an Asteroid 

Retrieval Vehicle (ARV)

• No comm latency

• EV crew directed by 

Ground IV

Moon of Mars (Phobos)

• Milli-g environment

• Retrieve geology samples 

with tools while based on a 

boom deployed from a 

mobile habitat

• Deploy science 

instruments while based 

on a boom

• 5 min one way comm 

latency

• Directed by IV 

crewmember

• Direction from ST given 

during the EVA

Mars surface

• Partial-g environment

• Conduct pioneering tasks to 

assemble base 

infrastructure

• Perform geology and 

astrobiology (marine 

science) sampling tasks

• 10 min one way comm 

latency

• EV directed by IV 

crewmember

• Direction from ST given 

during the EVA

• EVAs planned MCC and 

crew
Page No. 11 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

N

• Mission Day 2

• Two 2-hour EVAs

• Ops based off of a stabilization boom

• EV crew took geology samples with EVA 

Integrated Geology Sampling System 

EVA Stabilization 

Boom Rock Wall

NEEMO 20 Mission Architecture for EVA

Asteroid / Micro-g EVA Overview
Page No. 12 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Mission Days 3-4

• Two 2-hour EVAs

• Ops based off of a boom deployed from a habitat 

• EV crew took geology samples with EVA Integrated 

Geology Sampling System 

• Science priorities and tasks driven by ARES ST

Phobos Boom Phobos Habitat / 

Lander Frame

NEEMO 20 Mission Architecture for EVA

Phobos / Milli-g EVA Overview
Page No. 13 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Mission Architecture for EVA

Surface / Partial-g EVA Overview

• Mission Days 5-12

• 4-hour EVAs

• EVA tasks

– Geology sampling with EVA tools

– Marine sampling tasks (exobiology 

proxy)

– Pioneering tasks (CORAL Towers)

• ST provided direction and prioritization 

of EVA science tasks via IV1

– ARES ST for geological sampling 

– FIU ST for marine science

– ERAU backroom for CORAL 

structures

• ROV assisted EV crew

• EV crew utilized navigation system
Page No. 14 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Sample Collection Hardware and Operations

Key Summary Points

EVA Integrated Geology Sampling System

• Objective 

– Evaluate EVA hardware and operations for science sampling 

• Purpose

– The integrated sampling kit is focused on sample containment and a more 

flight-like contamination protocol

– Design concept consists of a “briefcase” designed for sample management, 

ease of operation, and consistency across sampling activities

– The Sample Briefcase houses various End Effectors (float, soil, surface, chip, 

core)

– Two different Drivers enable crew to secure samples manually or with a 

powered device

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– Concept proved feasible for EVA collection of geology and astrobiology 

(marine science) samples, and was easy to deploy and utilize

– Provides a viable method for minimizing sample contamination, though its size 

and mass are rather large compared to the actual samples obtained

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– XX, EC7, and XI need to look at minimizing the size/mass of the tools while 

maximizing return samples

– Further work should be done on methods or modifications to keep the EV crew 

from contaminating areas as they arrive to take samples, especially if utilized 

on a partial-g surface EVA

– Recommendations for possible improvement of individual components 

(drivers, end effectors, and container) should be incorporated into the next 

version of prototype tools, including looking at tools specifically for surface ops
Page No. 15 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Tool improvements for potential use on an asteroid will be incorporated into 

designs for the next generation of hardware 

• Designs will be iterated between evaluations at NEEMO and in the NBL

EVA Sample Containment Hardware

Road To Flight

Metal Frame Crew Lock 

Bag

NEEMO 17 (SEATEST 2)

PVC Crew Lock Bag

NEEMO 18/19

PVC Sample Briefcase

NEEMO 20

Sample Containment Briefcase (ARM DRM animation)
Page No. 16 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Tool improvements for potential use on an asteroid will be incorporated into designs for the next 

generation of hardware 

• Designs will be iterated between evaluations at NEEMO and in the NBL

• Team will look at modifying tools for better use in a partial-g/surface environment

EVA Sample Collection Tools

Road To Flight

Manual Float/Soil Sample

(ARM DRM animation)

Manual Driver w/ 

Float/Soil End Effector 

Soil Sampler NEEMO 20

NEEMO 17 

(SEATEST 2)
Page No. 17 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Tool improvements for potential use on an asteroid will be 

incorporated into designs for the next generation of hardware 

• Designs will be iterated between evaluations at NEEMO and in 

the NBL

• Team will look at modifying tools for better use in a partialg/surface environment

EVA Sample Collection Tools

Road To Flight

Powered rock chip hammer/core drill concepts (ARM DRM animation)

Pneumatic hammer 

NEEMO 18/19

Pneumatic hammer 

NEEMO 17 

(SEATEST 2)

Pneumatic hammer 

NBL/MACES

Pneumatic chip - NEEMO 20

Pneumatic core - NEEMO 20
Page No. 18 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Key Summary Points

Science Team Integrated with EVA Ops

• Objective

– Continue to enhance understanding of comm limitations by including MCC/ST 

response time and comm with IV, and continue to investigate practicality of 

directing EVA operations from MCC over a comm latency

– Investigate how a Science Team engages with the crew in order to influence 

an EVA

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– Science ops can be constructed such that a Science Team on Earth can 

provide relevant, timely feedback to influence the plan and sampling tasks 

during an EVA, provided that the EVA is timelined such as to allow the 

transmission of data back and forth (i.e., having multiple sites to move 

between and having some tasks that don’t require MCC input), though it may 

be better to have well trained crew that can operate autonomously from a plan, 

and only have the ST call for deltas/go-backs

– The Science Team needs to be a focal point of the primary MCC team (not a 

“backroom”), and be fully integrated with all other operations taking place

– The geology tasks and the coral science tasks (used as an analogous proxy to 

exobiology with similar sampling techniques) provided planetary science tasks 

that were realistic enough to effectively test and evaluate these ops concepts 

during an integrated mission 

– Some sort of IV support system will be critical due to the amount of information 

and tasking the IV crewmember must contend with (essentially performs the 

roles of IV, Flight Director, partial EVA Officer, and partial BME)

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Further examine the role of a Science Team as a primary MCC team and how 

that team can influence an EVA during future NEEMO missions

– Engage planetary protection personnel during NEEMO to begin looking closely 

at how ops cons will effect the planet
Page No. 19 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Man-Machine Work System

Key Summary Points

Robotic Asset for EVA

• Objective

– Assess potential operations of a robotic asset for EVA and inform functional needs of a robot for EVA tool 

management

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– The ROV was successfully flown by an IV crewmember at two of the sites for situational awareness and to 

assist the EVA crewmembers

– Low latency robotics (in this case the ROV controlled from the Aquarius) are able to offload EV workload for 

tasks like transporting samples, tools, etc. when the robotic element is working alongside the EV crew

– Stabilizing features (like autopilot, or ability to “park”) are necessary to offload the pilot and allow him to 

concentrate on other tasks (e.g., science, timeline/ops, and safety)

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Continue to explore the ops con associated with making the man-machine work system more efficient in the 

end-to-end environment enabled by NEEMO

– Significant opportunities remain to investigate Man-Machine Work System when the robotic element is 

working in parallel to the EV crew

• It could be doing site recon today at a site the EV crew will visit tomorrow, while the EV crew is working 

a different site today

• Robotic element could also be utilized to transport more things to/from the EV crew
Page No. 20 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Crew Self-Scheduling & EVA Sample Marker

Key Summary Points

Multi-Day Crew Self-Scheduling of EVAs

• Objective

– Investigate crew driven multi-day planning of EVA operations utilizing 

scenarios with variables and a task list that must be planned and carried out 

over the course of multiple days

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– The crew was able to successfully self-schedule executable EVA timelines; 

however, the time penalty was large (~4 man-hours/day) and the advantages 

did not outweigh the costs

– A better ops concept than crew self-scheduling would be crew “selfdetermination”, meaning that they determine what tasks get done on which 

EVA, but the actual scheduling is done by professional planners who are more 

adept at manipulating plans and more intimately familiar with all the myriad of 

constraints

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Test concepts for optimizing EVA multi-day planning that incorporates crew 

input based on the unique in-situ knowledge they’ve acquired, while taking 

advantage of the skills and efficiencies that ground based planners bring

EVA Sample Marker 

• Objective

– Evaluate an EVA tool for identifying and high grading samples

• Summary Take-Away for EVA 

– Temporary markers are critical when communicating with IV and ST/MCC

– It was difficult to deploy the markers in the middle of a site without disturbing 

the area - it would be good to have a way to deploy markers further away

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Current version has color bars and scale markings - look further into what 

gives the ST the information needed to evaluate potential samples, iterate the 

design, and test the next version during future NEEMO missions
Page No. 21 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Incapacitated Crew Rescue & EVA Sample Marker

Key Summary Points

Incapacitated Crew Rescue 

• Objective

– Assess hardware and techniques for incapacitated crew rescue

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– Crew were able to use the litter in both configurations to rescue each 

other, though the litters will need significant modifications to make them 

more EVA compatible

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Further research and testing should include equipment improvements 

and heavier simulated crew weight to drive out required methods

Building EVA Hardware In Situ (3D Printer)

• Objective

– Investigate building EVA hardware in situ

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– The 3D printer proved useful numerous times during the course of the 

mission for:

• Designing and printing broken end effectors

• Printing a missing part (an alignment pin)

• The design from scratch and rapid delivery of a part whose need hadn’t 

been anticipated pre-mission (nail holder)

– The speed with which pieces can be fabricated proves its promise as a 

rapid turnaround parts solution

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Continue utilizing the 3D printer during the next NEEMO missions for 

creating unforeseen items that the crew needs
Page No. 22 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Navigation & Deployable Boom for Sampling

Key Summary Points

EVA Navigation

• Objective

– Begin looking at types of hardware needed and techniques for navigating on a 

foreign body

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– Since the planetary science goal of an Exploration mission is to characterize an 

area more than pick up a specific rock, a navigation system more needs to get the 

crew close to a target that landmarks an area rather than locate a specific sample

– Electronic navigation will be critical in areas where the terrain looks similar, 

especially when marking new locations and returning to a site

• Recommendations for Forward Work

– Continue investigating electronic navigation that allows the crew to locate a specific 

area to characterize, mark new locations, and return to sites

Phobos Habitat EVA Deployable Boom

• Objective

– Examine a manually deployable truss structure for EVA translation and sampling 

ops

• Summary Take-Away for EVA

– A boom deployed from a Phobos mobile habitat will work for performing EVA 

geology sampling (16 ft. boom tested)

– Lack of mechanical advantage and control made use difficult, and ability to control 

exactly where the feet landed (so as not to land on top of a good sample) was suboptimal

– The movable foot restraint and crewlock bag stanchion worked well for sampling 

operations and helping to minimize contamination of the worksite

• EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

– Develop improvements in equipment and methods for deploying, stowing, and 

manipulating the boom

– Perform evaluations of a full length boom if this type of sampling continues to be a 

significant part of HAT’s Moons of Mars reference mission
Page No. 23 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Boom improvements for potential use on an asteroid 

and/or Phobos will be incorporated into designs for the 

next generation of hardware 

• Designs will be iterated between evaluations at NEEMO 

and in the NBL

EVA Stabilization Aids

Road To Flight

“Boom 2.0” 

NEEMO 18/19

“Boom 1.0” 

NBL/MACES Evals

Stabilization Boom concept

(ARM DRM animation)

“Boom 2.0” - NEEMO 20

“Phobos Boom” - NEEMO 20

Booms 

NEEMO 15/16
Page No. 24 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

ISS and IVA Objectives

Key Summary Points

Project Sidekick with Hololens

• NEEMO 20 crew evaluated the NASA JPL project “Sidekick”, which uses 

the HoloLens mixed-reality headset for remote assistance of crew members 

on ISS

• Take-away for EVA: Inclusion of this type of technology in a spacesuit 

could allow an IV crewmember to more easily guide an EV crewmember 

through both pioneering and science tasks

ODG R6 Headset and Augmented Reality

• NEEMO 20 crew evaluated the Osterhout Design Group (ODG) R6 

Augmented Reality Headset to conduct maintenance tasks within the 

Aquarius habitat

• Take-away for EVA: This type of procedure delivery and augmented reality, 

if incorporated into a spacesuit, could help EVA crew perform construction 

and maintenance tasks for which they haven’t been trained or for which it’s 

been a long time since training

MobiPV

• MobiPV is an ESA developed set of assistive communication tools and 

displays enhancing Crew–MCC interaction for hands-busy crew activities

• Take-away for EVA: This type of technology could be useful in talking crew 

through non-standard procedures, such as the R&R of an FPS

For all: EVA Office involvement as these tools and techniques 

are being developed and tested ensures we are well positioned 

to take advantage of future advances in this field.
Page No. 25 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

IPs

16%

Industry

4%

NEEMO 20 Funding through Collaborations

International 

Partners, 

16%

- ESA

- JAXA

NASA, 60%

- JSC

- XX (~ 78%)

- Other (~4%)

- HQ (~18%)

Industry, 4%

- Teledyne

- Shark Marine

Academia, 20% - VOXER

- ERAU

- NPS

- AFRL

• Mission funding raised by collaborations 

with interested partners

 No line item budget to pay for mission 

costs

• XX spent $200K total, 

plus CS travel for 2 from EC7

– $125k FIU (facility)

– $65k EC (tools)

– $10K ARC (scheduling tools)

• XX received

– Cat 1 Priority on mission design (EVA 

objectives were top mission priority)

– 52 hrs EVA time

– Embedded engineer on Crew

– Leveraged assets that we did NOT pay 

for:

• Pioneering tasks

• ROV access
Page No. 26 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Local Facility Testing vs Operational Field Testing

NBL

• Strengths

– Hi-fi pressurized suits, including gloves

– Hi-fi vehicle hardware interfaces for select 

reference missions (Orion and ARV)

– Local access (no travel for most of team)

• Weaknesses

– Run availability is limited

– Only able to conduct one EVA per day with a 

single pair of crew

– Test subjects limited by suit fit, especially for 

non-EMU suits like MACES

– Unable to support partial-g ops con 

evaluations (due to space and terrain)

– Not set up to operate 24 hours a day to 

evaluate multi-day planning and operations

• Cost

– Safety Review/TRR: $8,260 

– EMU run: $52,560+ per run

• Assumes 2 suits for 6 hours

• Does not include costs for suits or tools

– MACES run: $44,150+ per run 

• Min of 2 runs required (1 for egress)

• Assumes 2 suits for 4 hours

• Does not include cost for suits or tools

– SCUBA run: $1,790+ per run 

• Does not include costs of tools

NEEMO

• Strengths

– Hi-fi vehicle hardware interfaces for select reference 

missions (Mars surface, ARV, Mars Moon)

– Availability

• We are the priority user

• Full mission or engineering modes

• Multiple consecutive days

– Infrastructure and test configuration already supports 

the following:

• IV workstation to support Exploration EVA

• Operational comm latency

• 24 hour-a-day operations (to allow evaluation of 

multi-day planning and operations)

• Professional science team with vested interested in 

the sampling operations

– Exploration terrain and scale (large areas to evaluate 

ops cons)

– Able to conduct multiple EVAs per day with different 

crew

– Test subjects not limited by suit fit

– Provides an opportunity for team members to gain 

operational experience for professional growth

• Weaknesses

– Lo-fi suits and gloves

– Requires travel

– Somewhat weather dependent (rare and can be 

mitigated)

• Cost

– $15k per day

• Assumes 4 hours of EVA for 2 crew

• Includes dive system and support boats

• Does not include travel
Page No. 27 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Summary of Benefits to XX/EVA Office

Summary of Benefits to XX

• Due to the high fidelity operations nature of NEEMO missions, with experienced end operators, 

we were able to significantly advance XX4 objectives across a range of destinations and gravity 

gradients with respect to:

– Informing updates to the EVA Ops Con document (EVA-RD-004)

• Next update containing N20 lessons learned scheduled for release in mid FY16

– Evaluating objectives that facilitate SMT gap closure and CAPTEM findings

• Provided closure data for 14 open SMT gaps, 5 of which required the large operational area 

afforded by NEEMO

• Addressed 2 open CAPTEM findings

– Providing data for hardware design maturation to assist in road-to-flight, especially the EVA 

science sample collection tools

• Evaluations of prototype EVA hardware are directly leading towards more refined tools that 

allow for sample containment and a more flight-like contamination protocol

– Assessing ops cons and needs associated with EVAs that require input from MCC over a comm 

latency

• Cooperation between EVA engineers and scientists brought the two groups further in sync on 

addressing CAPTEM findings and figuring out how to conduct sampling at future destinations

• Enhancing relationships with international partners, academia, and other NASA orgs

– Russian counterparts interested in participating with 1-2 crewmembers and mission objectives for 

a future NEEMO mission due to XX facilitation of their observation

Recommendations

• Operational field tests of EVA operations concepts and hardware should continue to be 

evaluated on future missions, with focus on furthering closure of SMT gaps

• Action to XX4/EEWG to develop proposed NEEMO 21 objectives for XX Management 

consideration

– Due 12/18/15, with goal to have a decision on level of XX support for NEEMO 21 by mid January
Page No. 28 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

BACKUP
Page No. 29 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Additional Information in Backup

• EVA Objectives & SMT Gaps Addressed

– NEEMO 20 EVA Objectives (with gap mapping)

– EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO 

• NEEMO 20 Overview & EVA Objectives

– EVA at NEEMO

– EVA Schedule

• EVA Hardware & Tools

– Integrated Geology Sampling System

– Phobos Habitat EVA Deployable Boom

– EVA Sample Marker

– Incapacitated Crew Rescue

• EVA Operations Concepts

– EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

– Robotic Asset for EVA (Man-Machine Work System)

– Multi-Day Crew Self-Scheduling of EVAs

– EVA Navigation

– Building EVA Hardware In Situ (3D printer)

• Science Observations for EVA

• ISS & IVA Objectives

– Project Sidekick with Hololens

– ODG R6 Headset and Augmented Reality

– MobiPV

• NEEMO 20 High Level Info
Page No. 30 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Dive Team!
Page No. 31 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA OBJECTIVES &

SMT GAPS ADDRESSED

Additional Backup Details
Page No. 32 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

• 101: Identify CG for Suited Crew

– Determine CG of the PGS & AEMU. Analyze how a suitport interface plate (GC#400) would effect 

the CG.

• 214: Navigation Short Range

– DDT&E for a navigation system that can be packaged and integrated into an AEMU which provides 

less than 1m position error at a range of 200m or less from a known starting point, such as a rover.

– NEEMO 20 began looking into the types of systems and techniques needed for EVA navigation on 

a foreign body.

• 405: Suit Maintenance Location

– Perform a trade study (jointly with ECLSS and vehicle) of vehicle design options for an internally 

located EVA maintenance area. Trade to include ingress/egress methods (401), vehicle services at 

maintenance area, volumes, mudrooms, dust mitigation (408), and commonality across vehicles. 

Trade study should also include cleanliness levels needed for each R&R, dust mitigation & 

cleaning.

• 406: Rescue Incapacitated Crew Member

– Perform trade study with testing for incapacitated crew rescue for each DRM and each lock concept 

(airlock, suitport, etc). 

– DDT&E to develop necessary aids to allow an incapacitated crewmember to be moved in a 

planetary environment by a single healthy crewmember.

– NEEMO 20 provided an initial look at the types of hardware and techniques needed to rescue an 

incapacitated crewmember while on EVA.

• 411: Umbilical Trade for Life Support

– DDT&E for joint ECLSS-EVA umbilical system for non-PLSS EVAs. Based on 801, 802, and 810; 

perform trade study to determine method of life support umbilical to use for non-PLSS based 

contingency EVA (open loop, closed loop, etc.). 
Page No. 33 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

• 501: Microgravity stability and anchoring tools

– DDT&E for crew anchoring/stabilization tools/methods at microgravity destinations which do not 

include "engineered surfaces" such as Asteroids and Mars Moons

– NEEMO18-19 provided information on a prototype EVA Stabilization Boom

– NEEMO 20 investigated the use of an EVA boom deployed from a Phobos mobile habitat

• 502: Micro-g tool for loosely adhered particles

– DDT&E of a microgravity EVA tool to sample loosely adhered particles from a micro-gravity body 

such as a NEA

– NEEMO18-19 evaluated a prototype EVA Powered Rock Chip Hammer and EVA Sample Bag 

Dispenser

– NEEMO 20 investigated a soil/float end effector as part of the Integrated Geology Sampling System

• 503: Micro-g tool for chip samples

– DDT&E of a microgravity EVA tool to sample from the surface of a solid object such as a NEA or 

Mars Moons. Tool will include features to separate a "chip" from the object as well as capture the 

chip before it floats away

– NEEMO18-19 provided information on a prototype EVA Powered Rock Chip Hammer and chisel 

bell:

– NEEMO 20 investigated a chip end effector as part of the Integrated Geology Sampling System
Page No. 34 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

SMT Gaps (con’t)

• 504: Micro-g tool for subsurface samples

– DDT&E of a microgravity EVA tool to capture a subsurface sample from a solid object - Tool is 

expected to include any necessary mounting features to allow it to remain in contact with the object 

as it "drills" into the object.

– N18-19 provided information on a prototype EVA Deep Core Drill

– NEEMO 20 investigated a hand-held coring tool as part of the Integrated Geology Sampling 

System, the results of which are being combined with that of the HBR ARM BAA

• 505: Sample Storage and Curation

– DDT&E for sample curation, packaging and labeling. Some samples may be considered volatile 

and/or require special handling. Hardware development and evaluation to be conducted with 

scientific community input.

– NEEMO 20 investigated the “sample briefcase” as part of the Integrated Geology Sampling System

• 509: In-situ High Grading, EVA Tool

– DDT&E of tool suite to perform in-situ high-grading of samples collected during EVA to determine 

subsequent sample handling, disposal, or other curation plans.

– NEEMO 20 investigated operations with a temporary sample marker that provided the science team 

some basic information about the potential sample

• 510: Tool management device

– Conduct trade study, based on operational concept for each mission (801), to determine what tool 

management methods will be most efficient (e.g. tool caddy/type of tool caddy, robotic assistant, 

translating going back and forth to a central tool box, etc).

– N18-19 to evaluated a prototype EVA Sample Bag Dispenser

– NEEMO 20 evaluated using a robot (ROV) to assist EVA crew
Page No. 35 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

SMT Gaps (con’t)

• 511: Microgravity translation aids for non-engineered surfaces

– Based on 501 (DDT&E for crew anchoring/stabilization tools/methods at microgravity destinations), 

DDT&E installable EVA translation aids for "non-engineered surfaces" such as Asteroids and Mars 

Moons. Develop and evaluate prototype crew deployed translation systems

– N18-19 provided information on a prototype EVA Stabilization Boom for ARM

– NEEMO 20 investigated the use of an EVA boom deployed from a Phobos mobile habitat

• 512: Common Tools for vehicle maintenance

– Refine & update the list of Common EVA Maintenance Tools/interfaces that vehicles should use to 

design their maintenance interfaces (i.e. all bolts which are EVA accessible are 7/16" double height 

bolts).

– NEEMO 20 evaluated printing tools in situ with a 3D printer

• 703: EVA use model 

– Continue working on EVAs per DRM spreadsheet tool to determine sensitivities in ops con 

assumptions concerning number and frequency of EVAs, ex: two 3 hour EVAs, 24 hour max per 

week per crewmember

– N18-19 to evaluated autonomous crew self-planning of EVAs

– NEEMO 20 evaluated multi-day crew self-scheduling of EVAs

– NEEMO 20 tested the use of the Science Backroom Team to influence an EVA over comm latency
Page No. 36 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

SMT Gaps (con’t)

• 801: DRM Maturity 

– Further matured DRM details are needed to clarify mission level 

requirements, mission elements, exploration goals, EVA model, duration, etc.

– N18-19 to evaluated the following: 

• Prototype EVA Stabilization Boom

• Prototype EVA Deep Core Drill

• Prototype EVA Powered Rock Chip Hammer

• Prototype Unpressurized Rover for use during milli-gravity EVAs

• Remotely Operated Robot for EVA assistance 

• Autonomous crew self-planning of EVAs

• Effects of comm latency on EVAs (also evaluated at PLRP 2014)

– NEEMO 20 evaluated the following:

• Integrated Geology Sampling System

• Multi-day crew self-scheduling

• Use of a robotic (ROV) assistant during an EVA

• Effects of comm latency on EVAs, including having a Science Backroom Team 

influence operations during an EVA

• Hardware and techniques for rescuing an incapacitated EVA crewmember

• Building hardware in situ (3D printer)

• Prototype EVA boom deployed from a Phobos mobile habitat

• Techniques needed for EVA navigation on a foreign body
Page No. 37 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA SMT Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

SMT Gaps (con’t)

• 805: Scientific Objectives 

– Conduct coordination with science community to define common list of extraterrestrial geology 

activities/samples and supporting tools required to conduct sampling activities

– N18-19 to evaluated the following:

• Prototype EVA Deep Core Drill

• Prototype EVA Powered Rock Chip Hammer

– NEEMO 20 evaluated the Integrated Geology Sampling System

– NEEMO 20 evaluated a temporary sample marker to help a science Backroom Team high grade samples

• 807: Mission Module capabilities 

– Based on 801, for each DRM, need development of the assets (modules, rovers, cargo carriers, in-space 

habs, landers, etc.) to include functional requirements for each asset and its capabilities

– N18-19 to evaluated the following:

• Prototype Unpressurized Rover for use during milli-gravity a EVA

• Use of a Remotely Operated Robot for EVA assistance

• 808: Human Performance Per EVA Model

– Need trade study / test of human performance compared between various EVA models; for 

example, is a daily 8-hr EVA more/less productive than two 3-hr EVAs daily. Human performance 

is measured by number of EVA tasks completed, injury rate, etc. 

– Use resulting human performance metrics to inform EVA timelines for each mission and 

overarching mission objectives. Also informs vehicle designs and technologies.

• 810: DRM, Contingency EVA Definition

– Based on DRM (801), need agency/program level endorsed definition of contingency EVA per 

mission. What modules have contingency EVA scenarios? Are the contingency EVAs PLSS based 

or Umbilical based? What suit will be worn? What tasks will be performed via EVA crew? 
Page No. 38 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

CAPTEM Gaps to Address at NEEMO (in blue)

CAPTEM

• CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 g from two sites

– N18-19 to evaluated the following:

• Prototype EVA Stabilization Boom

• Prototype EVA Deep Core Drill

• Prototype EVA Powered Rock Chip Hammer

• EVA Sample Bag Dispenser 

– NEEMO 20 evaluated the Integrated Geology Sampling System

• CAPTEM 6: Core Samples 

– Demonstrate powered core sampling (pneumatic hammer with core tube 

attached)

– Manual/powered sampling device that obtains a minimum 4cm deep but 

maintains stratigraphy (possible spring loaded linear tube or tree planter)

– N18-19 to evaluated the following:

• Prototype EVA Deep Core Drill

• Prototype EVA Powered Rock Chip Hammer

• EVA Sample Bag Dispenser 

– NEEMO 20 evaluated an EVA handheld power driver with core end effector
Page No. 39 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 EVA Objectives (in priority order)

Objectives Details/Goals Gap closures addressed Mission

1 Evaluate EVA hardware and 

operations for capturing rock chip 

samples and protecting them against 

contamination

Test prototype rock chip hammer 

Chip Capture Mechanism (CCM) 

end-effector that interfaces with a 

common powered driver

503: Micro-g tool for chip 

samples

801: DRM Maturity 

805: Scientific Objectives

CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 

g from two sites

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

2 Evaluate hardware and operations for 

stowing samples collected during an 

EVA

Test plug-and-play sample 

collection containers (briefcases) 

that house a variety of tool end 

effectors and sample types (chip, 

float, surface, soil, core)

505: Sample Storage and 

Curation

801: DRM Maturity 

805: Scientific Objectives

CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 

g from two sites

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

3 Evaluate EVA hardware and 

operations for capturing float samples 

and protecting them against 

contamination

Test prototype sample collection 

end effectors (float, surface, soil) 

that interface with a common 

handle/actuation mechanism

502: Micro-g tool for loosely 

adhered particles

801: DRM Maturity 

805: Scientific Objectives

CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 

g from two sites

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar) 4 Evaluate EVA hardware and 

operations for capturing soil samples 

and protecting them against 

contamination

5 Evaluate EVA hardware and 

operations for capturing surface 

samples and protecting them against 

contamination

6 Evaluate EVA hardware and 

operations for obtaining a 

core/subsurface sample and 

protecting it against contamination

Test prototype hand core drill endeffector that interfaces with a 

common powered driver

504: Micro-g tool for 

subsurface samples

801: DRM Maturity

805: Scientific Objectives 

CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 

g from two sites

CAPTEM 6: Core Samples 

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)
Page No. 40 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Objectives Details/Goals Gap closures 

addressed

Mission

7 Investigate crew driven 

multi-day planning of EVA 

operations

Build scenarios with variables and a task list that 

must be planned and carried out over the course of 

multiple days in order to more thoroughly investigate 

challenges associated w/ crew driven multi-day EVA 

planning

Mature ops tools (Playbook) before ISS flight demo

703: EVA use model 

801: DRM Maturity 

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

8 Assess potential 

operations of a robotic

asset for EVA

Continue systematically understanding how robotics 

will be valuable during EVAs

Inform functional needs of a robot for EVA tool 

management

510: Tool management 

device

801: DRM Maturity 

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

9 Enhance understanding of 

comm limitations (latency, 

bandwidth, and coverage) 

during EVA operations

Continue to enhance understanding of comm 

limitations by including MCC/ST response time and 

comm with IV, and continue to investigate practicality 

of directing EVA operations from MCC over a TBD 

comm latency

703: EVA use model 

801: DRM Maturity 

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

10 Evaluate an EVA tool for 

identifying and high 

grading samples

Upgrade and evaluate EVA sample markers that 

provide pertinent information to MCC/ST

509: In-situ High Grading, 

EVA Tool

805: Scientific Objectives

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

11 Assess hardware and 

techniques for 

incapacitated crew rescue

Use analog environment to provide data for type of 

rescue equipment needed and techniques used 

during rescue

406: Rescue Incapacitated 

Crew Member

801: DRM Maturity 

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

NEEMO 20 EVA Objectives (in priority order)
Page No. 41 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Objectives Details/Goals Gap closures addressed Mission

12 Investigate building

EVA hardware in 

situ

Test using 3D printer to make EVA hardware 512: Common tools for vehicle 

maintenance

801: DRM Maturity 

Micro-g 

(Cis-lunar asteroid)

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

13 Evaluate EVA 

translation aids from 

a Mars’ moons 

mobile habitat 

Examine a manually deployable truss 

structure for EVA translation and sampling 

ops

501: Microgravity stability and 

anchoring tools

511: Microgravity translation aids 

for non-engineered surfaces

801: DRM Maturity 

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

14 Begin investigating 

concepts for 

navigating EVA 

crew

Begin looking at types of hardware needed 

and techniques for navigating on a foreign 

body

Make use of terrain at analog (features to 

avoid) and use transponders for GCA nav 

during multi-day EVA and possibly a crew 

rescue scenario 

If available, look at utilizing Navigator’s 

electronic maps for navigation and way point 

updates

214: Navigation Short Range

801: DRM Maturity 

Milli-g 

(Mars’ moons)

Partial-g / surface

(Mars, Lunar)

NEEMO 20 EVA Objectives (in priority order)
Page No. 42 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 

OVERVIEW & EVA OBJECTIVES

Additional Backup Details
Page No. 43 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Exploration EVA Risks & Gaps

Background

• Future Exploration missions will potentially take humans to destinations where EVA work will 

be done on natural bodies that don’t have built in aids

• These missions will also be at distance that precludes instantaneous real-time 

communication with the crew

• There are numerous technology and operations gaps associated with translation and 

stabilization tools, science sampling tools, and operational techniques for dealing with comm 

latency

– EVA Systems Maturation Team (SMT) gaps

– Curation and Analysis Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials (CAPTEM) findings

• EVA Office (XX) formulated a series of objectives for NEEMO 20 to begin closing these gaps

Why NEEMO?

• NEEMO provides a flexible environment that can 

mimic microgravity, milli-gravity, and partial gravity 

missions with EVA crewmembers performing tasks

• NEEMO allows for end-to-end testing of techniques 

and hardware in an operational scenario, with the 

crew in-situ and the ground team separated from 

them, which drives out problems not found in 

standalone testing and things that do and do not 

work in a mission situation
Page No. 44 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Exploration Goals for NEEMO 20

1. Evaluate EVA objectives that facilitate SMT gap closure

2. Address CAPTEM findings for EVA collection of science samples

3. Inform updates to the EVA Ops Con document (EVA-RD-004)

4. Provide data for hardware design maturation to assist in road-to-flight, especially the 

EVA science sample collection tools

5. Evaluate ops cons associated with more crew autonomy over a comm latency, such 

as self-scheduling of EVAs across multiple days

6. Assess ops cons and needs associated with EVAs that require input from MCC over 

a comm latency

7. Explore a range of destinations and gravity gradients

a. Micro-g at asteroid/cis-lunar

b. Milli-g at Mars’ moons (Phobos)

c. Partial-g on Mars and lunar surface
Page No. 45 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Mission Architecture for EVA

Asteroid EVA Tasks Overview

• Collected geology samples with Integrated 

Geology Sampling System

– Based on precursor data

– Per delta direction from the ST

– Sampling on seafloor with all geology tools

– Chip sampling from rocks mounted on the rock wall

• Utilized a stabilization boom while sampling
Page No. 46 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Mission Architecture for EVA

Phobos EVA Tasks Overview

• Collect geology samples with EVA Geology 

Sampling System

– Based on precursor data

– Per delta direction from the ST

– Geology sampling on seafloor with all geology 

tools

• Utilized a boom deployed from a “habitat”
Page No. 47 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 Mission Architecture for EVA

Mars Surface EVA Tasks Overview

• Took geology samples based on precursor 

data and direction from the ST

• Collected marine science samples (as real 

science proxy to astrobiology/geology 

sampling methods) based on precursor 

data and direction from the ST

• Performed pioneering construction tasks

• Utilized an ROV to assist EVA crew
Page No. 48 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 EVA Schedule

Mission Days 1 - 7

Day of Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Date 20-Jul 21-Jul 22-Jul 23-Jul 24-Jul 25-Jul 26-Jul

Mission Day MD 1 MD 2 MD 3 MD 4 MD 5 MD 6 MD 7

Morning Splash-down EVA 1 EVA 3 EVA 5 EVA 7 EVA 9 EVA 10

Micro-g / Cis-lunar asteroid Milli-g / Mars' moons Milli-g / Mars' moons Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface

2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hr 4 hr 4 hr

End-to-end sample collect Eval hab boom - fixed time Eval hab boom - dynamic time EVA recon for marine sites MCC planned MCC planned

End-to-end EVAs End-to-end EVAs

Science tasks Science tasks

Pioneering tasks Pioneering tasks

ROV recon & EVA support ROV recon & EVA support

Afternoon Fam Dive 1 EVA 2 EVA 4 EVA 6 EVA 8

1 hr - Fam Micro-g / Cis-lunar asteroid Milli-g / Mars' moons Milli-g / Mars' moons Partial-g / Surface

2 hours 2 hours 2 hours 2 hr

End-to-end sample collect Eval hab boom - fixed time Eval hab boom - dynamic time EVA recon for marine sites

Fam Dive 2

1 hr - Fam

Comm latency 0 0 5 min 5 min 10 min 10 min 10 min

IV Ground IV Ground IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV

ROV N o N o N o N o Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR)

Nav N o N o N o N o EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav

MCC / SBT MCC MCC & ARES SBT MCC & ARES SBT MCC & ARES SBT MCC & FIU SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT

Dive support Topside Topside Topside Topside Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech

MD 1 Overview MD 2 Overview MD 3 Overview MD 4 Overview MD 5 Overview MD 6 Overview MD 7 Overview

Crew makes 

their first fam 

dives from the 

habitat. No 

specific EVA 

objectives. 

Two 2-hour EVAs to evaluate 

geology sampling tools in an 

asteroid mission condition (microg). Crew will use stabilization 

boom 2.0 to sim reaching the 

asteroid from the ARRV.

Two 2-hour EVA. Tasks focus on 

eval of the Phobos hab 

deployable structure. Crew will 

utilize the geology sampling tools 

for their tasks on the boom. 

Two 2-hour EVA. Tasks focus on 

eval of the Phobos hab 

deployable structure. Crew will 

utilize the geology sampling tools 

for their tasks on the boom. 

Two 2-hour EVAs for the crew to 

conduct recon of the area in order 

to start planning the surface 

EVAs. EVA crew will use the 

Navigator/dive planes and IV 

crew will use an ROV.

One 4-hour EVA to begin evals of 

the pioneering (hardware) tasks, 

eval tools in partial-g, science 

tasks, and examine MCC/SBT 

interaction over a comm latency. 

This EVA will be planned by MCC. 

Crew will utilize an ROV.

One 4-hour EVA to begin evals of 

the pioneering (hardware) tasks, 

eval tools in partial-g, science 

tasks, and examine MCC/SBT 

interaction over a comm latency. 

This EVA will be planned by MCC. 

Crew will utilize an ROV.
Page No. 49 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 EVA Schedule

Mission Days 8 - 14

Day of Week Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Date 26-Jul 27-Jul 28-Jul 29-Jul 30-Jul 31-Jul 1-Aug 2-Aug

Mission Day MD 7 MD 8 MD 9 MD 10 MD 11 MD 12 MD 13 MD 14

Morning EVA 10 EVA 11 EVA 12 EVA 13 EVA 14 EVA 15 EVA 16 Splash-up

Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface Partial-g / Surface

4 hr 4 hr 4 hr 4 hr 4 hr 4 hr 2 hr

MCC planned MCC planned Crew self-scheduled Crew self-scheduled Crew self-scheduled Crew self-scheduled ICM rescue

End-to-end EVAs End-to-end EVAs End-to-end EVAs End-to-end EVAs End-to-end EVAs End-to-end EVAs

Science tasks Science tasks Science tasks Science tasks Science tasks Science tasks

Pioneering tasks Pioneering tasks Pioneering tasks Pioneering tasks Pioneering tasks Pioneering tasks

ROV recon & EVA support ROV recon & EVA support ROV recon & EVA support ROV support of EVA ROV recon & EVA support ROV recon & EVA support

Afternoon EVA 17

Partial-g / Surface

2 hr

ICM rescue

Self-schedule EVA

Self-schedule EVA Self-schedule EVA

Comm latency 10 min 10 min 10 min 10 min 10 min 10 min 0 (?)

IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV Hab IV Ground IV

ROV Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR) Hab ROV pilot (TBR) N o

Nav EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav EVA / ROV nav EVA nav

MCC / SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC/FIU & ARES SBT MCC

Dive support Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech Topside & Hab Tech

MD 7 Overview MD 8 Overview MD 9 Overview MD 10 Overview MD 11 Overview MD 12 Overview MD 13 Overview

One 4-hour EVA to begin evals of 

the pioneering (hardware) tasks, 

eval tools in partial-g, science 

tasks, and examine MCC/SBT 

interaction over a comm latency. 

This EVA will be planned by MCC. 

Crew will utilize an ROV.

One 4-hour EVA to eval 

pioneering (hardware) tasks, eval 

tools in partial-g, science tasks, 

and examine MCC/SBT interaction 

over a comm latency. This EVA 

will be planned by MCC (TBR). 

Crew will utilize an ROV.

One 4-hour EVA to eval 

pioneering (hardware) tasks, eval 

tools in partial-g, science tasks, 

and examine MCC/SBT interaction 

over a comm latency. This EVA 

will be planned by crew (TBR). 

Crew will utilize an ROV.

One 4-hour EVA to eval 

pioneering (hardware) tasks, eval 

tools in partial-g, science tasks, 

and examine MCC/SBT interaction 

over a comm latency. This EVA 

will be planned by crew. Crew 

will utilize an ROV.

One 4-hour EVA to eval 

pioneering (hardware) tasks, eval 

tools in partial-g, science tasks, 

and examine MCC/SBT interaction 

over a comm latency. This EVA 

will be planned by crew. Crew 

will utilize an ROV.

Two 2-hour EVAs to evaluate ICM 

rescue hardware and techniques.

Day reserved for TBD objectives 

and as a weather contingency 

day.
Page No. 50 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463) 50

Craig, D.A., Herrmann, N.B., Troutman, P.A. (2015). “The Evolvable Mars Campaign – Study Status,” IEEE Aerospace 

Conference, Big Sky, Montana.
Page No. 51 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA HARDWARE & TOOLS

Additional Backup Details

Technology Maturation for Ops
Page No. 52 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Exploration EVA Objectives & Gaps

Hardware and Tools

EVA Objective Applicable 

Mission

EVA SMT Gap Closure

& ARCM CAPTEM

Hardware and 

Technique

Evaluate EVA hardware and operations for 

science sampling 

• Rock chip sample

• Float sample

• Soil sample

• Surface sample

• Core sample

• Sample collection container (briefcase)

Asteroid

Moons of Mars

Mars surface

502: Micro-g tool for loosely adhered 

particles

503: Micro-g tool for chip samples

504: Micro-g tool for subsurface samples

505: Sample Storage and Curation

801: DRM Maturity 

805: Scientific Objectives

CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 g from two 

sites

Integrated Geology 

Sampling System

Examine a manually deployable truss 

structure for EVA translation and sampling 

ops

Moons of Mars 501: Microgravity stability and anchoring 

tools

511: Microgravity translation aids for nonengineered surfaces

801: DRM Maturity 

Phobos 

Deployable 

Structure (boom)

Evaluate an EVA tool for identifying and 

high grading samples

Mars surface 509: In-situ High Grading, EVA Tool

805: Scientific Objectives

Sample markers

Helmet cams

Assess hardware and techniques for 

incapacitated crew rescue

Mars surface 406: Rescue Incapacitated Crew Member

801: DRM Maturity 

ICM rescue gurney 
Page No. 53 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Hardware and Tools

Integrated Geology Sampling System

Overview

• Evaluate EVA hardware and operations for science sampling 

• The integrated sampling kit is focused on sample containment and a more 

flight-like contamination protocol

• Design concept consists of a “briefcase” designed for sample management, 

ease of operation, and consistency across sampling activities

• The Sample Briefcase houses various End Effectors (float, soil, surface, 

chip, core)

• Two different Drivers will enable crew to secure samples manually or with a 

powered device

• NOTE: This system was optimized for asteroid geology sampling

Sample Briefcase

• The Sample Briefcase is the carrying case in which the end effectors are 

housed prior to and after use

• Serves as a method to transport end effectors and provide final 

containment once a sample is collected

• Volume is allocated for soft sample bags to collect contingency samples 

and/or targets of opportunity once all end effectors have been used
Page No. 54 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Drivers

• Manual Driver is used to obtain loosely adhered samples that can be liberated using hand 

strength alone

• Powered Driver is used when an increased force is needed to remove samples from the 

surface

– Pneumatics were used as an analog at NEEMO because of their low cost and easy 

implementation in the underwater test environment

– Flight design would be electrically powered, similar to the PGT

End Effectors

• Scientists are interested in obtaining 5 types of samples: 

– Float: rocks that are loosely adhered to the surface

– Soil: a collection of unconsolidated rock fragments loosely adhered to the surface

– Surface: the very top layer of dust on the surface

– Chip: pieces of a parent body forcibly removed

– Core: cylindrical section of the parent body

• Different end effectors were designed to obtain each type of sample.

Float/Soil Surface Chip Core

EVA Hardware and Tools

Integrated Geology Sampling System
Page No. 55 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

EVA Integrated Geology Sampling System 

Post-Asteroid EVA Tools Crew Consensus Acceptability

• Float, Core & Soil Samples: acceptable except for microspine; “microspine slipping off 

rock” 

• Surface Sample: “It wasn't possible to lock the EE open or closed without reaching 

near the sample surface and possibly contaminating it.”

• Chip Sample: “It was challenging to get a properly sized sample into the small EE. The 

door is difficult to open and close, especially without getting a gloved hand near the 

sample and possibly contaminating it.”

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Core Sample

Soil Sample

Surface Sample

Float Sample

Chip Sample

From PFR on Boom

From BRT on Boom

From BRT on Microspine
Page No. 56 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Integrated Geology Sampling System 

Results & Observations

Overall Integrated Geology Sampling System

• Concept proved feasible and provides the potential for 

pristine sample collection

• Provides viable method for minimizing cross contamination 

between sample sites and crew to sample contamination

Recommendations/Forward Work

• Large mass and volume implications compared to Apollo 

methodology that needs to be examined for viability (single 

collection tool with multiple sample bags) 

• Further discussion with ARES personnel is needed to 

understand the acceptable level of cross contamination

• Need to work out methods or make modifications to keep 

the EV crew from contaminating areas
Page No. 57 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Sampling Briefcase

• No major comments or recommended changes from crew

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Determine sealing protocol at sample level (impacts briefcase 

design) and briefcase level 

– Add witness plates, which will be required for a flight version 

(determine number, size and placement)

Manual Driver

• It would be better if the “unlatching” action was up around the 

handle to enable one handed operation

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Upgrade latching mechanism

– Check tolerances to guarantee that when parts are mated latches 

engage

Power Driver

• End effector attachment needs to be more seamless with 

more pronounced orientation marks 

• 3D printed components worked well

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Ensure tolerances guarantee that when parts are mated latches 

engage

EVA Sample Briefcase and Drivers 

Results & Observations
Page No. 58 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Sampling System End Effectors

Results & Observations

Surface Sample End Effector

• Opening and closing the lid presented a contamination risk

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Find a way to ensure gloved hands does not touch/contaminate sample area

– One concept is to emulate a self inking stamping tool, where the stamping is 

recessed and protected and flips out upon being pressed into a surface or when a 

handle is squeezed depending on surface properties

Soil/Float End Effector

• For float rocks the crew looked to double grip sample (i.e. sample cannot be 

collected in one motion)

• Ability to confirm sample collection through viewing windows is important 

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Look into using a mini-microspine as an end effector for collecting float rock 

samples; the mini-microspine could capture rocks from a greater stand-off 

distance while a separate container or clamshell enclosure could seal around the 

sample

Chip Sample End Effector

• Large chips can became jammed in the device and prevented door from closing

• Improvements in fracturing capability needed

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Look for ways to prevent large chips from jamming the door

– Non-perpendicular angle-of-attack is needed to improve fracturing ability

– Bellowed end effector would provide more compliance on non-uniform surfaces 

– Perform zero-g testing
Page No. 59 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Sampling System End Effectors

Results & Observations

Core Sample End Effector

• Ops con of swappable end effectors worked well

• Ops did not involve evaluating a spinning core bit, which is being worked through 

IRB work with Honeybee robotics. 

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Continue to evolve the rock coring end effector as a high priority as this will likely 

be a tool that can be used for multiple planetary bodies (asteroid, Mars, lunar) 

and address numerous contamination control concerns

– Continue work with Honeybee Robotics

– Further discuss and determine the required capabilities and design options for the 

core end effector for collecting regolith (soil) vs rock samples - likely very different 

tools

Sample Baggies

• Recommendations/Forward Work:

– Important to allow for contingency samples or samples of opportunity that may not 

fit into an end effector 

– Provide adequate stowage space in sample briefcase for samples taken with 

baggies

Labels

• Recommendations/Forward Design Work:

– Add multiple labels on end effectors; on top facing out while in sample bag would 

help greatly

– Sample color and scale indicators are best located on the surface via temp 

marker (rather than on the tool, but doesn’t hurt to have on tool as well); overall 

these references need to be larger or scaled to best match image resolution 

– Require a method to indicate that the sample container has been used
Page No. 60 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Tool improvements for potential use on an asteroid will be incorporated into 

designs for the next generation of hardware 

• EC7 is merging results from NEEMO18/19/20 with work done by Honeybee 

Robotics (HBR) through the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) Broad Agency 

Announcement (BAA) Contracts for an EVA Core Drill concept

– Key test data exchanged between these two efforts includes the timeline data of NEEMO 

18/19/20 with the drilling power and duration/depth of HBR’s proven planetary drill designs

– Together, these two efforts allow EVA to close the Architecture and EVA Ops Con and 

identify any fundamental design/technical issues such as power availability for core drilling 

operations

• The NEEMO 20 core drill focused on a hand held “shallow core” device more 

similar to the Honeybee concept.

EVA Sample Collection Tools

Road To Flight

Hand Core Drill

NEEMO 20

Deep Core Drill

NEEMO 18 & 19

Hand Core Drill 

NEEMO 17

Representative photo (Publicly released 

by HBR, ARM concept designs in-work 

and will be released by ARM Mission 

Concept Review (MCR))
Page No. 61 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Integrated Geology Sampling System

Summary Take-Away

Objective 

• Evaluate EVA hardware and operations for science sampling 

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 502: Micro-g tool for loosely adhered particles

• 503: Micro-g tool for chip samples

• 504: Micro-g tool for subsurface samples

• 505: Sample Storage and Curation

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

• 805: Scientific objectives (geology activities/samples and supporting tools)

• CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 g from two sites

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• Concept proved feasible for EVA collection of geology and astrobiology (marine science) samples

• Provides a viable method for minimizing sample-to-sample and crew-to-sample contamination 

• Keeps tools and samples organized, which improves deployment, stowage, and transportation 

• It was difficult to not contaminate a site when taking samples (crew had to walk into an area/zone in order to reach 

a specific sample)

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Concept largely solves the problem of sample contamination while being easy to employ, but its size and mass are 

rather large compared to the actual samples obtained - further work needs to be done to minimize the size/mass of 

the tools while maximizing return samples

• Have further discussions between the EVA Office, EVA Tools, and ARES to understand the acceptable level of 

cross contamination (and possible reuse of tools) at all destinations

• Work out methods or make modifications to tools in order to keep the EV crew from contaminating an area

• Incorporate recommendations for individual components (drivers, end effectors, and container) into the next version 

of prototype tools, including tools specifically for surface ops

• Test the next versions of the prototypes during NBL runs to examine tool operation in a pressurized suit and during 

future NEEMO missions for ops con iteration/refinement
Page No. 62 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Hardware and Tools

Phobos Hab EVA Deployable Boom

Purpose

• Evaluate EVA tools/methods for translation and stabilization

• Research Questions: Are the operations concepts, task, and 

hardware designs for translation and stabilization while performing 

exploration tasks in Mars moons gravity acceptable? What 

improvements are desired, warranted or required?

Phobos Boom Overview

• NEEMO 20 investigated the concept of having a deployable 

structure on a Phobos Habitat

• This device would allow for translation and body-stabilized activities 

off a Phobos habitat, while providing access to a wide area to study 

from a single landing site

• A Foot Restraint, Handrails, and a Crew Lock Bag Stanchion allowed 

for crew operations

• NOTE: The boom as tested was 16 feet long, however the concept 

for flight would be a 25 ft. boom, with the possibility of putting two 

together to create a 50 ft. boom. 
Page No. 63 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

• Deploying Phobos Boom: totally acceptable; “good”

• Yawing of Phobos Boom: unacceptable; “required a tremendous amount of work”

• Stow of Phobos Boom: borderline; “heavy to stow, would be better to reel in with a 

cable”

• Phobos Boom Overall: borderline; no additional consensus comments provided

Deploying Phobos Boom

Yawing of Phobos Boom

Stow Phobos Boom

Phobos Boom Overall

Take Away: manual methods for yawing and stowing the boom using a 

rope and leverage were not optimal and improvements are required

Phobos Hab EVA Deployable Boom

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Acceptability Ratings
Page No. 64 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Core Sample

Soil Sample

Surface Sample

Float Sample

Chip Sample

From PFR on Boom From BRT on Boom

Phobos Hab EVA Deployable Boom

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Acceptability Ratings

• Same ratings across all sampling types within a method (i.e. PFR or BRT); all 

totally acceptable

• General PFR comments: need “Better PFR with more pitch, yaw, roll”

• General BRT comments: “Constantly came undone and was difficult to latch at 

times.” – However, feed back from previous missions indicated some liked this 

BRT better than the flight version.

Take Away: standard sampling techniques using provided tools and 

stabilization techniques were totally acceptable 
Page No. 65 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Boom feet: intended to react loads and reduce instability at tip; “definitely depends 

on design”

• Boom yaw lock out: intended to react lateral loads; “yaw lock out was difficult to 

use at times”; in general, yaw lock out was not needed for the tasks performed

• Tool stanchion: “a tool stanchion should help but definitely depends on the design”

• Portable Foot Restraint (PFR) vs. Body Restraint Tether (BRT): “PFRs are 

definitely better than BRTs for stability”; “more capability for the PFR (pitch, yaw, 

roll)” desired 

Boom feature utiity: feet

Boom feature utiity: yaw lock out

Tool Stanchion

PFR (vs. BRT only)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Phobos Hab EVA Deployable Boom

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Capability Assessment
Page No. 66 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Phobos Habitat EVA Deployable Boom

Results & Recommendations

Results

• A boom/arm deployed from a mobile habitat will work well for performing geology sampling

– 16 ft. boom was stable enough for the tasks tested

– Flight boom may be 25+ ft.

• Performance of a core set of science tasks was totally acceptable while using the boom for 

stabilization (PFR and BRT)

• Manual yawing was difficult due to lack of mechanical advantage, limited visibility in helmet, 

and water drag

• It will be critical to be able to know where the feet will land so that they don’t end up on top 

of a good sample

• A movable foot restraint is important for operation

• Crew Lock Bag stanchion like device is important to prevent worksite contamination

Recommendations

• Develop a better way to yaw the boom rather than having crew pull on a line

– Look into a powered system or mechanical advantage device

– Make the lock easier to engage

• Improve the stow system so that not as much force is required, possibly with a reel system

• Improvements in equipment and methods for deploying, stowing, and using the boom 

should be made

• Look at the stabilization of a longer boom (25-50 feet concept for flight)
Page No. 67 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Phobos Habitat EVA Deployable Boom

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Examine a manually deployable truss structure for EVA translation 

and sampling ops

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 501: Microgravity stability and anchoring tools

• 511: Microgravity translation aids for non-engineered surfaces

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

• CAPTEM 5: Collection of 1000 g from two sites

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• A boom/arm deployed from a Phobos mobile habitat will work for performing EVA geology sampling

– 16 ft. boom was stable enough for the tasks tested

– Flight boom may be 25 ft

– Performance of a core set of science tasks was totally acceptable while using the boom for 

stabilization (PFR and BRT)

• Lack of mechanical advantage and control made use difficult, and ability to control exactly where the 

feet landed (so as not to land on top of a good sample) was sub-optimal

• The movable foot restraint and crewlock bag stanchion worked well for sampling operations and 

helping to minimize contamination of the worksite

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Develop improvements in equipment and methods for deploying, stowing, and manipulating the boom

• Perform evaluations of a full length boom if this type of sampling continues to be a significant part of 

HAT’s Moons of Mars reference mission

– Look at the stabilization of a longer boom (25-50 feet concept for flight)
Page No. 68 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Microspine Stabilization Device

Summary Take-Away

Supplementary Objective

• Evaluate microspine as an EVA stabilization device

– NEEMO 20 evaluated the microspine grippers capability to be a body 

stabilization platform

– Provided by JPL in a crew-operable package

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 501: Microgravity stability and anchoring tools

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• Current as-tested version did not allow for good EVA body stabilization

• Crew induced torsional loads and the housing creating contact points with a 

moment arm caused the microspine to release from the rock

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Examine utilizing the device as a deployable drill base for obtaining core 

samples during a future NEEMO mission

• Look at the possible use of a small microspine as an end effector for 

collecting float samples

Stowed

Engaged
Page No. 69 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Purpose

• Evaluate an EVA tool for identifying and high grading samples

• Crew used the temporary markers in two different scenarios

– Geology sites: Crew placed the temp markers at locations identified on precursor maps in order 

to identify the samples for confirmation from the ST

– Marine science sites: Crew located a site based on precursor data, and then deployed the temp 

markers at corals of interest for the ST to determine from which corals to take a sample

• The ST evaluated the EV crew helmet camera video to determine which samples to take 

by referencing the temp markers

• Markers gave some scale and color reference information

EVA Hardware and Tools

Sample Marker/High Grading Tool
Page No. 70 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Sample Marker/High Grading Tool

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Evaluate an EVA tool for identifying and high grading samples

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 509: In-situ High Grading, EVA Tool

• 805: Scientific objectives (geology activities/samples and supporting tools)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• Crew were able to use the temporary sample markers to identify potential corals to 

sample

• Temporary markers are critical when communicating with IV and ST/MCC

• The ST had difficulty reading the markers in the helmet cam video at times

– Temp markers IDs were unreadable given the image quality at a few meter 

distance, especially over unstable video

– Deploying markers in order is preferred; makes it easier to track progress 

(especially with bad coms)

• It was difficult to deploy the markers in the middle of a site without disturbing the area 

- it would be good to have a way to deploy markers further away

• It was challenging to remember where all of the temp markers were placed when 

returning to a worksite

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Current version has color bars and scale markings - look further into what gives the 

ST the information needed to evaluate potential samples

• Continue iterating the design and test the next version during future NEEMO 

missions
Page No. 71 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Purpose

• Assess hardware and techniques for incapacitated crew rescue

– Goal was to investigate the ops con and hardware necessary for getting incapacitated crew back to 

the habitat over long distances and complex terrain

– Are the operations concepts, task designs, and tool designs for incapacitated crew rescue in partial-g 

acceptable? What improvements are desired, warranted or required?

– How does the acceptability of the operations concepts, task designs, and tool designs for 

incapacitated crew rescue vary between two different patient loading methods? How does the 

acceptability vary by simulated crewmember weight?

• Simulated reduced gravity (Moon or Mars) evacuation of incapacitated crewmember through 

level (or low-angle undulating) and/or rough terrain with obstacles not trafficable by rover

– Requires the use of “litter” system for as few as one rescuer crewmember to load and transport 

incapacitated crew member to rover (at which time, previously tested haul systems and ingress 

methods can be used)

• A COTS litter assembly was purchased to provide a “first look”

• The crew was weighed out to 50 lbs. Actual Mars weight with current suit estimates would be 

closer to 150 lbs.

EVA Hardware and Tools

Incapacitated Crew Rescue Hardware
Page No. 72 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

• Results should be viewed as very early pilot study/evaluation data

• Crew was prompted to provide post-EVA consensus ratings but they were not provided; realtime individual ratings and comments used here to summarize results

• Post-assembled litter/wheels method rated borderline/unacceptable; “need a faster way to 

attach litter to wheel mechanism”; “litter kept sliding out of the spaces”; “it's a lot of work”

• Pre-assembled litter/wheels method rated mostly acceptable; “Would like a hoist to help 

bring them up the inclined litter”

Take Away: early evaluations show that loading patient on preassembled apparatus is 

less work and more efficient; design ideas generated for how to use the suit and minimal 

supplemental equipment for loading and evacuation

Pre-assembled Litter/Wheels

Post-assembled Litter/Wheels

Incapacitated Crew Rescue Individual Acceptability Ratings

Subject A Subject B Subject C Subject D

Incapacitated Crew Rescue Hardware 

Acceptability Ratings
Page No. 73 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Incapacitated Crew Rescue Hardware

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Assess hardware and techniques for incapacitated crew rescue

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 406: Rescue Incapacitated Crew Member

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• Crew were able to use the litter in both configurations to rescue each other

– It was difficult to load a crewmember on a litter and then raise it to a set of wheels – need to have the whole 

unit stay as one

– Need a way to hook the ICM onto the angled litter in order to let go and attach the straps.

– A winch might work better to hoist an ICM onto the litter rather than deadlifting 

– Retractable straps would be more efficient

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Look at ways to modify the litter to add in the suggested capabilities (minimize lifting and maximize efficiency)

• Further research and test improved equipment with heavier simulated crew weight during future NEEMO missions
Page No. 74 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA OPERATIONS CONCEPTS

Additional Backup Details

Ops Concept Maturation
Page No. 75 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Exploration EVA Objectives & Gaps

Operations Concepts

EVA Objective Applicable 

Mission

EVA SMT Gap Closure

& ARCM CAPTEM

Hardware and 

Technique

Continue to enhance understanding of 

comm limitations by including MCC/ST 

response time and comm with IV, and 

continue to investigate practicality of 

directing EVA operations from MCC over a 

comm latency

Moons of Mars

Mars surface

703: EVA use model 

801: DRM Maturity 

Science Team

5-min comm 

latency ops con

10-min comm 

latency ops con

Assess potential operations of a robotic 

asset for EVA and inform functional needs

of a robot for EVA tool management

Mars surface 510: Tool management device

801: DRM Maturity 

NPS ROV

Investigate crew driven multi-day planning 

of EVA operations utilizing scenarios with 

variables and a task list that must be 

planned and carried out over the course of 

multiple days

Mars surface 703: EVA use model 

801: DRM Maturity 

Playbook

Begin looking at types of hardware needed 

and techniques for navigating on a foreign 

body

Mars surface 214: Navigation Short Range

801: DRM Maturity 

Navigator

Investigate building EVA hardware in situ Mars surface 512: Common tools for vehicle 

maintenance

801: DRM Maturity 

3D printer
Page No. 76 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Ops Con

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Purpose

• Evaluate the effects of communications latencies on exploration EVAs

– Are the mission operations concepts, science operations concepts, and communications protocols 

under consideration for exploration mission destinations acceptable? 

– Do mission operations concepts, science operations concepts, and communications protocols 

remain acceptable as communications latency increases up to 10 minutes one-way light time 

(OWLT)? 

• A primary mission objective was to understand the potential interaction between a Mars-based 

crew doing geology tasks and a Science Team (ST) on Earth (across a time latency) during an EVA

– All science sampling involved interaction with MCC/ST during the EVA

– Initial tasks were performed based on precursor data

– Follow-up tasks were conducted based on the direction of the ST

• An ARES team member acted as the ST for geology sampling

• A small team from the FIU Marine Science department acted as the marine science backroom 

• ERAU provided a team to provide backroom support for the CORAL tasks

– IV1 directly communicated with the ST on their priorities, and relayed direction to the EV 

crewmembers

– A typical surface EVA involved two marine sites and one geology site

• Pioneering tasks were conducted during some of the EVAs, along with science sampling
Page No. 77 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Science Traverse Ops Con

• There are varied operations concepts for executing exploration traverses that have 

different levels of autonomy and different methods for integration of ground input

– Very low communication latency (i.e. as was the case for the Apollo missions) 

allows for interaction with ground on a regular basis without impacting efficiency or 

increasing crew idle time

– As communication latency increases, it could be assumed that higher levels of 

crew autonomy will be required and that ground interaction cannot happen without 

efficiency losses (e.g. increasing of crew idle time while waiting for ground input)

• One option would be to highly train the crew and have them autonomously 

execute science traverses with the ground only providing feedback and “go 

backs” across latency as best as they can to get the science that is desired

• A second option is to assume that there will always be a higher level of 

science expertise on the ground that can increase the value of the 

science being performed by the crew

– In this case, it is necessary to design EVA timelines in such a way that 

intentionally provides time for the ground to provide input to maximize 

science while still minimizing total EVA time and EVA idle time

– It is this second option that the operations concept research has focused 

on across several analog missions and here at NEEMO 20
Page No. 78 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Example from RATS 12

Example from PLRP

• Assumptions:

– For exploration destinations, robotic precursor 

missions will have collected sufficient high quality 

imagery and precursor data to plan detailed 

exploration traverses to be performed by human 

crews once they arrive.

– Upon actual execution of the exploration 

traverses by the crew on EVA, additional levels of 

information may be obtained through presampling surveys of each science site on the 

traverse that may modify traverse plans, science 

tasks, and/or science priorities.

– Pre-sampling survey data will be used by a 

ground-based MCC and science team (ST) to 

provide input to the EVA crew to maximize the 

quality of the science achieved

– A higher level of science expertise or analysis 

capabilities exists in the ST than with the crew

– EVA timelines can be designed to allow for 

MCC/ST input

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Exploration Traverse Ops Con Assumptions
Page No. 79 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Communication Architecture

ROV

Aquarius Reef Base MCC Aquarius Habitat IV

Aquarius EVA Crew
Page No. 80 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

ROV Boat

Capcom

MCC

EVA

Sci Trailer

ERAU

ST 

(lead)

• ARES

• FIU

• KSC Comm

• VIPs

}

S/G 1 (Vcom)

S/G 1 (Vcom) 

S/G 2 (Voxer)

NEEMO 20 EVA Comm Loops

IV1

IV2

Comm During EVA at NEEMO 20

• S/G 1 used for big loop comm during EVA

Uses Vcom software

• S/G 2 used for comm between MCC and IV1

Uses Voxer software

• ROV COORD used for comm between IV2 

and NPS ROV Pilot

Uses Voxer software
Page No. 81 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Ground Assimilation Time Study Design

• Study was implemented during both Phobos (5 min OWLT) and Surface EVAs (10 min OWLT)

• ST was engaged and providing input based on information received

• Objective was to compare the effects of having fixed ground assimilation time vs. allowing it to 

dynamically vary within an EVA based on actual completion times; the intent was to show effects on idle 

time, ground assimilation time, total EVA time

• Ground assimilation time (GAT)

– Calculated as time from beginning of first activity to beginning of subsequent activity within the 

same group

– Time available for ground to discuss data/imagery after it has been collected, in addition to the time 

taken to watch imagery being collected in the first place (if data is streaming to the ground)

• For tasks dependent on science team input:

– A fixed GAT equal to the first grouped task time + additional 5 minutes

• 5 minutes chosen for additional GAT to attempt to minimize impacts to the EVA timeline design 

but still give adequate time for ST input 

– In the fixed GAT condition, the crew was asked to wait the entire planned GAT before performing a 

dependent task in the timeline

– In the dynamic GAT condition, the crew was asked to proceed as soon as they reached a 

dependent task in the timeline

• If ST input was received in time for the given GAT condition, the crew would proceed based on 

that input; otherwise the crew would proceed based on the precursor plan

• Under the dynamic GAT condition, the crew were to notify the MCC as soon as possible that a task will 

likely take shorter or longer than planned; MCC/ST would then attempt to adjust to a shorter time scale or 

take advantage of the additional time afforded to them to provide input
Page No. 82 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Definitions Related to Communication Latency

• Dependent task groups

– Groups of two or more EVA tasks in which initial tasks are performed 

and subsequent tasks are dependent on ground input based on initial 

tasks

• Ground assimilation time (GAT)

– Time available for ground to discuss data/imagery after it has been 

collected, in addition to the time taken to watch imagery being collected 

in the first place (if data is streaming to the ground)

• Idle time

– Time spent waiting for ground input

• Total EVA time

– Total available work time during EVA (“post-egress/ready” to pre-

”ingress/clean-up”)

• Max possible GAT/EVA Time

– Max possible GAT is limited by the fact that the final 2xOWLT min. is 

not actionable (i.e. not enough remaining time in the EVA for the 

ground to provide instructions back to the crew)
Page No. 83 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

EVA Science Tasks

Geology Sampling

• Planetary geology tasks included

– Collecting float, soil, surface, core, and rock chip samples

– Deploying and using scientific instruments, such as a geophysical array

– In situ analyses using scientific instruments

• Geological tool use and evaluations were included in crew tasks by developing 

geology sites with rocks deployed by the support team

• An Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES) scientist provided 

ST support for the geology tasks

Marine Science Sampling

• Since no representative astrobiology/geology is naturally present on a NEEMO 

mission, a suitable proxy needed to be found instead to achieve these objectives

• The following marine science objectives were utilized to evaluate sampling

– Tag colonies from three targeted coral species at 100 ft. and 60 ft. depth 

intervals. These long-term tags will also allow to monitor these colonies in 

future missions.

Analogous to marking geological samples for communicating with the ST 

– Deploy a long-term temperature sensor (Hobo) in each sampling area.

Analogous to deploying a scientific instrument such as a geophysical array 

– Acquire PAM fluorometry measurements for health assessment.

Analogous to in situ analysis with scientific instruments

– Obtain chip samples from selected coral species. These samples will be for 

DNA & RNA analysis.

Analogous to geological sampling

• A team from the FIU Marine Science department provided ST support for the coral 

tasks
Page No. 84 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Science Site Map

Existing structures

Geology Sites & 

Cache sites

Planned structure

Navigation aids

CT

2

Boundary 

Limit

30 m

CT1

15 m

20 m

25 m

30 m

Depth 

Contours

~150’

radius

Near 

Field

Far 

Field

LSB

~75’

radius

Dive Plane: ~1 min
Page No. 85 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Science Precursor Data
Page No. 86 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency 

EVA Pioneering Tasks

CORAL I

• Deployed during NEEMO 19

• Tasks involved removing the old panels for study by Teledyne Brown 

and installing a camera

• For ERAU, this is used for studies of long term exposure of 

hardware to the ocean

• For NASA, this is analogous to working on building 

infrastructure on long duration surface missions

CORAL II Tower

• Tasks involved assembling the tower and installing panels

• For ERAU, this is a 2nd structure to be assembled for long term 

hardware exposure study

• For NASA, this is analogous to a pioneering task of building 

infrastructure, such as erecting a comm tower

• ERAU provided a team to provide support for the CORAL tasks
Page No. 87 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Traverse & Science Flow

Execute EVA

• Use Maps to Find 

Designated Sites

• Traverse between Sites

Pre-Sampling Survey

• Find Precursor-Defined 

Science

• Place Temporary 

Markers

• Marine/Geologic 

Description & Instrument 

Readings

Sampling

• Sample Based on Input 

from ST (via IV)

• Sample Based on 

Precursor Plan if no ST 

input received in time

EV

Guide EVA

• Use EVA Timeline to 

Direct EV to Designated 

Marine/Geologic Sites

• Provide Task Flow to EV

• Manage Time

• Provide Procedures

Pre-Sampling Survey

• Guide/Verify EV in 

Finding PrecursorDefined Science

• Verify Temporary 

Markers are Visible in 

Helmet Camera

• Record Descriptions and 

Instrument Readings

Sampling

• Receive input from ST in 

Mission Log Based on 

Imagery of Temporary 

Markers

• Provide input from ST to 

EV and Guide Sampling

IV

Monitor EVA

• Monitor Traverse

• Provide Input on Task 

Priorities & Time 

Management

• Clarify Procedures as 

Needed

Pre-Sampling Survey

• Analyze Incoming EV 

Video & Voice Into

• Manage & Adjust 

Science Priorities

• Snapshot and Annotate 

Images w/ ST Input

• Send ST Input to IV via 

Mission Log

Sampling

• Monitor Sampling

• Manage & Adjust 

Science Priorities

• Provide Further Science 

Input as Needed

MCC/ST

Latency
Page No. 88 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency 

Comm Between ST & IV During Mars System EVA

PET EV1 EV2 IV1 IV2 MCC/SBT

0:05

0:10

0:15

0:20 Record Data Logger Number

0:25

0:30

0:35

0:40

0:45

0:50

0:55

1:00

1:05 Ground Assimilation Time

1:10 Surface Sample 1 Soil Sample 1

1:15

1:20 IV receives SBT Input for First Site Ground Assimilation Time

1:25 Receive Float Sample 1 and Soil Sample 1 Data

1:30

1:35

1:40

1:45

1:50

1:55 Record Data Logger Number

2:00

2:05

2:10

2:15

2:20

2:25

2:30

2:35

2:40 Ground Assimilation Time

2:45

2:50

2:55 IV receives SBT Input for 2nd Site

3:00

3:05

3:10

3:15

3:20

3:25

3:30

3:35

3:40

3:45

3:50

3:55

4:00

Assist w/ Egress Egress, Weighout, Don Crew-Worn Equipment

Translate to First Marine Science Site via Dive Planes

Mark Center of Marine Science Site w/ HOBO Data Logger

Operate ROV to 

Support EV

(use ROV to 

Translate w/ 

Samples, Tools, 

etc., to and from 

Sites and 

Aquarius)

Record Sample Tubes Mapping to Corals of 

Interest and Direct Crew to next Sample 

Identified by SBT

Recon Site and Place Temp 

Markers for Corals of Interest at 

First Site

Take PAM Readings from Corals of 

Interest at First Site

Record PAM Readings and Descriptions 

from Corals of Interest

Perform Pre-Sampling Survey Based on Precursor Plan

Perform Soil, Chip, Core, and Geo Array Tasks as Directed by SBT

Perform Coral Sampling based on Plan from SBT

(including placing permanent markers for samples selected by SBT)

Mark Center of Marine Science Site w/ HOBO Data Logger

Recon Site and Place Temp 

Markers for Corals of Interest at 

Second Site

Translate to Second Marine Science Site via Dive Planes

Receive Pre-Sampling Survey from Geologic Site

Eval video of Corals of Interest for Identification of 

Samples at First Site

Translate to Designated Geologic Site

Doff Crew Worn Equipment, Cleanup, Ingress

Place Coral Samples on Wet Porch Grating

Record Sample Tubes Mapping to Corals of 

Interest and Direct Crew to next Sample 

Identified by SBT

Eval video of Corals of Interest for Identification of 

Samples at Second Site

Receive Coral Sampling Data for Second Site

Collect all Coral Core Samples and Translate via Dive Planes back to 

Aquarius

Perform Coral Sampling based on Plan from SBT

(including placing permanent markers for samples selected by SBT)

Translate to Designated Geologic Site

Translate to Second Marine Science Site via Dive Planes

Receive Coral Sampling Data for First Site

Take PAM Readings from Corals of 

Interest at Second Site

Record PAM Readings and Descriptions 

from Corals of Interest

Translate Back to First Marine Science Site via Dive Planes

Mars Surface EVA (Note: First 2 hours of 4-hour EVA shown here)

Information flow across latency 

indicated by color

• EVA crew preformed 

preliminary tasks based 

on precursor data and 

training

• Data (video/audio) 

flowed back to MCC/ST

• ST evaluated data and 

provided direction to IV

• IV vectored EV crew for 

specific tasks to perform

Geology Input from ST Marine Science Input from ST
Page No. 89 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

• The science team rated the dynamic condition more acceptable for both 5 min OWLT and 10 min 

OWLT

• The crew was not able to effectively discern the differences between fixed and dynamic GAT, mostly 

due to tasks taking longer than planned and never having to wait on input from the ground for either 

condition

– The crews unacceptable ratings for 5 min OWLT were impacted by the need to execute on a tight 

timeline for both conditions & training effects due to being the first condition tested; ratings also 

impacted by a preference for a ops con they felt would be more efficient in which crew collects 

samples based on precursor data and training w/ follow-up directed by MCC/ST only as needed

– The crews ratings for 10 min OWLT were impacted by more generous durations of tasks in the 

timeline and training effects associated with being the second condition tested

Take Away: Sufficient crew familiarization w/ tasks and a detailed understanding of 

the accuracy of designed time-lines are necessary to discern ops con changes; 

alternate ops cons w/ more crew control could be considered 

 5min OWLT, Fixed GAT

5min OWLT, Dynamic GAT

10min OWLT, Fixed GAT

10min OWLT, Dynamic GAT

Crew

ST

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Acceptability Ratings
Page No. 90 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• IV Support, Pre-sampling survey, and Playbook mission log rated as 

essential/enabling to the operations concepts tested

• Real-time (w/ latency) ground support was rated significantly enhancing; “it is 

helpful to have real-time support to make sure the scientists get the samples they 

need”

• Dynamic spreadsheet features were rated as marginally enhancing by crew; 

“It's more information than an IV really needs. IV primarily needs to know how 

much time is left.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IV Support for Comm-Delayed EVAs

Realtime (w/ latency) Ground Support for EVAs

Pre-Sampling Survey / Imaging

Playbook Mission Log

Dynamic Spreadsheet Features

Crew ST

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Capability Assessment
Page No. 91 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

• Candidate sample labeling/identification rated essential/enabling and

significantly enhancing; “allowed the EV crew to communicate candidate 

samples to the SBT and keep them marked so they could be found again.”

• Helmet cameras rated essential/enabling; “Needed for the IV to know exactly 

what the EV crew are sampling.”

• Situational awareness (ROV) camera views rated moderately enhancing; “It 

helped at times to have the view from the ROV”; “was utilized on MD11 EVA to get 

an overview and review of the sites.”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Candidate Sample Labeling / Identification

Helmet cameras

Situational Awareness (ROV) Cam

Crew SBT

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Capability Assessment
Page No. 92 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Voice 

(with pre-alert) NR Voice (Not nominally)

Text 1

Annotated Images 1

Text

(Not nominally)

Voice NR Voice 1

Text 1

Text

(if possible) NR

Annotated Images NR Annotated Images (if 

possible) NR

Voice 1 Voice 1

Text NR Text NR

Annotated Images NR Annotated Images NR TRANSMITTING

RECEIVING

SBT / MCC IV EV

5 MINUTE LATENCY

MCC

IV

EV

• Voice between ST/MCC and IV was not utilized even though the capability was available; voice 

between EV and IV (w/ MCC hearing) rated as essential/enabling

• Text between SMT/MCC and IV rated as essential/enabling

• Annotated images from ST/MCC to IV rated as essential/enabling; although not available and 

not rated, annotated images and text from IV to EV seen as potentially valuable addition

• MCC/ST/Crew ratings similar

No Rating

Unable to 

assess 

capability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N R

Essential / Enabling Significantly Enhancing Moderately Enhancing Marginally Enhancing Little or No Enhancement

Impossible or highly 

inadvisable to perform 

mission without capability

Capabilities are likely to 

significantly enhance one 

or more aspects of the 

mission 

Capabilities likely to 

moderately enhance one 

or more aspects of the 

mission or significantly 

enhance the mission on 

rare occasions.

Capabilities are only 

marginally useful or useful 

only on very rare occasions

Capabilities are not useful 

under any reasonably 

foreseeable circumstances.

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Post-EVA Crew Consensus Capability Assessment
Page No. 93 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Summary

• Successful execution of 10 EVAs (32 hours) of operations concept-oriented research using precursor-based 

science plans and incorporating ground science team input on science being performed

– 4 EVAs (8 hours) w/ 5 min OWLT; half of time spent in each of fixed and dynamic GAT

– 6 EVAs (24 hours) w/ 10 min OWLT; half of time spent in each of fixed and dynamic GAT

– Video, voice, and data from crew received in MCC and by science team across latency

– Science team captured provided input back to crew based on fixed and dynamic GAT constraints

Results and Observations

• It’s possible to have a Science Team on Earth influence the plan/tasks during an EVA, provided that the EVA is 

timelined such as to allow the transmission of data back and forth

– Incorporation of ground input during EVAs seen as at least significantly enhancing to a mission by both crew 

and science team

– It might be better, to have well trained crew that operate autonomously from a plan, and only have the ST call 

for deltas/go-backs

– Tasks not requiring MCC input can be added into the EVA to accommodate the time required for round trip 

comm

• A good video camera is critical when it comes to communicating with IV and MCC/ST about geology

• Texting was shown to be a very effective way to transmit info between ST and IV

– At times items in the running mission log got lost, however

– Improvements to the portion of the Playbook tool used for texted were sent to the Ames team

• Some sort of IV support system will be critical due to the amount of information and tasking the IV crewmember 

must contend with (essentially performs the roles of IV, Flight Director, partial EVA Officer, and partial BME)

• The dynamic GAT condition was preferred over the fixed condition

– The dynamic condition provided the flexibility for the science team to take more time to provide input when the 

crew was running behind on the timeline, thus increasing potential value of science team input

• For all fixed GAT conditions, more time was available to the science team to provide input than was allowed by the 

condition (5 minutes + time to receive all data)

– This was due to nearly all tasks on the EVA timeline taking more time than planned such that more time was 

available for round trip communication

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency 

Results and Observations
Page No. 94 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Recommendations

• Continue to enhance our understanding of comm delay by doing ops under very 

different latencies (5 min, 10 min, 20 min)

• Continue to perform science traverses that focus on realistic analogous tasks (marine 

coral science)

• Further evaluate support systems needed by MCC/ST and IV that help mitigate the 

comm latency, or example:

– Use of software, such as the mission log in Playbook, for file/image upload

– Improve texting capability to more clearly show incoming, read, unread, and important 

messages

– Camera views needed to understand the details of the site being seen by the EVA crew

– MCC screen capture and image editing capabilities needed to communicate direction to the 

IV crewmember

– EVA sample/target markers that give true scale and color information to the ST

• Continue to use an ST populated by planetary and marine scientists 

• Hybrid approaches that incorporate both crew autonomy based on precursor plans 

and science team input where value can be added should be considered

EVA Interaction with ST Over Comm Latency

EVA Recommendations
Page No. 95 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Interaction with MCC/ST Over Comm Latency

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Continue to enhance understanding of comm limitations by including MCC/ST response time and comm with IV, and 

continue to investigate practicality of directing EVA operations from MCC over a comm latency

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 703: EVA use model

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• Science ops can be constructed such that a Science Team on Earth can provide relevant, timely feedback to 

influence the plan and sampling tasks during an EVA, provided that the EVA is timelined such as to allow the 

transmission of data back and forth (i.e., having multiple sites to move between and having some tasks that don’t 

require MCC input)

• The ability to communicate between the crew and MCC using text, voice, video, and annotated images during timelatent operations were all rated as essential/enabling by both crew and ground teams 

– Voice comm that is automatically recorded and could be played back at-will was instrumental for clear 

communication

– Texting and annotated imagery allowed for clear comm between MCC and the IV

– Clear video back to MCC is highly enabling for conducting science operations

• The addition of scientific realism (rocks deployed by topside and local marine science) allowed for successful 

evaluations of interaction over a comm latency during an integrated mission 

• A dynamic approach to incorporating ground science team input allows for maximum flexibility and time to provide 

that input, thus increasing the potential quality of science achieved

• Some sort of IV support system will be critical due to the amount of information and tasking the IV crewmember must 

contend with (essentially performs the roles of IV, Flight Director, partial EVA Officer, and partial BME)

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Continue to enhance our understanding of comm latency by doing ops with realistic science and pioneering tasks 

and using EVA tools under different latencies during future NEEMO missions

• Further examine the interaction between a Science Team and IV crew to evaluate the assets needed to mitigate the 

comm latency and to allow for feedback that can influence an EVA during future NEEMO missions
Page No. 96 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Science Team Engagement with EVA

Summary Take-Away

Supplementary Objective

• Investigate how a Science Team engages with the crew in order to influence an EVA

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 703: EVA use model

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• Incorporation of ground input during EVAs was seen as at least significantly enhancing to a mission 

by both crew and science team

• Though it’s possible to have a Science Team on Earth influence the plan/tasks during an EVA –

provided that the EVA is timelined such as to allow the transmission of data back and forth – it may be 

better to have well trained crew that can operate autonomously from a plan, and only have the ST call 

for deltas/go-backs.

• During EVAs, the science team needs to be a focal point of the primary MCC team (not a 

“backroom”), and be fully integrated with all other operations taking place

• The geology tasks and the coral science tasks (used as a proxy to astrobiology), provided planetary 

science geological tasks that were realistic enough to effectively test and evaluate the ops concepts 

associated with the ST

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Further examine the role of a Science Team as a primary MCC team and how that team can influence 

an EVA during future NEEMO missions

• Engage planetary protection personnel during NEEMO to begin looking closely at how ops cons will 

effect the planet
Page No. 97 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Ops Con

Robotics for EVA (Man-Machine Work System)

Purpose

• Assess potential operations of a robotic asset for EVA and inform functional needs of a robot for EVA tool 

management

• NPS ROV was used to assist the EV crew

• ROV provided situational awareness for the IV and MCC/ST

• ROV took coral samples from the EV crew and transported them to the habitat

• Flown by both surface support and crew from the habitat
Page No. 98 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Robotics for EVA (Man-Machine Work System)

Results & Recommendations

Results and Conclusions 

• The ROV was successfully flown by an IV crewmember at 

two of the sites for EVA situational awareness

• It will be critical to have the latency low enough and 

controls such that’s it’s possible to fly/drive a robot near 

the EV crew

Recommendations

• Continue to explore the ops con associated with 

making the man-machine work system more 

efficient

– Utilize the ROV to gather precursor data

– Have crew recon the sites before the EVA, and utilize that 

info for planning

– Place markers with ROV to identify landmarks

– Guide the EVA crew to worksites 

– Hand the EVA crew tools and/or sample bags

– Receive samples from the EV crew and return them to the 

habitat to maximize efficiency

– Use the ROV to down-select high priority samples at one 

worksite while the EV crew works at another

• Increase crew training to allow crew to perform 

more of the flying 
Page No. 99 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Robotics for EVA (Man-Machine Work System)

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Assess potential operations of a robotic asset for EVA and inform functional 

needs of a robot for EVA tool management

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 510: Tool management device

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• The ROV was successfully flown by an IV crewmember at two of the sites for 

EVA situational awareness

• Low latency robotics (in this case the ROV controlled from the Aquarius) are 

able to offload EV workload for tasks like transporting samples, tools, etc. when 

the robotic element is working alongside the EV crew

• Stabilizing features (like autopilot, or ability to “park”) are necessary to offload 

the pilot and allow him to concentrate on other tasks (e.g., science, 

timeline/ops, and safety)

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Continue to explore the ops con associated with making the man-machine 

work system more efficient in the end-to-end environment enabled by NEEMO

– Utilize the ROV to gather precursor data, have crew recon the sites 

before the EVA for planning, place markers with ROV to identify 

landmarks, guide the EVA crew to worksites, hand the EVA crew tools 

and/or sample bags, receive samples from the EV crew and return them 

to the habitat to maximize efficiency, use the ROV to down-select high 

priority samples at one worksite while the EV crew works at another

• Evaluate different variations of ops concepts for ROV use during an EVA (e.g., 

working the same site side-by-side, working different sites in parallel) to 

understand how to gain the highest efficiencies possible in the man-machine 

work system during future NEEMO missions
Page No. 100 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Ops Con

Multi-day Crew Self-Scheduling of EVAs

Purpose

• Investigate crew driven multi-day planning of EVA operations utilizing scenarios 

with variables and a task list that must be planned and carried out over the course 

of multiple days

• For the surface EVAs, the team evaluated having MCC plan 3 of the EVAs and 

then having the crew plan 3 of the EVAs

• Playbook was used as the planning tool

• Individual EVA tasks were put into Playbook, along with any associated constraints 

(such as a task not being able to be done until 25 min after another)

• For the self-scheduled EVAs, crew took the task blocks and arranged them as 

preferred to develop the entire timeline

Tool Features for Self-Scheduling

• Groups support allows multiple 

activities to be grouped and 

moved at once with a single drag 

and drop

• Used during the mission to assist 

with EVA self scheduling 

• Helps preserve relative timing 

between activities when moving 

activities
Page No. 101 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Multi-day Crew Self-Scheduling of EVAs

Results and Recommendations

Results

(for self-scheduling, not Playbook tool)

• The crew was able to successfully self-schedule EVAs utilizing task 

activity list, constraints, and Playbook

• Crew preferred determining what task got done on each EVA, but it was 

a lot of overhead and crew time for the crew to actually put the timelines 

together (prefer “self-determination” to “self-scheduling”)

• The crew time it took to create the timeline was not worth the advantage 

of having the crew do it themselves

Recommendations

• The advantage of having the crew self-schedule is that they understand 

the immediate environment better than MCC

• Further test the concept of having the crew determine the tasks and 

order for each EVA, while having the MCC team actually put the plan 

into Playbook

– In situ crew creates the plan based on their local observations

– Crew determines the tasks and order for a particular EVA

– MCC incorporates the tasks into Playbook to formulate the timeline

• Provide a wider range of tasks and constraints to the crew in order to 

drive the scheduling

• Incorporate recommendations into the next version of Playbook
Page No. 102 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Multi-day Crew Self-Scheduling of EVAs

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Investigate crew driven multi-day planning of EVA operations utilizing scenarios with variables and a task list that 

must be planned and carried out over the course of multiple days

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 703: EVA use model 

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• The crew was able to successfully self-schedule EVAs utilizing a task activity list, constraints, and Playbook

– The constraints were clearly communicated, the Playbook tool was sufficiently capable, and the crew was 

able to develop successful, executable EVA timelines. 

– However, the time penalty was large (~4 man-hours/day) and the advantages did not outweigh the costs

• A better ops concept than crew self-scheduling would be crew “self-determination”, meaning that they determine 

what tasks get done on which EVA, but the actual scheduling is done by professional planners who are more 

adept at manipulating plans and more intimately familiar with all the myriad of constraints

– In this way, the advantages of unique knowledge the crew brings from their high familiarity with the exotic 

environment is best incorporated without the high cost in crew time of turning them into planners

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Test concepts for optimizing EVA multi-day planning that incorporates crew input based on the unique in-situ 

knowledge they’ve acquired, while taking advantage of the skills and efficiencies that ground based planners 

bring

• Provide a wider range of tasks and constraints to the crew in order to stress the planning tools and concepts with 

flight-like fidelity
Page No. 103 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Ops Con

EVA Navigation

Purpose

• Begin looking at types of hardware needed and 

techniques for navigating on a foreign body

• The Navigator system was used by EV crew as the 

primary means of navigating to landmarks that set the 

science sites

• EV crew had copies of the maps to assist in navigation 

to sites

• At the sites, EV crew used a set of cue cards to identify 

the primary landmark
Page No. 104 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Navigation

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Begin looking at types of hardware needed and techniques for 

navigating on a foreign body

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 214: Navigation Short Range

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• It was difficult locating an exact precursor landmark utilizing the Navigator

• The cue cards were critical to finding the landmarks once near the area

• Since the planetary science goal of an Exploration mission is to characterize an area 

more than pick up a specific rock, a navigation system more needs to get the crew 

close to a target that landmarks an area rather than locate a specific sample

• Electronic navigation will be critical in areas where the terrain looks similar, especially 

when marking new locations and returning to a site

• Maps worked well for planning and for helping with navigation during the EVAs

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Continue investigating electronic navigation that allows the crew to locate a specific 

area to characterize, mark new locations, and return to sites

• Refine the cue cards and evaluate them on future NEEMO missions
Page No. 105 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Building EVA Hardware In Situ (3D Printer)

Summary Take-Away

Objective

• Investigate building EVA hardware in situ

– NEEMO 20 investigated the potential benefit to integrating a 3D printer into an 

exploration mission.

– The team posed the question: “If a 3D printer was available for use, what could 

you print and how would you convey requirements real-time?” 

Gap closures addressed with NEEMO 20 results

• 512: Common tools for vehicle maintenance

• 801: DRM maturity (further mature EVA model)

Summary Take-Away for EVA

• The 3D printer proved useful numerous times during the course 

of the mission for:

– Designing and printing broken end effectors

– Printing a missing part (an alignment pin)

– The design from scratch and rapid delivery of a part whose need hadn’t been 

anticipated pre-mission (nail holder)

• One unique crew requested item was a nail holder to help transport and 

dispense nails that were used to secure permanent marine science 

markers.

• The nail holder was designed, modeled, printed, assembled and 

delivered to the crew in under 48 hours

• The speed with which pieces can be fabricated proves its promise as a rapid 

turnaround parts solution

EVA Recommendations for Forward Work

• Continue utilizing the 3D printer during the next NEEMO missions for creating 

unforeseen items that the crew needs
Page No. 106 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

General EVA Observations & Recommendations

General Observations

• It was challenging to move around a geology site where there were several 

potential samples without contaminating the surface

• Telementoring technologies inside of a spacesuit would be useful

• It’s always good to carry backup tools, like a hammer

• For future NEEMO missions, find a better way to organize and carry things like the 

marine science tools

• Embedded EVA Operations Engineer

– Embedding the lead EVA operations engineer that was fully engaged throughout 

the entire process - developing the detailed objectives, guiding tool development, 

and formulating the complex EVA plan - was valuable for obtaining pertinent results

– Focused all of the EVA stakeholders and enabled a more flight-like, thorough, 

credible, and meaningful mission for EVA that evaluated key gaps and operations 

concepts

– EVA plan was complicate with not enough time for crew training, so the XX 

crewmembers was able to more thoroughly explain the purpose, metrics, ops, and 

tools during the mission, which focused the crew on the priorities and objectives

– XX crewmember had enough vested in the mission and results to spend personal 

time capturing thoughts and lessons learned during the mission (before they’re 

forgotten)

– With minimal time to collect data from the crew before leaving after splashup, the 

XX crewmember with firsthand experience was able to stay engaged in post 

mission activities in order to formulate results

– Per the crew report, “Having a non-astronaut crew member added extra value to the 

mission, especially for unflown astronaut crewmembers. For future missions, Flight 

Directors, CapComs, Flight Surgeons and Support Engineers from the crew office 

could be valuable candidates, together with EVA instructors and personnel involved 

with exploration projects.”
Page No. 107 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Asteroid Boom & Microspine Post-EVA Test Subject 

Consensus Acceptability Ratings & Comments

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

• Deploying Asteroid Boom: “the boom is heavy and the PIP pins kept sticking”

• Yawing of Asteroid Boom: “there is very little leverage when positioned in the base 

PFR to yaw the boom”

• Stow of Asteroid Boom: “the boom is heavy and the PIP pins kept sticking”

• Asteroid Boom Overall: “There are movements for which more leverage is required 

than can easily be achieved with this boom design.”

• Microspine Overall: “would not hold onto a "good" rock even w/ limited BRT loads 

induced.”

Take Away: Asteroid boom is acceptable w/ improvements desired/warranted in 

weigh out (to improve simulation), adjustment, and yawing; microspine has major 

improvements required to react necessary loads

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deploying Asteroid Boom

Yawing of Asteroid Boom

Stow Asteroid Boom

Asteroid Boom Overall

 Microspine Overall

Acceptability
Page No. 108 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

No 

improvements 

necessary

Minor 

improvements 

desired

Improvements 

warranted

Improvements 

required

Major 

improvements 

required

Totally 

Acceptable Acceptable Borderline Unacceptable

Totally 

Unacceptable

Asteroid Boom General Post-EVA Test Subject 

Consensus Acceptability Ratings & Comments

• Worksite Stabilization: acceptable except for microspine; 

“microspine slipping off rock under BRT-level loads”

• Carrying Equipment: sim quality 4 (crew lock bags not neutral)

• One-Handed & Two-Handed Operations: acceptable except for 

microspine; “microspine slipping off rock under BRT-level loads”

Take Away: Stabilization and operations acceptable from asteroid boom; 

microspine improvements are required to react BRT-level loads; weigh-out 

improvements are necessary to improve simulation quality

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Worksite Stabilization

Carrying Equipment

One-handed Operations

Two-handed Operations

From PFR on Boom

From BRT on Boom

From BRT on Microspine
Page No. 109 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Asteroid Boom Features & Microspine Post-EVA Test Subject 

Consensus Capability Assessment Ratings & Comments

• Stabilization Boom: essential/enabling

• PFR: “a PFR is useful, but a boom with places to BRT all along it would work well”

• BRT: “either a BRT or PFR are needed, but not necessarily both”

• Tool Briefcase: is “needed to ensure that samples are contaminated as little as 

possible”

• BRT on Microspine: “The microspine kept slipping. It will also be difficult to find 

rocks in a micro or milli-g environment that will take any sort of EVA loads.”

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Stabilization Boom

Portable Foot Restraint (PFR)

Body Restraint Tether (BRT)

Tool Briefcase

Body Restraint Tether (BRT) on Microspine

Capability Assessment
Page No. 110 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

SCIENCE OBSERVATIONS 

FOR EVA

Additional Backup Information
Page No. 111 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Science Operations

Science Team Observations & Recommendations

Science Realism

• Comment: Incorporating both geology and marine science tasks, coupled into the larger 

simulation, added a realistic science component for the crew and overall analog mission

• Recommendation 1: This integrated model was successful in adding a level of scientific 

realism to the mission that should be sustained and expanded upon in the future. 

Particularly, the real time re-scoping of the marine science to fit within the operational 

constrains allowed for a realistic dynamic interaction between science and operations. 

The geology sites were particularly important for testing tools and sample collection 

strategies.

• Recommendation 2: With additional pre-mission coordination the overall science 

scenario could be further established. For example, we could further incorporate remote 

sensing, on-the-ground imagery, science results, terrain naming schemes, etc. of the 

current Mars rovers into a more realistic surface scenario for a human operations. Using 

real data from the Martian surface will help to further immerse the crew into the 

simulation. 
Page No. 112 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

IV Position 

• Comment/Opinion: EVA support should be the highest priority for all IV crew

• Recommendation: If two IV crew are in the habitat both should be supporting EV crew members; one 

would track EVA basics (consumables, timeline, communications, systems, etc.), while the other IV 

member would concentrate on the science (executing the plan, achieving intent/objectives, capturing 

data, dealing with Science Team inner-EVA deltas, etc.). The crew split the IV responsibilities a few times 

during some EVAs (when ROV ops were not being conducted) which seemed to work well and was 

mentioned as an efficiency in their debrief comments. 

• Note: If robotic assistance is available – autonomy of these systems would be critical (i.e. the ROV or 

surface rover would need to be able to station-keep, track crew, and perform certain tasks on its own 

with limited IV input; allowing the crew to concentrate on the science, timeline/ops, and safety) 

Science representation in MCC during Science EVAs

• Comment: During a nominal science EVA the majority of communication, reprioritization, etc. is coming 

from the Science Team; in some analog surface mission configurations there is no Science 

representation in MCC (strictly following the Science “Backroom” connotation). This does not allow for a 

dynamic integration between the Science Team, EVA Team, Mission Director, etc. The Science Team 

could essentially send anything to crew without operational integration or review.

• Recommendation: A science representative should be present in MCC (as Science Liaison or SciCom), 

this position would interface/communicate with the larger Science Team that would be located in another 

location(s). This MCC science role would communicate both ways 1) the science planning consensus 

ultimately sent back to the crew and 2) the constrains of the other MCC components (ex. consumables, 

communication or power limitations, etc.) back to the science team that may impact the plan going 

forward. See image as one possible configuration.

EVA Science Operations

Science Team Observations & Recommendations
Page No. 113 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Science Operations

• Video is great for situational awareness, but high-resolution still imagery is largely preferred 

for most science requirements. Future analogs should develop a method to capture and 

send real-time (or over the given time delay) still imagery for optimal science planning and 

integration. For example, find a way to “real-time stream” giga-pan like imagery taken during 

the pre-site survey and/or close up GoPro images of the samples of interest.

• For the Phobos mission, it would be interesting to explore the addition of a Science Team 

controllable camera located on the hab/upper-boom (with PTZ capability); providing both 

surface and crew context. It would be interesting to test if a Science Team controlled camera 

is useful and/or manageable over time delay. 

• The ability to further delay video (i.e. delaying video beyond the time delay) is a greatly 

useful real-time function to have incorporated into the software tool package used by the 

Science Team. It was used in two ways 1) to delay the video a few seconds behind the voice 

to help hear and distinguish the comm before actually seeing the video and 2) to rewind, find, 

and screen capture images from the video feed to annotate and send back to the IV.

• Similar to the current instrument operation of the Mars rovers, separate science Uplink Lead 

and Downlink Lead roles are required to rapidly provide inner-EVA Science input, but also to 

ensure capture of the downlink (sample IDs, images, descriptions, comments). 

• EVA timeline needed to reflect more time for translation, umbilical management, etc.

EVA Science Operations

Science Team Observations & Recommendations
Page No. 114 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

EVA Science Operations

Science Team Observations & Recommendations

Fixed GAT

• Overall, the fixed GAT allowed little time to absorb, process, and create meaningful science products to push back to the 

crew in a 5 min fixed time frame (i.e. we could not conduct a full or even semi re‐plan of the site based on the crew 

descriptions during the pre‐site survey).

• Note: For this test the size of the Science team was small, the overall size of the Science team will likely be a 

contributing factor.

• The only science decision that could likely be conducted under fixed GAT is to select from predetermined collection options 

(e.g. precursor imagery indicates 3 potential float rocks of interest (A,B, or C); pre-sample images now reveal only B is 

preferred)

• Training the crew to make the “on the ground” science call would likely be the most efficient method of sample collection (if

pressed under this type of time constraint). Note: With this the science intent/objects need to be clearly stated and 

understood before the start of the EVA.

• Tool enhancements are required to efficiently capture and quickly process imagery to return to the crew; this is also 

relevant for dynamic GAT if the crew is operating ahead of timeline

Dynamic GAT

• Overall the dynamic GAT was preferred by the ST and resulted in more time to absorb, process, and create meaningful 

science products to push back to the crew

• With the dynamic GAT there is a possible compounding effect – if crew gets behind, science has more time to add to the 

plan, thus putting the crew further behind. This emphasizes the need to prioritizes samples so that IV can make the 

real‐time call.

• Good examples of EVAs under dynamic GAT:

• MD4 am ‐ overall EVA was behind timeline, the dynamic case allowed for much more Science processing time

• MD9 – another good example of where dynamic timing was largely beneficial. Due to CORAL tower issues, Science 

made the call that they had additional time to refine marine site (N9) sampling. Also allowed for Science to make a 

more informed decision on the next science site knowing how many samples were already requested prior (ex: 10 

marine sites were selected for sampling which provided more “known” time for the planning of the geo site)

• MD11 – Site N29 rapid dynamic example (crew stayed at site rather than intentionally designing gaps between 

dependent tasks). This was not optimized for science, and was prone to errors given the task load on one IV. It might 

help if the Mission Log was optimized to better communicate rapid plan updates. This is an example of how dynamic 

GAT may negatively impact ST input
Page No. 115 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Site Diversity and Extent

• Comment: More samples are required for additional analog realism (More Rocks!) 

• Recommendation: Develop/construct a few sites with very realistic geologic layout. This would likely require a few 

pallets of landscape rocks laid out in a manner that would allow the crew and Science Team to plan, explore, and 

collect in a more realistic matter. A mixture of rock sizes (from smaller boulder to gravel) and diversity would be 

optimal. From an initial search, there are a few local companies that look like they would deliver pallets to the FIU 

facility/dock. For any asteroid scenario on the rock wall, additional rocks affixed on the wall would be desired for 

tool testing and science sampling. 

Site Disturbance 

• Observation: Numerous times support divers disturbed the precursor area either by pre-staging tools directly on 

top of the geology samples or while taking photographs. The sites also were also likely disturbed by current over 

the course of the mission.

• Recommendation: Mark off geologic sampling area so support divers don’t disrupt precursor plan. Make all support 

divers aware of the site boundaries. Most of this was a result of the limited extent of the rock field.

Precursor Image/Data 

• Comment: Scale and orientation was critical for developing precursor plan. For any given scenario (asteroid, Mars 

moons, Mars/Lunar surface) we need to further consider the most realistic precursor imagery that would 

applicable. 

• Recommendation: Continue to develop more realistic precursor plans that include scientific input for the given 

mission scenario(s) 

• Lesson Learned: For the surface days the precursor plan likely did not reflect a good sim; rather, I should have 

identified regions of interest (i.e. outcrop or site scale intent). Precursor planned collection targets became the 

focus of crew rather than good site characterization and executing Science Team inner-EVA input. 

EVA Science Operations

Science Team Observations & Recommendations
Page No. 116 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Partnership with Florida International University 

(FIU) Marine Science

• FIU Objectives for the NEEMO 20 mission

– Determine the migratory connectivity between shallow and deep reefs 

– Determine the implications of this migration in future coral recovery

• Determine natural migration patterns among depths through genetic fingerprinting analyses

• Assess the photosynthetic efficiency of corals from different depths

• Determine the composition of microbial symbionts associated with the corals using DNA sequencing analysis

– Tag colonies from three targeted coral species at approximately 100 ft and 60 ft depth intervals. These longterm tags will also allow for monitoring these colonies in future missions.

– Deploy a long-term temperature sensor (Hobo) in each sampling area

– Acquire PAM fluorometry measurements for health assessment for the same corals at point #1 and also for 

other coral species found within the area of sampling

– Obtain 2-cm cores from 3-5 colonies of three targeted coral species indicated at #1. These samples will be 

for DNA & RNA analysis.

• Why NEEMO?

– Real crew operators in a spaceflight operational analog environment gathering relevant marine science to help improve 

the health of our coral reefs

– Increased bottom time afforded the crews as a result of saturation diving allows for uninterrupted coral tagging, sensor 

deployment, fluorescence measurement and core sampling at multiple sites during a single “EVA”

– Activity would be time consuming and difficult to accomplish using divers from the surface on standard SCUBA

– Opportunity to mentor students and enable their participation in operations during a NASA mission
Page No. 117 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Partnership with FIU Marine Science (cont’d)

• Results

– Physical sampling update

• Initial trial DNA extractions have yielded large quantities of high quality DNA from the samples 

collected by the astronauts that are suitable for downstream applications

• With this DNA it should be possible to determine the extent of connectivity between shallow and 

deep water coral populations

• Excitement about the quality of DNA extracted from these samples warrants expanding the 

scientific goals with this biological material. Forward work includes identifying the bacteria and 

symbiotic dinoflagellates associated with these deep corals using genetic analyses and 

conducting a full genome sequence analysis for the targeted coral species.

– Photo-physiological measurements

• The raw photosynthetic yield data of PAM measurements show no apparent difference as a 

function of depth

• Lessons Learned

– Improve teaching to astronauts about identifying coral species

– Incorporate further dry training prior to saturation mission start and wet training in Aquarius
Page No. 118 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Shallow

Deep

Reproduction

Reproduction

Reproduction

Migration?

Migration?

Marine Science for EVA Ops

“Deep Reef Refugia” Hypothesis
Page No. 119 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

ISS & IVA OBJECTIVES

Ops Tools Maturation

Ops Concept Maturation
Page No. 120 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Project Sidekick with Hololens

• NEEMO 20 crew evaluated the NASA JPL project “Sidekick”, 

which uses the HoloLens mixed-reality headset for remote 

assistance of crew members on ISS

– Hololens was utilized for habitat maintenance and a simulated 

medical scenario

– Ground based experts (at the ARB watch desk) were able to use 

the Skype capability to remotely see what the aquanauts saw in 

first-person

– Ground experts could virtually place 3D markings and drawings in 

the crew’s field of view to assist with performing various 

procedures

• Take-away for EVA: Inclusion of this type of technology in a 

spacesuit could allow an IV crewmember to more easily guide 

an EV crewmember through both pioneering and science 

tasks
Page No. 121 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

ODG R6 Headset and Augmented Reality

• NEEMO 20 crew evaluated the Osterhout Design Group (ODG) R6 Augmented Reality Headset 

to conduct maintenance tasks within the Aquarius habitat

– The platform delivers enhanced procedures that provide a more intuitive understanding of the task, 

enabling greater autonomy

– The crew tested different delivery methods of procedure content, including both augmented reality 

enhanced and “pinnable” procedures

• Take-away for EVA: This type of procedure delivery and augmented reality, if incorporated 

into a spacesuit, could help EVA crew perform construction and maintenance tasks for which 

they haven’t been trained or for which it’s been a long time since training
Page No. 122 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

MobiPV

• MobiPV is an ESA developed set of assistive communication tools and 

displays enhancing Crew–MCC interaction for hands-busy crew activities

– The NEEMO crew used mobiPV to execute the SKIN-B experiment, which was also 

studied on ISS 

– ESA Capcoms in MCC supported the MobiPV execution in direct connection with the 

MobiPV operators inside Aquarius 

– SKIN-B experts followed along with the experiment execution from the European 

Astronaut Centre of ESA in Cologne, Germany

• Take-away for EVA: This type of technology could be useful in talking 

crew through non-standard procedures, such as the R&R of an FPS
Page No. 123 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO 20 HIGH LEVEL INFO

Additional Backup Information
Page No. 124 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Primary Uses of NEEMO Missions

• Technology Maturation for Ops

– Hardware

– Procedures

– Processes (e.g., IRB, TRRs, etc.)

• Ops Tools Maturation

– Useful now

– Critical for Exploration

• Ops Concept Maturation

– Useful now

– Critical for Exploration

• Pure Science

– Generally human research

• Crew Preparation

– Expeditionary training

• Outreach Opportunities

A strong blend of near term (ISS, Orion) 

and exploration objectives
Page No. 125 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

2015 2016

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

Inc 42 Inc 43 Inc 44 Inc45 Inc 46

Wilmore (40S)

Serova (40S)

Samokutyayev (40S)

N S. Kelly (1 Yr Crew) 342 days

R M. Kornienko (1 Yr Crew) 342 days

N T. Virts (CDR-43) 169 days

E S. Cristoforetti 169 days

R A. Shkaplerov 169 days

(44S)

(44S)

HRP 

Objs

Flight 

H/W

ISS Milestones Enablers NEEMO 

NEEMO 

15 - 19

NEEMO 

20

Playbook Deployment

• Interactive Procedure Viewer

• Self Scheduling

• Task List

• Procedure Viewing

iShort

Deployment

HRM

ESA mobi-PV 

DTO

Wearable CO2 Sensors

NEEMO-Enabled Near-Term ISS Objectives

SpX-5

1/10

SpX-6

4/8

See backup slide 

for acronyms

Ops

Objs

(ISTAR)

MED 2.0

2x2015 

Winners

SpX-7

6/22

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

R G. Padalka R S. Volkov 181 days

(42S)↓

E A. Mogensen (44S)↑ (42S)↓

R S. Volkov (44S)↑

R A. Aimbetov (44S)↑

N K. Lindgren 153 days

J.K. Yui 153 days

R.O. Kononenko 153 days

E T. Peake 142 days

R Y. Malenchenko 142 days

(43S) N T. Kopra 142 days

(43S)

(43S)

(44S)

(45S)

(45S)

(45S)

N J. Williams (CDR-48) 172 days

R. A. Ovchinin 172 days

R. O. Skripochka 172 days

R A. Ivanishin (CDR-49) 164 days

J T. Onishi 164 days

N K. Rubins 164 days

(46S)

(46S)

(46S)

N S. Kimbrough

R A. Borisenko

R S. Ryzhikov

(41S)

(41S)

(41S)

(47S)

(47S)

(47S)

SpX-8

1/3

OA-4

12/3

OA-6

3/10

OA-5

5/31 SpX-9

3/21

SpX-10

6/10

SpX-11

8/15

OA-7

10/4

NEEMO 

21

HoloLens

New Bluetooth

Receivers and 

HRMs??
Page No. 126 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO Relevant Mission Characteristics

GeoSamp

Kit

ARCM 

Boom

MicrospinesPhobos

Boom Playbook MobiPV HL-TM iSHORT

Environmental Factors

RF reflection/multi-path issues (tin can effect)

Electronically noisy from multitude of devices √ √ √ √

Controlled CO2 environment with general module sensors

Ambient noise level similar to ISS √

Dependence on ECLS systems

ICE environment, e.g.

Isolated

Confined (small habitation space) √

Extreme (percentage of attention always on safety)

Immersive Operational environment, including

multi-day mission √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

interaction with MCC √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

robust comm infrastructure √ √ √ √

daily re-planning √ √ √

timeline pressures √ √ √ √ √ √ √

use of ops products (e.g. procedures, messages, etc.) √ √ √ √ √ √ √

pace and activity level √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Crew size similar to that of ISS or DRM √

Meaningful consequences (e.g., LS eqpmt, PAO events, etc.) √ √

Inherently interesting to public

Flexibility in conditions (e.g., time delay, off-nom scenarios) √ √

Subjects

Spaceflight certified operators

astronaut crewmembers

trained to perform procedures under ops constraints √ √ √ √ √ √ √

high quality critical feedback √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Varied size and background

range of spaceflight experience √ √ √ √

range of cultural and language backgrounds √ √ √ √

mixed gender √

physiology (size, body chemistry, harness fit, etc.) √ √ √

Crew size statistically meaningful (N) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Ops Tools Maturation

Technology Maturation 

for Ops
Page No. 127 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO Relevant Mission Characteristics

Crew 

Preparation

Outreach 

Opportunities

A R

Proc's

Pinnable

Proc's

Time

Delay

Self 

Sched

Science

Team

ManMachine LLT3D

Printers

Incap

Crew Exp Trng PAO/EPO

Environmental Factors

RF reflection/multi-path issues (tin can effect)

Electronically noisy from multitude of devices √ √

Controlled CO2 environment with general module sensors

Ambient noise level similar to ISS √ √ √

Dependence on ECLS systems √

ICE environment, e.g.

Isolated √

Confined (small habitation space) √ √

Extreme (percentage of attention always on safety) √ √ √

Immersive Operational environment, including

multi-day mission √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

interaction with MCC √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

robust comm infrastructure √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

daily re-planning √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

timeline pressures √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

use of ops products (e.g. procedures, messages, etc.) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

pace and activity level √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Crew size similar to that of ISS or DRM √ √ √ √

Meaningful consequences (e.g., LS eqpmt, PAO events, etc.) √ √ √ √ √ √

Inherently interesting to public √ √

Flexibility in conditions (e.g., time delay, off-nom scenarios) √ √ √ √ √ √

Subjects

Spaceflight certified operators

astronaut crewmembers √ √

trained to perform procedures under ops constraints √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

high quality critical feedback √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Varied size and background

range of spaceflight experience √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

range of cultural and language backgrounds √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

mixed gender √ √ √

physiology (size, body chemistry, harness fit, etc.) √ √ √

Crew size statistically meaningful (N) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Ops Con 

Maturation
Page No. 128 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Key Summary Points – Technology Maturation

• Phobos Boom

– A boom/arm (of the type and length tested) deployed from a 

mobile habitat provides good stabilization for performing 

geology sampling.

– Better methods for boom deployment and positioning need 

to be developed. Lack of mechanical advantage and 

control made use difficult, and ability to control exactly 

where the feet landed (so as not to land on top of a good 

sample) sub-optimal. 

• Bluetooth Receiver Software 

– Custom Bluetooth Receiver Software successfully received 

and parsed data from all transmitters simultaneously. 

– Successfully commanded custom software 100% of time 

from topside MCC (and without impact to the crew). This 

included start up and shut down of software, retrieving data, 

and uplinking new config files to add/replace sensors. That 

is a promising result for future ISS ops because it 

represents a 15 min/download time savings over current 

methods.

– Evaluation of custom Bluetooth Receiver Software and a 

downselected group of Bluetooth transmitter hardware 

solutions for Heart Rate and other physiological monitoring 

provided a clear recommendation for moving forward with 

implementation of the custom Bluetooth Receiver Software 

on ISS utilizing a newer Cheststrap based solution for heart 

rate monitoring.
Page No. 129 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Key Summary Points – Ops Tools Maturation

• Playbook

– Both previously existing and new features (multi-day self 

scheduling, task list, scratch pad) proved mature and 

operationally robust

– Crew feedback

• Love the ease and portability offered by having an iPad based ops tool 

• Features easy to use and crew feedback very positive 

– Captured numerous suggestions for further improvement from 

both crew and ground users

• mobiPV

– All functions were successfully tested except the 

procedure commanding by voice recognition, 

and both crew and Capcom feedback was 

captured for enhancement of the next version of 

mobiPV

– Being able to operate the flight version of 

mobiPV in a space analog operational 

environment, as a precursor test before its use 

on board the ISS, was very valuable in 

contributing to improvements for the in-flight test 

execution on ISS (during Soyuz 44S)
Page No. 130 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Key Summary Points – Ops Tools Maturation 

(cont’d)

• HoloLens Telementoring

– HoloLens with telementoring proved highly effective 

for

• 1

st time operations with no prior training or exposure

• Systems maintenance tasks

• Complex assembly and checkout task, including cable 

routing

• Medical scenarios (both real and simulated)

– HoloLens with telementoring will prove its capability 

to increase crew efficiency for a wide variety of ISS 

tasks when 2 devices arrive at ISS in Dec. 2015 (OA4)

• iSHORT

– Matured in part through feedback from numerous 

NEEMO missions (15-20)

– Currently being used onboard ISS as a tool in an 

HRP-sponsored spaceflight study, “Vehicle NHV and 

Habitability Assessment”

• Manifested and flew on flight SpX-6, March 2015

• 6 crewmembers (including US 1-year mission crewmember) 

will be using iSHORT to collect data for the study, which 

aims to characterize habitability onboard ISS

• ISS testing to take place March 2015 through 2017 (or when 

6 participants are completed)
Page No. 131 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Key Summary Points – Ops Concept Maturation

• Augmented Reality and Pinnable Procedures

– Augmented Reality Enhanced Procedures proved 

highly intuitive and easy to use, and good for 

complex tasks

– Numerous lessons learned related to hardware 

performance, controls, user interactions were 

collected for future improvements

• Crew self-scheduling

– The time penalty for crew selfscheduling was large (~4 manhours/day) and the advantages did not 

outweigh the costs

– A better ops concept than crew selfscheduling would be crew “selfdetermination”, meaning that they 

determine what tasks get done on which 

EVA, but the actual scheduling be done 

by professional planners who are more 

adept at manipulating plans, and more 

intimately familiar with all the myriad 

constraints
Page No. 132 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Key Summary Points – Crew Preparation and 

Outreach Opportunities

• Crew Preparation

– Crewmembers trained for upcoming ISS assignments

• Command experience for 1 previously flown with potential as 

ISS CDR

• Mission experience for 2 potential ISS rookies

– N. Kanai assignment to Exp 54/55 announced shortly after 

NEEMO 20 ended

• Crew complement similar to USOS crew on ISS with 

representatives from NASA, ESA, and JAXA

• Outreach Opportunities

– NEEMO 20 crew generated widespread international 

media interest and discussed mission objectives

• New technologies, ops concepts and tools being 

investigated for use on ISS

• Challenges for deep space Exploration

– Audiences reached through a variety of live and 

interactive events

• TV/Radio station features in 3 countries

• Print/On-line features with worldwide readership

• Educational outreach events

• # of social media followers increased compared to premission levels

– 71k+ people reached in peak Facebook post
Page No. 133 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Key Summary Points – Partnerships

• ERAU & Teledyne

– Exposed aerospace engineering and human factors students to an 

operational spaceflight analog mission and the need to be 

prepared with contingency plans

– CORAL

• Provided a “pioneering” EVA construction task to further NASA objectives

• Structure successfully deployed and collecting data for use by Teledyne

• NPS

– Experience and operations maturation to be applied to future 

technology development by the Navy for joint robot-human 

exploration

• AFRL

– Experience and operations maturation to be applied to future 

technology development by the Air Force in the area of multi-robot 

control conditions

• FIU

– Exposed marine science students to an operational spaceflight 

analog mission

– Furthered ongoing studies on migratory connectivity between 

shallow and deep reef coral, and the implications of this migration 

in future coral recovery
Page No. 134 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

Low Latency Teleoperations (LLT) Simulation

• LLT is a method by which humans remotely control robotic systems with a time delay between 

when commands are issued and when they are performed

• Short latencies (< 1 second) exist between Phobos and Deimos (moons of Mars) and the 

surface of Mars

• NASA has been studying the feasibility of human exploration missions to the moons of Mars as 

an intermediate step toward the eventual Mars surface missions

• The benefits of potential low latency teleoperation of systems on the surface of Mars from orbit 

or its moons, particularly associated with preparation of pre-deployed support systems on the 

surface of Mars prior to a human landing, are being studied

• The NEEMO 20 crew evaluated several different latencies while flying a simulated robotic 

vehicle
Page No. 135 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO Crew Members

NEEMO 1 - 06 Days, Oct. 2001 DT/B. Todd, CB/M. Lopez-Alegria, M. Gernhardt*, CSA/D. Williams*

NEEMO 2 - 09 Days, May 2002 CB/M. Fincke, D. Tani, S. Williams, DT/M. Reagan

NEEMO 3 - 09 Days, July 2002 CB/J. Williams, D. Olivas*, G. Chamitoff, SLSD/J. Dory

NEEMO 4 - 05 Days, Sept. 2002 CB/S. Kelly*, R. Walheim, DA8/P. Hill, SLSD/J. Meir

NEEMO 5 - 14 Days, June 2003 CB/P. Whitson, C. Anderson, G. Reisman, SLSD/E. Hwang

NEEMO 6 - 10 Days, July 2004 CB/J. Herrington, D. Wheelock, N. Patrick*, EB/T. Ruttley

NEEMO 7 - 11 Days, Oct. 2004 CSA/B. Thirsk, C. Coleman, M. Barratt, CMAS/C. Mckinley, M.D.

NEEMO 8 - 03 Days, April 2005 CB/M. Gernhardt*, S. Kelly*, D. Olivas*, M. Schultz

NEEMO 9 – 18 days, April 2006 CSA/D. Williams*, CB/N. Stott, R. Garan, TATRC/T. Broderick*, M.D.

NEEMO 10 – 07 days, July 2006 JAXA/K. Wakata, CB/D. Feustel, K. Nyberg, NOAA/K. Kohanowich

Key

* Repeater

Blue – CDR upgrade Green – IP

RED – Rookie Gray – non-Astro
Page No. 136 EVA-EXP-0052 | This document does not contain any export control information (#20205009463)

NEEMO Crew Members

NEEMO 11 – 7 days, Sept. 2006 CB/S. Magnus, T. Kopra, B. Behnken, T.J. Creamer

NEEMO 12 – 12 days, May 2007 CB/H. Piper, J. Hernandez, SD/J. Schmidt, TATRC/T. Broderick*, M.D.

NEEMO 13 – 10 days, August 2007 CB/N. Patrick*, R. Arnold, JAXA/S. Furukawa, Cx/C. Gerty

NEEMO 14 – 12 days, June 2010 CSA/C. Hadfield, CB/T. Marshburn, EAMD/A. Abercromby, S. Chappell

NEEMO 15 – 7 days, October 2011 CB/S. Walker, JAXA/T. Onishi, CSA/D. Saint-Jacques, NAC/ S. Squyres* 

NEEMO 16 – 12 days, June 2012 CB/D. Metcalf- Lindenburger, JAXA/K. Yui, ESA/T. Peake, NAC/S. Squyres*

NEEMO 17 – 7 days, Sept. 2013 CB/J. Acaba, K. Rubins, JAXA/S. Noguchi, ESA/A. Mogensen*

NEEMO 18 – 9 days, July 2014 JAXA/A. Hoshide, CB/M. Vande Hei, Jeanette Epps, ESA/Thomas Pesquet

NEEMO 19 – 7 days, Sept. 2014 CB/R. Bresnik, ESA/A. Mogensen*, CSA/J. Hansen, ESA/ H. Stevenin

NEEMO 20 – 14 days, July 2015 ESA/L. Parmitano, CB/S. Aunon, JAXA/N. Kanai, XX/D. Coan

Key

* Repeater

Blue – CDR upgrade Green – IP

RED – Rookie Gray – non-Astro