Refine Your Search

Search Results

Viewing 1 to 2 of 2
Technical Paper

Redesign of the Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) Hard Upper Torso to Improve Overall System Safety and Reduce Component Cost

1993-07-01
932100
The original Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) Hard Upper Torso (HUT) configuration developed in1978 by Hamilton Standard and ILC, Dover had the arm attached in such a way that the shoulder bearing outer race was integral with the HUT. This method of attachment has been termed “planar arm.” During development, this configuration proved unacceptable because some astronauts and test subjects experienced difficulty, and in some cases pain, while donning. Interference occurred when the arms transitioned from vertical to horizontal as the HUT was entered (arms over head). At the time, designers needed to quickly resolve this issue and certify the EMU for the first Shuttle flight. The solution - pivot sockets - allowed the shoulder bearing to pivot relative to the HUT for donning purposes and then pivot back to allow for optimum arm performance. The pivoted HUT configuration has been very successful and is one of the design features that allows arm mobility and range in the EMU.
Technical Paper

Evolution of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit for Future Missions

1991-07-01
911349
The various configurations being considered for Space Station Freedom have resulted in a moving target for tomorrow's demand for EVA and the requirements that will be imposed on the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The Shuttle EMU is baselined to perform the assembly and operational activities of station and is currently undergoing the necessary incremental re-certification. This paper presents the evolution of an EMU from two perspectives. First, evolution is discussed within the context of continuously improving the life support system and the space suit assembly from the Mercury Program to NASA's current flight EMU. This includes a status of the on-going enhancements and a discussion on the merits of additional improvements. The second perspective describes evolution for future programs involving significant differences in mission requirements and environments.
X