_

NATIONAL

AERONAUTICS

AND

SPACE

ADMINISTRATION

APOLLO16
TIME (FINAL AND MOTION STUDY REPORT)

MISSION

MANNED

SPACECRAFT
[Link] JULY 1972

CENTER

M72-6 APOLLO 16 Time and

Motion Study

(Final Mission

Report)

by Joseph F. Kubis, John T. Elrod, Rudolph Rusnak, John E. Barnes, and Susan C. Saxon

Submitted To: Life Sciences Directorate Bioengineering Division Data Management Office

Submitted By: Fordham University NASA Contract NAS 9-I1839 July II, 1972

PREFACE This report presents the results of the Time and Motion Study performed on Apollo 16 as authorized by the J-2 Mission Requirements Document (MRD). This study is the responsibility torate of the Life Sciences Direcunder NASA Contract

(LSD) and is performed by FordhamUniversity

NAS9-I1839. As stated in the MRD(Section 4, Detailed Objectives), of this study is "to evaluate the differences, correlation the purpose and relative and by suited

consistency between ground-based and lunar surface task dexterity locomotion performance." The ground-based (l-g)

data were collected

performing time and motion studies of the crewmembers during their extravehicular activity

(EVA) simulations at KennedySpace Center (KSC). motion picture film, air-toand sub-

Lunar surface data consisted of television, ground voice transcriptions jective

madeduring the lunar landing visit following

commentsmadeduring astronaut debriefing

the mission.

No specific

crew tasks were required to support this objective.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The staff

of the Apollo Time and Motion Study is indebted to the

Metabolic AssessmentTeam(MAT)for supplying heart rate and metabolic rate data. These data included the training session and lunar EVA.

Our appreciation is also given to Dr. E. Moseley for his cooperative efforts in our behalf.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Preface Acknowledgements List of Tables Summary I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX Quantity Mobility and Quality Evaluation Lunar Performance l-g Training and l-g Training vs Lunar EVA of Data

Page i ii iv
V

l 3 II 18 22 27 36 42 44

Time Comparisons: Metabolic Metabolic

Comparisons: Adaptation

Fall Analysis Additional Concluding Analyses Statements

Recommendations Appendix Appendix Appendix A - EVA Timelines B - Detailed C - Time - CDR and LMP of Three Mobility Segments

45 55 61

Analyses

Comparisons

of Sub-tasks

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table l 2 3 4 Mobility Evaluation

Page 5 8 Lunar EVA and l-g Training Performed On 14 16 and Lunar EVA the LRV 19 22 24 with Hammering 25 41 Tasks 12

LMP ALSEP Traverse Time Comparisons:

Comparisons of Tasks Apollo 15 and Apollo Time Comparisons Metabolic Average

Identically 16

5 6 7 8 9 lO

of Sub'tasks l-g Training

Comparisons: Metabolic Sampling Indices

Rates Associated (LMP) Associated

with Riding

Core Tube Metabolic Double

Core Tube Sampling

SUMMARY

The Time Apollo mobility, a study retrieval of

and Motion of

Study five of

of

astronaut analyses:

lunar

surface an evaluation

activity of and of falls

on lunar lunar and EVA,

16 consists

distinct task

a comparison metabolic of fallen mobility were

performance

in

l-g

training

costs objects.

and adaptation,

a discussion

Two basic walking bolic different gait, rates

patterns,

the utilized

hop or in

canter longer types

and the traverses. --

traditional The metaused by a

consistently with -were tasks these

associated astronaut to the l-g

two mobility equivalent. lunar time These

each

relatively on the the

The time longer ing the (on last

perform order of

surface to

was significantly the same tasks the durfindings

70%) than session.

perform

training not

results

corroborated from them.

on Apollo

15 and were rates

significantly associated

different with task

Metabolic last lunar slightly appreciably There of tasks. l-g training

(BTU/h_) session

performance than

during those was only time was

the on the

were

approximately cost

90% higher (BTU), because

surface. higher

The average in the

metabolic session,

however, lunar task

training

longer. was general Metabolic EVAs. roving improvement rate Specifically, vehicle (LRV) (BTU/h_) the in lunar EVA performance cost rate (BTU) upon repetition over

and metabolic metabolic

decreased with

successive the to lunar

associated

riding EVA 1

decreased EVA 3.

by approximately

18% from

EVA 2 and by 15% from Falls observed fallen

EVA 2 to

on Apollo objects and

16 seemed in

related the

to

the

method

used

in

retrieving

operating

penetrometer.

Section I QUANTITYNDQUALITY DATA A OF

A. GENERAL COMMENT Time and Motion Study (TAMS)personnel observed all three Apollo 16 36, room

EVAsin real time at the MannedSpacecraft Center (MSC)building 210. cularly analysis. B. TELEVISION The quality good. of the television

(TV) coverage was judged to be partifor

In addition,

there was an abundanceof data available

Problems associated with Apollo 15 data, such as frequent panning and zooming, were not present in the Apollo 16 data. problem was the loss of TV coverage for the initial due to the lunar module (LM) S-Band antenna failure. and the other EVAsthe TV coverage was very good. There were only two major deviations from the planned TV coverage, these being the loss of initial EVA3 activities activities lost, EVA1 activity (mentioned above), and those Of the such A previously unexperienced phase of EVA1 activity For the rest of EVA1

eliminated becyause the shortened EVA3 period. of the more important were the initial LRVconfiguration, EVA1 activities

as LM egress, LRVoffload, camera deployment. The overall direction

and far-ultraviolet

(Far-UV)

of the TV camera by ground control during all Sometasks, however, performed by the

three EVAswas generally excellent.

commander(CDR)during Apollo lunar surface experiment package (ALSEP) deployment and observed on previous Apollo flights, the TV. The quality could not be viewed on

of the kinescopes was the best received to date.

TV coverage of Apollo 16 introduced data which had been lacking from previous missions. There were several long traverses completely visible

to the viewer and the amount of crew activity that of all other missions. The end result

in the field

of view exceeded cross sec-

is a representative

tion of crew geological activities C.

and various modesof locomotion.

I6mmLUNAR SURFACE COLOR OTION M PICTURE FILM It was anticipated that one magazine of film would be devoted to evalHowever, the early termination of EVA3 brought of this test.

uating crew mobility. about a cancellation

The film that was exposed on the lunar surface is spectacular and of the finest quality taken to date. Becausemost of the film was shot durrelevance to TAMS objectives.

ing LRVrides, the data obtained bear little D. VOICEDATA Official transcripts

of the voice transmissions during the three EVAs

were particularly

important in analyzing the TV data because the time

encoded on the kinescopes has not been accurate in someinstances. E. ASTRONAUT TECHNICAL EBRIEFINGOMMENTS D C The debriefing characteristics, F. commentsprovided additional suit comfort and capability, information about terrain and work performance.

PHYSIOLOGICAL DATA Metabolic and heart rate data are related to crewmanactivity where

such analyses are feasible G. EVATIMELINES The EVAtimelines, Appendix A.

and meaningful.

as determined by TAMS analysis,

may be found in

These were determined from kinescopes and voice transcripts. to each crewman.

Within each EVA, a table is allotted

Section II MOBILITY EVALUATION

A.

INTRODUCTION Lunar mobility on two prior missions has been analyzed Apollo and reported addi-

previously

by Ml51, Time and Motion understanding

Study.l, 2

16 provided Again,

tional data for further ous problems ronment. On Apollo erses greater lunar module both crewmen while working graphy, etc. developed,

of this activity. readily adapted

no seri-

and the crewmen

to the lunar envi-

16, two distinct than 5-I0 feet. pilot

types

of mobility

were used for those gait, while the

trav-

The CDR used a walking used the hopping short

(LMP) generally

mode.

In addition, especially such as photoin step of

used the side-step around equipment,

in moving

distances, tasks

or performing

other

One general

feature steps)

of all mobility length, although

is the variation the average

or stride strides

(two successive

number

per time unit is quite conditions

consistent

from one traverse to the uneven

to the next. stride and

The terrain

undoubtedly

contribute

step pattern.

B.

METHOD

OF ANALYSIS of mobility for analysis. directly segments occurred during Apollo 16,

While a large number only that nine were suitable

The principal

reasons

for this were and

(1) the crewmen

moved

toward or away traverses.

from the camera,

(2) the camera

panned and zoomed

during

Both of these condi-

lFordham University, TION), 1970. 2Fordham University, 1972.

ANALYSIS APOLLO

OF APOLLO

Xl LUNAR

EVA (MOBILITY

EVALUA-

15 TIME AND MOTION

STUDY

(FINAL REPORT),

4 tions madeaccurate distance determination difficult. portions of the crewmenwere visible. Also at times only

Whenthe camera is at maximum or

minimumfocal length, and the crewmanis completely in view, the distance from camera to crewmancan be determined. Otherwise measurementssuch as

length of stride have to be determined by using a knownmeasurement(e.g., height of crewman)and scaling the desired measurement. This latter was used in most mobility analyses. method

C. ANALYSIS SPECIFICTRAVERSES OF Table l, Mobility ity Evaluation, lists the pertinent data on seven mobilTwo of these, One other trav-

traverses which were suitable

for complete analysis. in Appendix B.

segments 2 and 7, are discussed in detail erse, the ALSEPtraverse,

is covered in Section D below and in Appendix B. rates and other measures can be was level, with only

Certain general trends in mobility noted. slight

With the exception of segment 2, the terrain inclines or downhill slopes.

Thus, no data are analyzed for effect and metabolic rate tend to Other variables such as obmotivational or

of slope.

Mobility

rate, length of stride,

increase with distance covered in traverse. jects carried, nature of terrain, conditions, etc.,

preceding activities,

other situational erses (e.g., stride

influence these factors.

Shorter trav-

23-25 ft.),

showedmobility

rates at less than 2.0 ft./sec.,

length less than 3.0 feet,

and metabolic rates less than lO00 BTU/hr.

An exception to this was the short beginning segmentof the ALSEPtraverse, which is reported in Section D below. or more) the mobility For longer traverses (e.g., the stride 50 ft.

rates exceeded 2.0 ft./sec.,

lengthened

ranging from 3.4 to 4.6 feet, Exceptions occur here also.

and metabolic rates exceeded llO0 BTU/hr. For example, segment l in Table l, shows a

d
41 0 .._ (._ O .r+a -r7O C O c.j-

e,--" E
r's, (lJ r_ 0 -0 O')O r-- O 0 _. _n4J GJ u_ 0 0 r-_J _O_ c" _-n:l ajz-_O

0 O _1 $._

"-5 o_- 0
,-n_ 0 tn tOO 1:21.

I..a _J u'1 -" f1_ ,r,-

_ 0r--

o1--

t_

,._g
_ q.I --J U O I-.J U

-'J

I.

_0 --.14-)

V')O

"-7.

,_;
tO aJ

=
(1J _ rt_ r_

O,J U_

r-_ _D I_

OO _ CO

,_I,O '_

O O_ GO

OO O'_ O0

N ,-',-r-"

Z O I---4 I--

Oji .r-

-o

.-J _la_l r-_1-'I-- '--4 .-I r_ O -O .I-a P_

,_

(J')

--I

"---_

U (lJ i/)

_
_ _ un l_J 4-) .r-

o.,I

S
I--v

"

O._4-a -I_ ,_

;_, ,-IZ

e-Ov

14_ N

_J

4-J O

0J

_ _

_ _

_ _

_ _

_ O_

O O_

m'-

U O

EE ol--

""

.,

,,

-.

0,

.,

.0

ul $.. e_ (]J .e4-a _ X

.,...

S.

c"

IE
! no5 _ O "r

_u

o q.I O L/')Z

O OO O_U o,') _O

lower rate and stride a less than average

length,

but also a very

low metabolic

rate,

indicating

energy expenditure examples

for the 53 foot traverse. on complete a small short traverses, or nearly

The above mobility

are based

so, in that in some cases the TV camera missed or end of a traverse. erses to determine The specific Apollo 15 analysis

part of the start segments of trav-

studied

specific

types

and modes

of accomplishing but with

mobility. the CDR basi-

types were

repeated

in this mission, the "hop."

cally using the "walk," of the traverses other traverses, these two types.

the LMP using herein,

Based on the analysis analysis of 30 of the CDR

reported

plus the less rigorous appears to exist

no real difference In one specific the traverse

in the results l) both

case

(segment

7 in Table

and the LMP completed mobility type.

simultaneously,

each using

his own compared

The metabolic

rate for the LMP was I185 BTU/hr., indicating relatively equivalent

with the CDR's rate of Ill2, rates. The principal length. difference

expenditure

in the two types of mobility generates a stride

is in stride of

The walking

type mobility

length in excess

4 feet, while

the hopping

type is generally

less than 3 feet. the ALSEP

Exceptions in the

to the latter appear

when the LMP was carrying (see Table

package

early parts of his traverse B). Here he was exerting rates, recovery resulting

2, LMP ALSEP more effort,

Traverse,

and Appendix by the fol-

considerably in larger ALSEP

as evidenced

BTU/hr. lowing with

hops.

In the part of the traverse the LMP utilized

of the fallen length,

package,

a fast walk The

the same stride

but much more

rapid

rate of stride.

exceptionally with rate.

high effort

involved

in walking

at the rate of 3 ft./sec. by the 2300 BTU/hr. metabolic

a 41 pound

(lunar weight)

load is shown

D.

ALSEP TRAVERSE At 1.67 hours the into EVA I, the LMP carried of about weight, at two large packages Each of from the the pack-

LM toward ages inches side,

ALSEP site,

a distance 21 pounds lunar carried

230 feet.

was approximately in dimension.

and approximately height, in the the

25X27X21

They were a "barbell"

shoulder Early #2,

one on each traverse, due to

by means of of

arrangement. clip, fell Package to the

a malfunction electric this In

the

retaining (RTG) package

radioisotope

thermoto

generator by stopping

surface.

The LMP reacted but the than not

quickly,

experiencing

temporary turned

imbalance,

falling.

about

6 seconds the toward

he had recovered, package the at of to the

90 and located in slightly 180 feet less

package. 3 minutes incline

He reassembled and continued (5%) in

support

ALSEP site, a rate the of 3.0

covering ft./sec.

up a slight

1 minute,

or

Detailed are given in

analysis Appendix in

individual

segments, in Table

or

portions 2.

thereof,

B and are this traverse

summarized are: mobility.

The outstanding

features I. the

observed Change from to

"hopping" a "walking" of traverse

type

After

the

RTG package

fell,

LMP changed 2. High of

mode. and enerqw expenditure. were Short covered at initial rates of portions segments metaa com-

rates

segments 2.3 of are bolic bination the ft./sec, these only rate

approximately and 2.15

20 feet ft./sec,

and 52 feet

respectively. and 3 with detailed

Appendix analyses.

B includes These 1600

as Segments portions for of of these

I, the

2,

total

ALSEP traverse. is also significant, During to above. these

The high

BTU/hr. from

segments rate

and results segments the

mobility type

and load. referred

LMP used

hopping

mobility

QJ ,-..

E _= O

:_e.,1_ O .r-0)4.-} c" O ","" E (D-O '_ U O O "T'_

O "1_

_ O

3=
4.._ O i/}

"O _J ..I-_ r_ _.. "-,i O ",--_ ..I_ "_ t,,/3 t_l

" O ,-- E .m o i_.-u -tm...

Q._ v (__(_'.0

_ Qj

c".._ ct3 4J,

E
_")

o-

,,./)

_/1 r._

4o o O,J O O O,J O 00 O'_ O3

,._

_.c= "_

o O

I-._ 4,.J b,.,0J rO r_ _" r'_ v

(_ ira,-

r' M_ qM

-. I'--

{./') __ i,i r,,," ILl (3,,I '-"O '.,IJ _ "_. OO '.::tOO _J, O f,,..

&'T-. _-j,

tn. r., U _

ol, m

.__1

0 : Q

CO

._.1 v

,- no c-

E ._
O _,_

_4-;

o.J M'3

O O0

_J > u,,OJ O

>., ,_
r'., O

,5
_._l. a; O "=:1"

f,-_J c-" _.; O'_

u"}

cO'1

i
O

tO f,-

t13

I--

"_

Ej,
t-"-<3v _ O

MD O

o. cO oror="O O

....

After the dropped an average metabolic

package was reassembled rate of 1992 BTU/hr.)

(a 2.91 min. operation

with

the LMP picked up the package was covered over

and moved toward

the ALSEP site area. up a slight terrain

This 180 foot distance (approximately for an average is evidenced rates

in just over 60 seconds, relatively

5%) incline,

even, uncluttered

rate of 3.0 ft./sec. rate

The keavy "workload" of 2300 BTU/hr.

of this segment

by the metabolic registered

This was one of the highest

by the LMP from the in 3

on any EVA. high energy minutes.

Table 2 shows also that the LMP made quick rate. The BTU rate dropped this traverse

recovery

from 2300 to 1282 BTU/hr.

During

the stride

rate was also high, at 52.5 a 3 mile/hr, walking At was period

strides/min.,

or 105 steps/min.

(For comparison,

rate and a 30 in. step is considered this pace he is taking an example of maximum I05.6

a good pace for a man on earth. The entire ALSEP traverse 5 minute

steps/min.)

or near maximum

effort

over a nearly

(total 4.62 min.). 3. Reaction to load_ and emergenc _. by a crewman under This was the bulkiest The event and heaviof the But

est load carried package falling

lunar conditions. reactions and prompt

was met with quick

correction.

the energy mance

cost of the total

effort was unusually

high, and such perforof time.

probably

cannot be maintained

for long periods

E.

GENERAL I.

SUMMARY of longer, complete traverses again showed the excellent of this from

Analysis

adaptability adaptability an estimated 3.

of crewmen

to the lunar

environment.

One measure which

was evidenced average

by the strides

per minute

increased

of about chose

35 on EVA l to better

than 40 on EVAs 2 and which seemed to

Each crewmember

to utilize

a type of mobility

lO suit him best. The CDRused a more conventional walk, while the LMP hopping type lunar mobility. Each was equally

adopted the now familiar

successful in moving about on the lunar surface, with comparable expenditure of energy. 2. Apollo 16 provided the opportunity to study the carrying of a The LMPcarried the

large, bulky load over a considerable distance.

ALSEP package a distance of over 250 feet toward the ALSEPsite at a faster than average rate. for a segment lasting particular While the energy expenditure was high (2300 BTU/hr. one minute in which 180 ft. were traversed), this

traverse did demonstrate the capability

of a crewmanto carry An interesting fea-

a heavy, bulky object somedistance at a fast rate.

ture of the traverse was that the LMPchangedfrom his usual hopping type of mobility 3. different to a walking type during the long traverse. patterns, except as mentioned above for the similar to those of previous cause uneven strides, However, no major was

The general mobility

types used, were essentially

Apollo missions.

The lunar soil characteristics

and occasional change from walk to hop and vice versa. problems presented themselves, and adaptability again demonstrated.

to lunar mobility

II

TIME COMPARISONS:

Secti on I I I LUNAR WORK PERFORMANCE AND I-G

TRAINING

A.

INTRODUCTION The objective of this lunar section EVA with session been In is to compare time to the time it takes to comin

plete the

a task last

during

the

perform

the

same task

suited

EVA training tasks have

on earth. as well tasks as those in sub-tasks identical which fash-

Comparable were ion free during of

analyzed

anomalies. 15 and --

addition, given

performed

Apollo used activity

16 were

separate element task, --

treatment. are described identifiable breakdown of work is within of still as follows. activthe

The terms "The ity largest with

task, segment

sub-task, is . the

a complete, level of task unit

a single

purpose is

The first

sub-task. itself, a total identifiable Study Final

A sub-task and only task has

identifiable as it is (pp. the

as a complete fits into the unit Apollo

relevance

patterned of work

sequence which is

. An element and homogeneous" Report).

smallest of

17-18

15 Time

and Motion

B.

TASK TIME COMPARISONS (LUNAR EVA AND I-G The tasks chosen task. were Table those 3 lists for which the time the the time

TRAINING) analyses could be made over time during source last l-g

the

complete

activities, lunar the

performance surface, EVA time times

training of the

sessions, data. time direct (V) It

performance also presents in

on the ratio of

and the and were the

training through and voice

(D/C

column

table). were

Training determined

obtained (TV)

observation; transcripts.

EVA times

from

kinescopes

12 Table 3 APOLLO 16 COMPARISONS: LUNAR EVA AND I-G

TIME

TRAINING

TASKS

Task

I-G Training Session 2/24/72 3/29/72 4/11/72 (A) (B) (C)

EVA 1 4/21/72

Ratio (D/C)

(D)

EVA Data Source

A.

Commander I, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Offload Setup Offload Load Flag LRV LRV Far LRV Deploy RTG PSE U.V. 10.50 5.10 9.80 14.75 4.01 6.60 8.30 1.40 I0.I0 4.10 8.40 16.25 4.90 7.15 5.90 1.35 7.30 4.20 8.75 13.85 3.30 7.60 5.70 1.40 12.37 5.88 17.67 20.68 7.13 12.52 10.70 2.12 1.69 1.40 2.02 1.49 2.16 1.65 1,87 1.51 V V V VTV VTV V VTV TV

Connect Deploy

Remove LSM Erect Central Station I Deploy Deploy LSM Geophones

NID N/D N/D

4.95 5.45 10.60

4.70 i :4.05 8.90

7.80 6.52 12.90

1.66 1.61 1.44

VTV TV VTV

I0. II.

B.

Lunar 12. 13.

Module LRV

Pilot 3.20 3.50 3.40 5.45 1.60 V

Setup

ALSEP Package Placement & Deploy HFE Hardware

9.85

13.39

I0.00

23.08

2.31

VTV

TOTAL FOR CDR & LMP

96.04

83.15

144.82

1.74

INot including V - Voice TV- Television N/D - No Data

fastening

thermal

curtains

13

The data took last (D/C more l-g ratio time

in

Table to

3 confirm activities at

the

results on the The time

obtained moon than increase increase

for it

Apollo did

15.

It the

perform _.ession to

during from

training 1.40)

KSC. the the

ranges being

40% aver-

131% with than

average

74%.

This on

age is Apollo

slightly 15.

larger The difference

average

increase

of

58% obtained

is

not

statistically

significant.

C.

IDENTICALLY The slightly

PERFORMED TASKS (APOLLO 15 AND APOLLO 16) larger overall D/C ratio a difference for Apollo in task 16 could requirements such fashion differences during Apollo 15 be due to from

a number Apollo only

of

factors Apollo

among which 16 might were Table

15 to those

berelevant.
i

To offset in identical

tasks included

which in

performed 4. of this

and 16 are

The outstanding ally there Apollo those is observed almost exact

features in the

table

are In

the

consistencies, of the four times

especitasks, for took for

EVA ; column, in

three

correspondence 16. The only

unar

performance is in Deploy

15 and Apollo longer during on Apollo in the the to the 16.

discr!pancy 16.

PSE which time

appreciably this shorter discrepancy of the tasks, task

do on Apollo last training

l',ontrariwise, (Column

performance C) was appreciably produced the which

session

The combination

o-_\these

effects considering

the

large nature perit is

D/C ratios. complexities

Neverthel_l,s,
i

varied they

of

the

con( itions
J

under in

were

formed,

and the fact

inherent that

individual the congruences

differences
1

performance

style,

a remarkable formance times

betl_en

Apollo 4.

15 and Apollo

16 per-

were

as close

as indicated

i._Table

\
\

14

Table

COMPARISONS OF TASKS IDENTICALLY PERFORMED ON APOLLO 15 AND APOLLO 16

Task

Mission

I-G (A)

Training (B)

EVA 1 (C)

(D)

Ratio (D/C)

CDR Set up LRV A-16 A-15 5.11 N/D 4.1 5.7 4.2 3.6 5.9 5.9 1.40 1.62

LMP Set up LRV A-16 A-15 A-16 A-15 A-16 A-15 3.2 3.6 8.3 8.0 N/D 7.1 3.5 2.7 5.9 7.0 6.8 5,9 3.4 3.0 5.7 6.9 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.1 I0.7 8.3 8.6 8.6 1.60 1.74 l .87 l .29 l. 56 l .51

Deploy

PSE 2

Deploy

LSM2, 3

TOTAL

A-16 A-15

N/A N/A

N/A N/A

18.8 19.2

30.6 27.9

l .63 l .45

IAII times are in decimal

minutes.

2Task performed

by LMP on A-15 and CDR on A-16 to A-16 tasks "Remove LSM"

3A-15 task "Deploy LSM" equivalent plus "Deploy LSM." N/A - Not Applicable N/D - No Data

15

D.

SUB-TASK TIME COMPARISONS (LUNAR EVA AND I-G The tasks discussed smaller C. the tasks into smaller in the previous or section

TRAINING) can, in general, are be parlisted

titioned in

into

segments

sub-tasks.

Such

sub-tasks

Appendix

By partitioning identify of anomalous

segments performance

it

is

possible

to

conditions

affecting the

time. comparisons

The elimination within in and which into anomaor

segments

so affected With

improves this were

validity in from mind,

of

between

missions.

objective selected

all

sub-tasks

performance Table lous in 5. or lunar In

was nominal other words,

Appendix were in

C and developed free training from

these

sub-tasks either

relatively l-g

unusual EVA.

conditions

present

the

sessions

The D/C ratio included configure When this becomes Apollo not in the

for table lunar is

sub-tasks is

in

Table

5 ranges

from by the

1.16

to

2.18. "obtain of

Not and 1.43.

one sub-task drill to those

performed (ALSD)" of the --

LMP --

Apollo sub-task 1.66.

surface added is

with

a D/C ratio weighted

CDR, the than the

D/C average

This of

ratio 1.41.

slightly Again, the

larger

corresponding these ratios is

15 average

difference

between

statistically

significant.

E,

FACTORS AFFECTING LUNAR EVA AND I-G A number of l-g factors training can be proposed comparisons. associated effects, these are with

TRAINING to explain

COMPARISONS the differences of these in are

lunar rooted tions bility, is not

EVA and in -the

The more lunar in any

obvious

differences

and earth-bound soil and terrain, of the

condiin visi-

gravitational etc. to That

differences important are, in

evaluation

results which

be denied.

There

moreover,

attitudinal

influences

16 Table 5 APOLLO 16 TIME COMPARISONS OF SUB-TASKS EVA l 4/21 Ratio EVA Data Source

Sub-task Commander Offload I. Far U.V. Camera

l-G Training 2/24 3/29 4/I l

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(D/C)

Remove camera from LM and carry to deployment site Deploy camera surface & battery on

3.901

3.20

2.60

4.80

l .85

2.

1.75

1.40

1.90

2.68

l .41

Flag Deploy I. 2. 3. Unstow Deploy and assemble flag 2.10 .55 1.36 2.00 .35 1.55 1.80 .55 .85 3.58 .92 l .12 l.99 l .67 l .32 TV V TV

flag on surface at flag

Photography RTG

Connect

Remove subpallet and PSE stool from Package 2 Deploy PSE Deploy and level PSE Offload Mortar Package

3.70

4.95

3.60

5.21

l .45

VTV

6.40

4.45

4.00

8.47

2.12

Remove and deploy mortar package (M/P) Assemble and Align Antenna central station

2.40

2.45

2.00

2.38

l .19

TV

Activate Deploy I. 2. LSM

.50

N/D

.45

.98

2.18

Carry LSM to deploy Deploy and align LSM Package

site

N/D N/D

1.85 3.55

1.55 2.50

l .80 4.72

l .16 l .89

TV VTV

Set Up Mortar I. 2.

Deploy M/P Place M/P in base TOTAL

N/D N/D

1.60 1.05

.95 1.75 24.50

l .76 3.75 42.17

l .85 2.14 l .72

VTV VTV

IAII times are in decimal V - Voice TV - Television N/D - No Data

minutes.

17

are relatively Central ment

pervasive

and important. of care or carefulness. Lunar equip-

to these is the attitude

is not damage-proof

and the crew has very limited surface. During lunar

repair capability EVA, the astronaut situations. individuals setups. This were

available

to them on the lunar mistakes

has no one to correct is in contrast available

or to help in difficult sessions deployment where numerous

to the training

to check experiment

and equipment

The simulunar ter-

lated lunar surface

at KSC is not only smoother familiar and creates

than the actual relative

rain but is also more selection keenly

no problems

to site is

for experiment

deployment.

When on the moon,

the astronaut

aware of the fact that he has only one chance must be efficient.

to complete

his task

and that that performance he is being intently In short,

And, in this performance, of the world care population. of

observed

by a large portion of great

lunar EVA induces tasks.

an attitude

in the execution

the allotted

There are also matters not be possible Work periods to continue

of rest and pacing. working for very

During

training,

it would condition.

long in the suited their

are shorter

and astronauts performance.

tend to mobilize time,

energies tend to

for swift but effective be shorter.

Training

then, would

These are some of the factors evaluation EVA. of any differences

that must

be kept in mind during training

in a proper and lunar

in performance

18

Section IV METABOLICOMPARISONS: TRAINING LUNAR C I-G VS EVA A. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to compare the metabolic data associated with tasks performed during l-g training this analysis, and during lunar EVA. In metabolic cost per

rate of energy expenditure and total

completed task are utilized. It may be recalled that somepreliminary rates have been presented in Section II: results results concerning metabolic Evaluation. Those

Mobility

tended to confirm the data obtained in Apollo 15 and indicated in rate of energy expenditure due to changes in work con-

somevariation ditions.

B. TASKS ANALYZED Those tasks were chosen whose activity training patterns were identical during seven of

sessions and lunar EVA. On the basis of this criterion

the CDR's tasks and one of the LMP's tasks were selected for analysis. These are presented in Table 6. data were available It may be recalled that no biomedical hour of EVAl because of

for approximately the first

a problem with the S-band antenna. C. CALCULATION PROCEDURE Crewmen heart rates served as the bases for computing metabolic rates (BTU/hrJ. For the training session the following regression functions

were developed by the LSDMetabolic AssessmentTeam: CDR: Metabolic Rate

LMP: Metabolic = 36.9 (heartrate) (heartrate) - 2136 - 1568

Rate = 29.5

19

o_

O0

Cx;

u3

e_I_ 0 _-_ (lJ-,- 0 0 _ ,-03 _ 0 _, O_ ,-0 _, O0 Od

l,. -IJ i t-

-;J

u'_ 0 _"C.)

r-_ _-_

1.13 O0

03 Od O

qJ 4.J qJ _0 09 qD O0

,--.

C_,

O0

kid

0 C_

0 tO

0 (J

,---

kO

"0

(I;

_.- -I-J qJ 0 _n _D (D_ O0 0 03

_...,I--- (lJ (J (I_ n'_ -rrO "-_ _I- u_ _)

(D_

'_"

O0 O_l

O_ 0

O0 0

CO _n

nO oO

,--

I_

O_

;'_

O0

"d"

cO

,d" ,--0

o_

o_

c_
GO O_ 0

Q_

0 _0 E

0 tO

0 _

0 '_"

0 _

u3 0

qD

_ t_l--

o0

u_
v3

o
,--u_

_._ 0 ,-_3.

(-0 I-_-_ 4,J

Ud _ 13-

__ --;

_/) (..)

_" t,_ ..-I _0

(3; c0 _" 0

c" .I-J 0_.EE c,--. rO -I_ 0 ;'-_---rE _ _,-- .Io_ _ _00 _--

0 I-.-_0 _" _ ,._. _ Q E (J _._ _3.

_. (1) 0 I.a3 U ,--.I,.--(3.;

13. (..0

20

Similar changed

linear

functions

were

used for lunar heart

EVA.

These,

however,

each hour depending during

on the average hour.

rate and 02 consumption first used

exhibited on Apollo

the preceeding

With this improvement, determined.

16, BTU rates were more reliably cost (BTU) was calculated

Metabolic manner:

in the usual straightforward

BTU = (Elapsed Time/60)

X BTU Rate

D.

RESULTS A study of Table 6 reveals training Heart several times rates definite uniformities. As found

in previous

analyses,

are all shorter are uniformly

than corresponding higher for the trainMetabolic smaller cost than

lunar performance ing sessions during

times.

with correspondingly however, metabolic

higher metabolic larger

rates.

training,

is sometimes

and sometimes EVA. These

the corresponding agreement

cost during lunar studies reviewed

results

are in

with the simulation

by Shavelson

(1968), I measure

Two ratios,

A/C and B/D, were calculated increase or decrease compare

to provide

a precise

of the percentage costs.

in metabolic the metabolic

rates rates

and metabolic in training with expen-

The A/C ratios,

which

those in lunar EVA, consistently diture during training

demonstrate lunar

a higher EVA.

rate of energy

over that during

The weighted metabolic lunar EVA.

average during

for the CDR isl.91 training are

indicating

that on the average obtained during

rates

91%higher

than those

(Since only only pass-

one task has been analyzed ing attention

for the LMP, his result However,

can be given

in this report.

the A/C rate for his data is

iShavelson, R. J. Lunar gravity simulation and its effect performance. Human Factors 1968, lO (4), 393-402.

on human

21 relatively high in comparison to those computedfor the CDR.) for metabolic cost. In somecases it is

The case is quite different smaller in the training is 1.13, indicating training

sessions than in lunar EVA. The weighted average greater total energy expenditure during

a slightly

than during lunar EVA.

In summary, then, although the metabolic rate is almost twice as large in training sessions than in lunar EVA, the energy cost for the sametasks greater during the training sessions.

is only slightly E. COMMENTS

The higher metabolic rates during training

can be attributed

to sev-

eral factorsamong which the most important is the extra weight (approximately lO0 Ibs. for a 180-1b. man) associated with the suited condition. Heat storage, fatigue, a strong desire to complete the tasks as quickly to this effect. On the other hand, there seems and

as possible also contribute to be a greater overall

equivalence of metabolic cost for l-g training

lunar EVAtask performance.

22

Section V METABOLIC ADAPTATION

This (BTU) on at as to

section

examines with EVAs. or

the

metabolic lunar

rates

(BTU/hr.) as these should

and energy were

costs

associated least the two

repeated This absence type

activities analysis

performed

of

provide

some information performances. mode the LRV,

presence

of

adaptation for analysis

over

repeated

The three and two Double A. active Core

activities

chosen

included These were:

a sedentary Riding

energy-consuming Tube Sampling,

activities.

and Hammering.

RIDING During

THE LRV the LRV. three In EVAs the these crewmen spent the approximately driver, 8 man-hours the rid-

ing

on the

excursions

CDR was the

LMP the

navigator. Metabolic during in in twelve and 7. Table 7 THE LRV rates (BTU/hr.) were computed Three for of both these the CDR and the in are EVA I, presented LMP six

LRV riding three in

segments. EVA 3.

occurred rates

EVA 2, Table

The average

metabolic

AVERAGE METABOLIC RATES ASSOCIATED WITH RIDING

Crewman CDR LMP AVerage For EVA % Decrement IAII rates in

I 5961 669

EVA II 531 509

III 472 412

Average Crewman 532 525

for

633 18%

520 15%

442

529

BTU/hr.

23

Both crewmenshowpronounced adaptation in metabolic rate over the three EVAs. The decrease in BTU/hr. (633 to 520) is approximately 18% from EVA1 to EVA2 and 15%from EVA2 to EVA3. indicates An analysis of variance at the .01 level. between metabolic

that the decrement over EVAsis significant difference

It is clear that there is no significant rates for the two crewmen. B. DOUBLE ORE C SAMPLING LMP -

Four double core tube samples were collected EVAs. Of these, three were visible on television

during the Apollo 16 and two of these were

performed by the LMP. One of these was on EVA2 (Station 8), the other on EVA3 (Station I0). The data for the activities associated with these

tasks are presented in Table 8.

These include Time (in decimal minutes),

Metabolic Rate (BTU/hrJ, and Metabolic Cost (BTU). For completeness and better understanding, a
LMP at ted with Station Station of regular 9 is also single core sampling It is felt activity that the performed the activity by the associaeffect. one to

included. to

9 is the

relevant data from

and enhances 9 (single adaptation

adaptation enables over

The inclusion observe similar the

Station in the

core) effect

progression

repeated

operations. was excluded on soil from this at the analysis each next location. section.) progressive All indices decrements reveal in Time, in in because its performance as an opera-

(Hammering was dependent tion is

conditions in

Hammering

analyzed

separately of and in time Table

An examination Metabolic efficiency Rate, with

8 reveals Cost. repetition.

Metabolic

an increase

and task

24

r--

CO

O_

CO

O0

LO

OO

CO

JrJ --_

O I_

CO

CO ,---

Od Od

O0 O0

_
C_

Or,'_

o6

__I

O_ O O ,--4 rY" I-" I::13

r--

_O O O_

_OJ O
r--

CO 0'3 O

c_ O0 0
r--

O0

Z _--,

O0 I-ill E
r--

e-r"

Od

LO

_.r-

r--

o_
,rE

I---_ O _.) 4-) -"_ m I'..-Om oO O4 O OJ

_J O0 c_ cO O0
r--

r-r--

"0 c-

C_ _ m 0; t4.-)_ O e_ "O N O E
r,.rr--

cOO _OO O O0 0 E

LO

r-_-

0 r--

0 O_
r-I

e-CO E
v

t--

0 , _ r-" I-I _. _O O , _C_. _ __ _.r$r-_-) -_ _-E O _ OJ

r-

4-)

{C_

O_ _ _

_''r n_ _ .- 0

__ _

O _'-

_ -r

0 E _

_'- rO rO cq __._-

_ 0 _

25

C.

HAMMERING - LMP AND CDR During the This Rate data core tube sampling, a considerable in (BTU), terms of amount of hammering Time, was Meta-

required. bolic These in the

activity

was analyzed Metabolic in Cost Table

Hammer Hits,

(BTU/h_), are

Hits/BTU, parallels is the data

and Hits/minute. the for analysis the presented CDR on EVA 2 -

presented table.

9 which feature

previous I0.

One added

Station

METABOLIC INDICES

Table 9 ASSOCIATED WITH HAMMERING

Crewman LMP EVA 2 EVA 2 EVA 3 Sta. 8 Sta. 9 Sta. 10'

Hits

aT l

BTU/hr.

BTU

Hits/BTU

Hits/min.

69 8 28

2.28 .20 .58

1308 936 807

49.71 3.12 7.80

1.39 2.56 3.59

30.26 40.00 48.28

CDR EVA 2 Sta. lO 45 1.65 1129 31.04 1.45 27.27

IElapsed

time

is

In

decimal

minutes.

The data a progressive Hits/minute sive changes

for

the

LMP clearly in Hits/BTU

indicate (another increased

a decrement measure efficiency). of

in

Metabolic cost)

Rate, and

increase (a measure occur over

energy

reflecting

These

progres-

EVA and task

repetition.

26

Of significant EVA 2 at Station during

interest IC.

and importance

are the data for the CDR during

The congruence

of his set of data with that of LMP striking. Of direct These relevance that

EVA 2 at Station

8 is particularly

are the data the metabolic a meaningful EVA Hammering Station

for BTU/hr., Hits/BTU, and efficiency

and Hits/minute. are relatively

indicate

indices

equivalent. stages

This is in their before lO

result since both crewmen experience.

were at equivalent

The LMP used the hammer very briefly before

8 and the CDR used the hammer for a few rounds from a large boulder.

Station

in order to get samples

D.

CONCLUSION In Apollo 16, as in Apollo 15, there is strong evidence of adaptation in results

to task performance Metabolic

from one EVA to the next. Cost and increases type of activity,

There

are decrements These

Rate, Metabolic

in efficiency. as Riding

hold for both a sedentary ous type, as Hammering.

the LRV, and a vigor-

27

Secti on Vl FALL ANALYSIS

A.

INTRODUCTION I. Purpose During the three lunar EVAs of Apollo 16 six falls LMP's of falls the of falls the of the crewmen in a The the the falls.

were his

recorded attempt to

on the pick the

TV kinescopes. up an object. other is two to

The two Two of the

CDR occurred occurred in

falls the --

similar purpose manner 2.

fashion; of of this falling

involved investigate and to

the

use the

penetrometer. to determine for

analysis and

recovering

determine

reasons

Procedure The TV kinescope segments comprising the falls were analyzed qual-

itatively included ity Time

and,

where

possible, of the the

quantitatively. terrain, recovery, what the

The qualitative crewman apparent carried, reason for

analysis the activfall. the left of knee the

descriptions the fall,

preceding into

and the

the

EVA was also (at every

obtained. V2second) from the torso.

The quantitative of the angles of

analysis the right

included knee,

measurement and the arms, body

(measured torso

horizontal) Both

as well types of

as descriptions analysis were

upper the

and lower motion

accomplished

by using

Vanguard

analyzer.

B.

DESCRIPTION Two different

OF FALLS types procedure tongs or of falls were by the hardware. the observed crewmen This knees, motion. on Apollo when picking 16. One type was

related out the

to aid

the of

used other

up objects involved

with-

procedure grabbing Variations the

approachand getand

in k the ting up;

object, all

hopping, done in

bending

object included

one continuous

hopping

28

kneeling

on one knee, kneeling forward

down on both knees

(without hopping);

hopp-

ing up, stepping

and up, stepping when

back and up. the LMP was pushing the penetro-

The other type of fall occurred meter. I. Pickup a. Falls

LMP's fall at the ALSEP

site.

EVA I.

Time:

[Link]

- 53:39 Ground

Elapsed

Time

(GET)

Terrain: Loose surface soil; about; LMP is standing within uphill. ALSEP site. Carrying: Apparent He was holding Reason:

small to medium-sized rocks scattered the rim of a small crater and facing

a small

object. surface soil. the heat

He slipped

(slid) on the loose

Previous Activity: LMP had jacked up the deep core, flow probe, and attempted to pick up the rammer.

emplaced

Description - Fall: On the second attempt to pick it up, the LMP went down on his knees. As he tried to get up, his feet slid on the loose soil and he fell to his knees and hands. (Feet could not get the necessary traction in the loose soil.) Description - Recovery: To recover, the LMP leaned forward on his hands. He then pushed himself back with enough momentum to bring himself to his knees and then to his feet. Time into EVA: of Film: [Link] Good view of the fall and recovery. EVA I.

Quality b.

CDR's fall near the LM at closeout.

Time:

[Link]

- 32:42 GET soil; small rocks scattered; level; near the

Terrain: Loose surface LM and LRV. Carrying: Apparent Nothing. Reason:

Feet slipped

on the loose

soil.

Previous Activity: Both the CDR and LMP were dusting each other when the brush fell to the surface. The CDR went to pick up the brush.

29
Description - Fall: The CDR's usual procedure in picking something up is to approach the object (brush), bend one knee (in this case the right knee is bent), pick up the object, and stand up on both feet. All this is done in a somewhat continuous motion. In this particular instance, the CDR appeared to slip as he was about to stand up after getting the brush. His feet slid and would not take hold on the loose soil and so he ended up on his hands and knees. Description - Recoverx: The CDR knelt upright (his hands were no longer on the ground) with the brush in his right hand. His left hand gets a little support from the LMP. Then he extends his left hand; the LMP holds the hand and elbow and he helps the CDR to stand on his feet. CDR rolls back on his feet and then steps to his left, then right. Time into EVA: [Link]

qualitx of Film: CDR's back is facing the camera throughout the incident. Also at the time of the fall his feet are not in view.

c.

LMP's fall at Station

8.

EVA 2.

Time: Terrain:

[Link]

- 32:56 GET rocks scattered; mostly level. Station 8.

Small and medium Camera

Carrying:

and sample

bags are mounted.

Apparent Reason: He had hopped down to pick up the tongs; in doing so he stepped on the tongs so that when he tried to lift them he lost his balance. Previous Activity: The CDR and LMP were sampling and the CDR had just stowed a sample In the LMP's sample collection bag (SCB). The CDR started to walk away and the LMP went to pick up the tongs. Description - Fall: The LMP bent his knees and got down on his right knee to pick up the tongs. He missed the tongs and fell. Description - Recoverx: With his left hand the LMP held on to the CDR who assisted him in getting up. Time into EVA: of Film: [Link] Most of the time the LMP was hidden by the CDR.

qualitx

30 d.
Time: Terrain: Carrying:

CDR's fall at Station

II.

EVA 3.

[Link]

- 58:59 GET boulders; craters. SCB. Station II.

Small rocks to large Camera

and bags mounted.

Carrying

Apparent Reason: When picking up the bag, the CDR leaned too far to the right and lost his balance. Previous Activity: The CDR is sampling at Station II. As he went to new sampling slte he dropped one of the sample bags so he returned to pick it up. Description - Fall: The CDR returned to pick up the sample bag, approached it, took about five steps, bent his knees (right knee touched the ground), leaned right and reached out with his right hand to pick up the bag. After he grabbed the bag and his right arm was coming up, he lost his balance, was unable to regain his balance and fell on both hands. Description - Recovery: The CDR backed up on his knees, raised the upper part of his body, rested on his left hand. (The sample bag is in his right hand and the SCB is in his left hand.) As he straightened up he moved his feet very rapidly until he was standing. (His method of recovery differs from the LMP who uses a rocking motion to get to his feet.) Time into EVA: [Link]

Quality of Film: Generally good. The CDR's right side is to the camera; however, his legs are not distinct because of the shadows. 2. Penetrometer a. Falls 4. EVA 2.

LMP's fall at Station

Time: Terrain: craters.

[Link]

- 35:55 GET soil; small and medium rocks scattered; shallow

Loose surface Station 4. Nothing.

Carrying:

Apparent Reason: He was in an unstable position to begin with and then when he tried to get up he slipped on the loose soil. Previous Activity: ing readings. LMP is walking around with the penetrometer, obtain-

31
Description - Fall: The LMP pushed in the penetrometer by leaning on it. The penetrometer was located near the top of a small slope and the LMP's feet were down the slope. The penetrometer went in al] the way and since the LMP was leaning on it, his body approached the surface. He paused and started to stand up but his feet slid on the loose soil and he ended up on his hands with his body and legs parallel to the surface. Description - Recoverx: with his arms, obtaining to his feet. Time into EVA: [Link] the camera; thus much of the He leaned forward some more and pushed back enough momentum to get to his knees and then

qualitx of Film: The LMP was facing detail was not clear.

b.

LMP's fall at Station

lO.

Time:

[Link]

- 12:16 GET scattered; loose soil; shallow depressions.

Terrain: Many Stati o'n lO. Carrying:

small rocks

Nothing. He lost his balance when the penetrometer went in

Apparent Reason: all the way.

Previous Activity: obtaining readings.

LMP was walking

around

with

the penetrometer

Description - Fall: The LMP pushed in the penetrometer by leaning on it. The penetrometer went in all the way (unexpectedly), and he lost balance. He fell to his right side and extended his right arm to break the fall while his left was still on the penetrometer. He fell forward and his feet went in the "air," then down. He adjusted the position of his body, released the penetrometer, and put both hands on the surface. Description-Recover_: After adjusting his body and putting both hands on the surface, he leaned forward, pushed back, got to his knees but did not make it up. He leaned forward a second time, pushed back, got to his knees, tried to stand up but ended up back on the ground again. He leaned forward a third time,, pushed back, got to,his knees, went back on his feet and finally stood up. Time into EVA: [Link]

qualitx camera.

of Film: Good sequence. The LMP has his right side to the The rocking sequence where he tries to get up is also good.

32 C. POSSIBLE CAUSAL ACTORS F A preliminary analysis suggested that loss of traction on loose soil

caused crewmento slip and fall.

A more thorough analysis revealed that hands instead

the crew's unique method of picking up objects with their

of with tongs also contributed to loss of balance and subsequent falls. The fails associated with the penetrometer were related to the method

used by the LMPto push in the penetrometer and also to the penetration and plate-load-sinkage where a fall characteristics of the lunar soil. In each instance to

occurred, the penetrometer shaft was pushed into the soil

its maximum penetration depth. soil

In order to push the penetrometer into the As the pene-

the LMPleaned on the instrument with his entire weight.

trometer sank to its maximum depth, and occasionally when the soil offered little fell trying resistance, he either

this occurred rapidly lost his balance and and fell

(Station lO), or else he ended up in an unstable position to stand up (Station 4). involved other reasons.

The pickup falls

The crewmen's method of hop, bend the knees, reach the crew-

picking up objects was to approach the object, out, grab the object, and stand up.

In two of the pickup falls

man went through the pickup procedure but reached out too far to grab the object. the LMP's fall ALSEPsite, This caused the loss of balance and the fall. at the ALSEP site and the CDR's fall These were At the

at Station 8.

the LMPleaned over until

he was only 15 from the horizontal

in reaching out to pick up the rammer. This was so great a displacement of his center of gravity sl_id and he fell. that when he started to bounce up again his feet at Station 8 was similar. In order to

The CDR's fall

pick up the sample bag he leaned too far to the right

and so when he tried

33

to stand up, he also lost his balance and fell. The unique pickup procedure involves a high degree of coordination amongits components. If, for example, the approach-hop places the astroreach out too far in

naut too far from the object he must necessarily order to get it. tion. Even if

This, in turn, places the astronaut in an unstable posithe approach-hop is "on target," the astronaut must have

an accurate place-memory because the object is often not in view at the momentof pickup. discussed in a later The LMP's fall (The limitations section entitled on visibility of the EVAsuit are

"Hammer etrieval.") R from the other pickup falls.

at Station 4 differed

In this instance the LMPwent to pick up the tongs and in doing so he hoppedand stepped on the tongs with his left foot. Then, when he grabbed

the tongs and started to pull them up, he knocked himself off balance and fell. This fall can be partly attributed to limited visibility and/or

inaccurate visual estimation. The reasons for the CDR's fall evident because he was not in full at the LM during closeout were not too view of the camera. However, since he

lost his balance after he had the brush, it was possible that he reached out too far and was in an unstable position and unable to attain on the loose soil. D. METHODF RECOVERY O In one fall the LMPhelped the CDRget up on his feet (at the LM), in In the other falls the crewtraction

another the CDRhelped the LMP(Station 8). men differed in their methods of recovery.

The LMPwas able to get up by fours, leaning for-

using a rocking motion.

This involved getting on all

ward, pushing back with his hands to acquire enough momentum get to his to

34 knees and then to his feet. The CDR,on the other hand, got to his feet he was

by kneeling upright and then pushing up fast with his feet until standing and stable. E. A SUCCESSFUL PICKUP ANDA PICKUP FALL In order to determine why pickup falls was done on an unsuccessful pickup fall pickup at [Link] GET (ALSEPsite)

occurred, a detailed analysis The

and a successful pickup. and the pickup fall

at [Link]

GET were chosen for comparison because they involved the samecrewman, EVA, terrain and time period. In addition_ the camera angle was good so a

detailed analysis was possible. At the successful pickup, the LMPapproached the HFEprobe, started to pick it up, bounced back up and got in position to try again. On the

second try he approached the probe, hoppedand stepped on his right foot as he knelt on his left knee. He leaned forward and towards the left, knee to pick up the probe with his left hand.

reaching downalong his left After getting

it he bounced back up.

At the unsuccessful pickup, the LMPapproached the rammer, started to pick it up, bounced back up and got in position to try again. On the sec-

ond attempt he approached the rammer, hopped and knelt on both knees, leaned forward and left left and reached out to pick up the rammerwith his

hand. But in order to get the rammerhe had to reach out at least a knee and in reaching so far he bent over until
to the surface. When he attempted and fell.

foot beyond his left

body was almost

his

parallel

to bounce He then used a

back up, his feet slid and he lost his balance rocking motion to get back to his feet.

35

The detailed analysis pointed out that when the LMPpicked up the probe, he leaned forward approximately 25 from vertical the probe just in front of his left knee. and picked up

However, when he picked up the knee and in doing so he This placed the LMPin

rammer, he extended his left

hand beyond his left

leaned forward approximately 75 from vertical.

an unstable position and when he started to bounce back up, his feet slid and he fell. The overextended lean was the major difference between the

successful and the unsuccessful pickup. F. FALLSIN APOLLO ANDAPOLLO 15 16 The falls specifically of craters occurring on Apollo 15 resulted from the soil tripping (soil over rocks (uneven terrain) condition). conditions, at the edge

and tripping

in near failure

The falls

on Apollo 16 were

mainly the result

of the methods used by the crewmento pick up objects On Apollo 16 there were no falls observed

and to deploy the penetrometer. that were caused by tripping G. SUMMARY An analysis of the falls

due to soil conditions.

on Apollo 16 was undertaken to determine the and the methods used in recovering four of these were related to

circumstances associated with falling from the falls. Six falls

were analyzed:

the crewmen's unique method of picking up objects while two occurred during the insertion slightly different of the penetrometer. The recovery operations were

for the two astronauts.

36 Section VII ADDITIONAL NALYSES A A. HAMMER RETRIEVAL Both crewmembers dropped the hammer(geology type) while driving ble core tubes on EVA2. LMPat Station 8: (CDRat Station lO: dou-

core tubes #27 and #32; See Section V of this report

core tubes #29 and #36). analysis.

for core tube driving

The CDRwas able to pick up the hammer

(15 in. long, 3 lb. l-g wt., 0.5 lb. lunar wt.) from the lunar surface at the first attempts. cessfully I.
involved

attempt, while the LMPwas not able to achieve this in four The latter retrieved the hammer y use of the tongs, and sucb

continued driving Suit

Restraints

the core tubes.

of the methods attempts used and other factors

- Analysis retrieval

in these hammer

are revealing

in the insight of pressure-suited in this activity

they provide capability.

into performance

of a task at the threshold restraining factor

The suit is the principal

from at least three aspects: a. Vision. The helmet when allows downward vision to about 6 inches in

front of the subject If the helmet not obstructed. Hasselblad viewing

he is standing

in a normal opening,

"erect" peripheral

position. vision is the from angles by his is

visor assembly A more

is at maximum obstruction

serious

to downward restricts

vision

camera mounted closer

on the RCU which

the crewman

anything

than 2 feet directly assumed forward

in front of him.

Other

of vision positional

for various attitude

positions

by the crewman or to the side. leaned

are affected

in leaning

The CDR, in picking

up the hammer, to retain

forward

up to 35

and to the right up to 40 in order

sight of the hammer as long

37

as possible.
mum.

The LMPleaned forward 17-23 , and to the right

also started his retrieval attempts farther

25-30
away

maxi-

The latter 40-60

from the to have

hammer,

inches vs. 36 inches for the CDR. closed which visual would hamper

The LMP appeared especially

his visor partially down, vision. and not leaning chances. b.

side,

side and position his

The reduced

range of the LMP due to visor

as far forward

and to the right undoubtedly

lessened

Flexibility. requires

The picking the crewman

up of an object

the size and shape

of the hammer

to flex

the suit at the knees and hips of "crouching" on the right the

to the maximum. knee while hammer erable

Both crewmen

used the method

extending

the left leg and leaning To achieve

to the right flexure

to reach

lying on the surface. force which position

maximum

requires

consid-

is difficult

to maintain.

The CDR was able to attain the LMP did not in at to see the LMP's right

the flexed

and reach the surface,

while

least two of the attempts. hand in all attempts.) momentum and facilitate

(It was not possible

The LMP used a jumping flexure. flexing Apparently could

motion

to gain downward of the suit

the restraint

was such that sufficient

not be achieved. as the respective fit, or other contributed heights

It is not known whether

such factors in.), suit their suits

(CDR - 5 ft. 9 in.; LMP - 5 ft. ll-I/2 characteristics results. of the crewmen and/or

physical

to the was)

However, minor

when such a threshold differences

activity

(as this apparently contributors

is attempted, formance. c. tioned,

show up as important

to per-

Conditionin 9.

In a threshold are magnified

activity,

as previously While

menprecise

small differences

in the performance.

38

data are not available, erable time in testing

it has been established that the CDRspent considsuit mobility and operational limits, and also

trained in the KC-135at I/6-g in picking up objects. conditioning trieval and training

Included in these

exercises were numerousperformances of a reThis experience was a positive factor in

such as hammerpickup.

the successful retrieval 2.

Method Analysis

on the lunar surface.

- Given the suit restrictions the methods and relative amount

of training interest. a. sun.

referred

to above,

used by the crewmen

are of

CDR.

The CDR got in position 35 while making

3 feet from the hammer and down two quick hopping motions to move

He leaned forward a few inches. forward

forward extended

Then he jumped

forward

so that his left foot was knee touched the surface crouch, and

and to the left and his right At this point

5 inches from the hammer. leaned enabled

he was at maximum The forward length lean,

right about 40 to reach him to keep the hammer Having gained is continued

the hammer.

and side lean of time before jump, and crouch, that the of

in view the maximum momentum grasping through

the grasp.

forward after

this movement
_

the hammer.

It appears

forward

motion was necessary

to keep from falling,

such was the extent momentum,

lean, both forward a stronger to I/6-g. effect

and to the side. on the recovery

Since mass governs grasp of hammer

this had reduced

after

than weight,

The CDR went from 0.7 ft./sec, nearly straight forward,

at point of grasp indicating

to 1.5 ft./sec. at-

in 1.5 seconds, tained.

the acceleration

The average

velocity

for the entire

performance Timing,

was 1.25 ft./sec., coordination and

the 5 foot distance adaptability

being covered

in 4 seconds.

to suit, lunar conditions,

etc., must

be considered

as critiwith

cal to success.

The CDR used a continuous,

"swooping"

type of motion,

39

the grasp at the low point of the crouch, and accelerating librium and normal position. b.

to regain equi-

LMP. The LMPpositioned himself in a line and 40 inches away

He then took a short even

from the hammer,cross sun, and leaned forward 17.

hop and a jump forward with the hammer. with his left foot forward

and to the left, even with

The right knee touched

the surface,

the hammer. the

The LMP leaned 25 to the right, grasp attempt, back 15 inches which failed. right,

but there was no forward back,

lean during

He then boucned

his left foot moving to move back about were in the and more

12 inches back, attempt.

then continued other

30 inches for the second same pattern, pronounced. and between except

The three grasp

attempts

the jump to attain

position

was higher

On the last attempt, the hammer

the LMP moved

in the opposite vertically

direction

and tube, then straightened

and proceeded

on to the right. It would appear in view because he jumped ward that the LMP had difficulty forward keeping the hammer While for-

he did not lean far enough

or to the right. or continue

to flex the suit, he did not "follow a forward lean.

through"

to counteract 3. Conclusion hammer were

- The methods different

used by the two cre_nen

to pick up a similar (I098

dropped BTU/hr.

but the metabolic Analysis

rates were

for CDR, I128 for LMP). flexing

indicates

that this activity and to the right foot extended, forward to

requires maximum see the object, particularly, facilitate

of the suit,

leaning

forward opposite

deep crouch

on one knee with motion

but

continuous

forward

to counterbalance

lean and

return

to normal

standing

position.

The forward

and side lean as the move

are essential

to keep the object

in view as long as possible

40 is madetoward it. ence and training coordination This type of activity also requires sufficient experiand

to give the crewmencomplete feel of the effort

neededfor the performance.,

B. TWO MANVERSUS NE O MANPERFORMANCE SIMILARTASK(DOUBLE OF A CORE TUBE SAMPLING) I.

Purpose The purpose tive activity, plished 2. of this analysis is to determine if this representaaccom-

double

core tube sampling,

can be more efficiently of two men.

by one man or by the combined Sources of Data core tube sampling

efforts

The double Apollo Apollo 15 mission 15 mission,

was performed

two times

on the

and four times on the Apollo the two astronauts On Apollo

16 mission.

On the worked together by

on the lunar surface 16, however,

to accomplish the LMP alone. able.

this task.

the task was performed

Of the four performances

by the LMP, only

two were analyz-

In the analysis not included. it made 3.

of this task, the part that required is a soil dependent performances activity, comparable.

hammering eliminating

was

Since hammering

the double core Results

tube sampling

The data for this analysis the Apollo 16 performances

appear

in Table

lO.

On the average, in terms the clock two crewenergy 15.

of this task

required

34% less time, However, because

of total man-minutes, time on Apollo

than the Apollo

15 performances. vs. 8.25 min.)

15 was 24% less simultaneously. (BTU/hr.)

(6.27 min. Also,

men were working expenditure rate

with

two men, the individual

was about

I0% less on the average

for Apollo

41

Table lO DOUBLE ORE C TUBESAMPLING APOLLO (TWO 15 MAN TASK)ANDAPOLLO (ONEMAN 16 TASK) Trials Clock Time (Bin.) Man-Minutes (min.) Avg. Tot. Energy Rate (BTU/hr.) Energy Cost CDR LMP Total
(BTU) (BTU) (BTU)

Apollo 15 (Two Men ) #1 #2 Average Apollo 16 (One Man) #1 #2 Average

IWeighted Average Therefore, the CDR has no energy

6.71 5.83 6.27

13.42 II.66 12.54

925 803 9031

I13.3 78.2 95.7

93.6 77.6 85.6

206.9 155.8 181.3

[Link] 6.46 8.28

[Link] 6.46 8.28

1089 839 9911

2 2 2

183.1 90.3 136.7

183.1 90.3 136.7

2This task was performed by the LMP. cost charged to this activity.

However,

the total energy cost

(BTU) for the Apollo of 24% less energy

16 performances required

of

this task amounted Apollo 4.

to an average

than did the

15 performances. Conclusion The single crewman performance during the double cost core tube samthan the two crew-

pling required man performance

fewer man-minutes of the same task.

and a lower energy

42

Section Vlll CONCLUDING STATEMENTS The research presented in this report represents a varied approach to the evaluation of astronaut lunar performance. outcome of our basic approach -- non-intrusive basic source was TV kinescopes. astronaut activity particular interest This was an inevitable acquisition of data. The

Our data consisted of those elements of Of

which we could see, or document by voice record. were those activities

which were repeated either in enabled us to Natural

a single EVAor over several EVAs. Repeated activities evaluate both the consistencies and variations

in performance.

changes in conditions provided an analogue to the experimental intrusion planned by an investigator. applied natural research. Astronaut mobility was evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively. This report, then, represents essentially,

The two astronauts of Apollo 16 exhibited two sharply divergent methods of locomotion: ing" activity interest one a traditional walking mode, the other a skipping, "canter-

with one foot always preceding the other.

Of significant

was the fact that both modeswere performed at equivalent meta-

bolic expenditure rates (BTU/hr.). Whenlunar performance was comparedwith the last l-g training manceof the sametask, a numberof significant perfor-

results were obtained.

Lunar performance took, longer but was done at a reduced metabolic rate with the result that the metabolic cost in BTUwas only slightly lower

for task performance on the moon. Metabolic adaptation over EVAsand performance trials exhibited for three different was clearly

types of tasks ranging from sedentary (Rid-

ing the LRV) to very energetic (Hammering).

43

As on Apollo 15, there were several falls such falls

on Apollo 16.

On Apollo 15 Falls on

were strongly associated with the lunar terrain.

Apollo 16, on the other hand, seemedto be related to the unique method of object retrieval Additional and to penetrometer operation.

analyses confirmed the soundnessof the decision to utilize

one man rather than two (as on Apollo 15) in double core tube sampling. The single crewmanrecuired fewer man-minutes and a lower energy expenditure (BTU)than the two-crewmanperformance of the sametask. The resJlts obtained seemparticularly relevant to future mission

planning, especially

for missions in which astronauts would have to oper-

ate under reduced gravity conditions.

44

Section IX RECOMMENDATIONS A. Since the method the astronauts utilized for object retrieval seems

promising, a training

program (KC-135) should be initiated to use it.

for those astro-

nauts of Apollo 17 who might be inclined B. The slipping

of the hammer(or any other object used extensively

by

the astronauts) could be eliminated by the application

of Velcro to glove

and hammer. In addition a lanyard attached to the hammer,encircled about the glove, would prevent the fall of the hammerto the lunar surface.

45

APPENDIX A

EVATIMELINES- CDR& LMP

46

CDR- EVA#I Event

Start EVA Watch Pre-Egress Egress Familiarization Deploy TV Camera Offload LRV Set Up LRV Checkout LRV Offload Far U.V. Camera Load LRV Flag Deploy ALSEP Prep. Reset Far U.V. Camera Deploy Cosmic Ray Exp. Trav. Prep. Trav. to ALSEP Site 3 ALSEP Station Tasks: ALSEP Site Prep. Connect RTG Deploy PSE Offload Mortar Package Remove LSM Erect C/S & Assemble & Align Antenna Deploy LSM Deploy Geophones Thumper Geophone Experiment Setup Mortar Package Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #1 Station #1 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] 2.57 12.52 12.48 4.68 2.12 16.78 8.88 13.00 17.00 20.73 3.82 9.28

GET I

AT 2

GET I
[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

AT 2

7.63 3.33 1.73 9.42 12.37 5.88 6.90 18.37 20.68 7.13 4.70 7.08 1.02 1.75 ll.70

[Link] [Link]

123.87 27.40

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

4.57 8.28 32.37 4.96

[Link]

50.18

IGET is in days:hours:minutes:seconds fic activity. 2AT is in decimal 3Unless otherwise minutes noted,

and represents

the end point of a speci-

and represents all traverses

elapsed

time.

are via LRV.

47

Event Trav, to Station Station #2 Tasks: #2

GET

AT

GET [Link] :I0

aT 7.08

Geol, Prep. LPM Measurement Tray. Prep. Trav. to Station #3 Station #3 Tasks: Photo Prep. LRV "Grand Prix" Driving Mortar Pack Activation Tray. Prep, Trav. to LM EVA Closeout: Station Prep. Closeout Activities Reset Far U.V. Camera Redeploy CRE Closeout Activities Reset Far U.V. Camera EVA Termination

[Link] [Link] [Link]

3.47 21.20 2.28

[Link] [Link]

26.95 6.12

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

2.23 2,93 6.62 1.98 [Link] [Link] 13.77 2.68

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

3,00 2.38 2.27 3.97 30.93 5,00

[Link] [Link] EVA #I -

47.55 6.83 7 hr. 12.13 min.

Total

48

LMP -

EVA #I

Event Start EVA Watch

GET

AT

GET [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

aT

Pre-Egress Egress Familiarization Offload LRV Set Up LRV LM Inspection Load LRV

a:_d Pans

ALSEP Prep. Flag Deploy ALSEP Prep, ALSEP Trav. (Walking Carrying ALSEP Barbell) _LSEP Tasks: HFE Deploy Drill Core Sample Assist in Geophone Deploy ALSEP Photos Drill Core Disassemble Trav. Prep. and Doc. Samples Tray. to Station #1 Station #1 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Tray. to Station #2 Station #2 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Photo Pan and 500mm Photos Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #3 Station #3 Tasks: Photo Prep. and Photo CDR/ LRV "Grand Prix" Tray. Prep. Trav. to LM (Walking) EVA Closeout EVA Termination

11.63 1.15 10.07 11,50 5.45 10.02 32.60 8.52 2,97 6.97 8.95

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

38.63 32.82 6.75 22.68 7.83 25.03

[Link] [Link]

133.75 27.40

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

6.68 6.40 32.13 3.23

[Link] [Link]

48.45 8.98

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

2.73 5.83 16.03 2.18

[Link] [Link]

26.78 6.12

[Link] [Link]

5.17 1.93

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

7.10 1.65 36.80 25.28

Total

EVA

#1 - 7 hr. 12.13 min.

49

CDR- EVA#2 Event Start EVAWatch Pre-Egress Egress Reset Far U.V. Camera Trav. Prep. Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Reset Far U.V. Camera Trav. Prep. Tray. to Station #4 Station #4 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Geol. Description Rake Samples Doc. Samples Trenching Doc. Samples Rake Samples Trav. Prep. Tray. to Station #5 Station #5 Tasks: Geol. Prep. RakeSamples LPMMeasurement& Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #6 Station #6 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #8 Station #8 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples Doc. Samples LRVTroubleshooting and Repositioning Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #9 Station #9 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. GET AT GET
[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

AT
5.14 2.53 16.02 5.93 7.33 6.18 1.50 1.35 43.83

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

[Link]

4.42 3.20 7.25 11.42 2.50 13.60 4.98

5.73 [Link] [Link]I0:58 53.10 8.63

[Link] [Link] 06:01 53:42 [Link]

5.38 25.10 12.25 4.00

[Link] [Link]

46.73 I0.57

[Link] [Link] [Link]

4.03 12.15 1.80

[Link] [Link]

17.98 15.00

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

3.45 8.57 6.45 8.18 25.67 13.52

[Link] [Link]

65.84 6.72

[Link] [Link] [Link]

4.60 21.53 8.25

[Link]

34.38

50

Event Trav. to Station #10 Station #10 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Double Core Doc. Samples and Photo Pan Trav. Prep. Trav. to LM EVA Closeout: Reset Far U.V. Camera Closeout Activities Reset Far U.V. Camera Closeout Activities EVA Termination

GET

AT

GET [Link]

AT 26.67

[Link] [Link]II [Link] [Link]

5.58 9.75 I0.95 .70

[Link] [Link]

26.98 2.30

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

3.47 22.12 1.60 7.32

[Link] [Link]

36.81 3.93

Total

EVA #2 - 7 hr.23.15

min.

51

LMP- EVA#2 Event Start EVAWatch Pre-Egress Egress Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #4 Station #4 Tasks: Geol. Prep. 500mm Photos Rake Samples Penetrometer Double Core Rake Samples Photo Pan Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #5 Station #5 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #6 Station #6 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #8 Station #8 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Double Core LRVTroubleshooting & Walk to a NewSampling Site Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #9 Station #9 Tasks: Geol. Prep. 500mm Photos Single Core Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. GET AT GET
[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] 3.70 3.88 7.28 13.05 ll.70 7.57 1.74 3.33

aT
8.63 1.43 37.05 42.70

[Link] [Link]ll:16

52.25 9.78

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

5.77 24.27 9.47 6.02

[Link] [Link]

45.53 II .43

[Link] [Link] [Link]

3.90 12.33 1.52

[Link] [Link]

17.75 15.28

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

2.14 18.63 4.78 26.77 12.18

[Link] [Link]

64.50 8.05

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

1.55 1.40 17.77 5.20 7.78

[Link]

33.70

52

Event
Trav. to Station #10 Station #10 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Penetrometer Trav. Prep. Trav. to LM (Walking) EVA Cl oseout EVA Termination

GET

AT

GET [Link]

AT 27.35

[Link] [Link] [Link]

7.50 15.90 2.42

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

25.82 .80 26.37 14.73

Total

EVA #2 - 7 hr. 23.15 min.

S3

CDR - EVA #3

Event Start EVA Watch Pre-Egress Egress LRV Load Trav, Prep. Reset Far U.V. Camera Tray. Prep. Tray. to Station #II Station #11 Tasks: Geol, Prep. Geol. Description & Samples Doc. Samples Rake Samples Doc. Samples at "House Rock" Samples and Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #]3 Station #13 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples LPM Measurements Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #10' Station #10' Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples Double Core Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Tray. to LM EVA Closeout: Closeout Activities Reset Far U.V. Camera Closeout Activities Retrieve Cosmic Ray Exp. Closeout Activities Park LRV Closeout Activities LPM Measurements Closeout Activities Remove Far U.V. Camera Film Mag. Closeout Activities EVA Termination

GET

AT

GET [Link] [Link] [Link]g:45 [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

AT

8.75 3.70 20.82 3.17 .85 40.57

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

3.53 7.77 22.83 21.70 14.62 13.37

[Link] [Link]

83.82 8.68

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

4.06 5.80 15.37 3.67 [Link] [Link] 28.90 29.08

[Link] [Link] 07:0l:38:27 [Link] [Link]

6.40 13.82 2.60 4.27 5.93

[Link] [Link]

33.02 2.43

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

4.18 1.78 6.22 I0.92 8.53 4.43 I0.30 ]0.88 13.05 .80 5.48

[Link] [Link]

76.58 3.67

Total

EVA #3 - 5 hn 44.03

min.

54 LMP- EVA#3 Event Start EVAWatch Pre-Egress Egress LRVLoad and Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #ll Station #ll Tasks: Geol. Prep. Photo Pan and Geol. Description Doc. Samples 500mm Photos Doc. Samples Rake Samples Doc. Samples at "House Rock" Samples and Trav. Prep. Tray. to Station #13 Station #13 Tasks: Geol. Prep. Photo Pan and Geol. Description RakeSamples Doc. Samples Trav. Prep. Trav. to Station #10' Station #10' Tasks: Geol. Prep. Rake Samples Double Core Tray. Prep. Trav. to LM (Walking) EVACloseout EVATermination GET AT GET [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]
[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]l [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] 3.72 18.53 5.30 3.32 13.92 ll.05 14.62 13.37

AT 12.07 .55 24.55 40.68

[Link] [Link]

83.82 8.68

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

l .28 3.98 4.60 14.56 4.48

[Link] 07:0l:15:38

28.90 29.08

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

5.23 13.89 8.00 I .I0

[Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

28.18 .87 74.93 II.72

Total

EVA #3 - 5 hr. 44.03 min.

55

APPENDIX B

DETAILED ANALYSES OFTHREE MOBILITYSEt_MENTS

56

EVA1 - ALSEP Traverse

Detailed below. II. Segment to adjust l- Move from LM toward ALSEP Left foot leading, Distance - I0.2 ft. site with ALSEP up soil. package. Stopped analysis of certain segments of this traverse are given l, Section

Reference

time refers

to the cumulative

time in Table

package.

kicked

Time - 4.75 sec. Rate - 2.15 ft./sec. Segment 2 - LMP started, after stop to adjust foot first. package. forward.

Initial stride,

with right

Leaned

Distance

- 1.6 ft.

Time - 2.1 sec. Rate - .76 ft./sec. Continue to move with ALSEP Distance Time Avg. Max. Segment to site portions This package.

- 8.7 ft.

- 5.3 sec. Rate - 1.64 ft./sec. Rate - 2.08 ft./sec. field of view while carrying ALSEP package but

3 - LMP entered

location. were

This was a continuation

of segments

l and 2 above,

lost due to TV camera ends with ALSEP Package

not following #2 coming

in synchronization. to the

segment

loose and dropping

surface. A significant quently trailed feature of this Segment 3 is that the left foot freColumn 5 in the

the right in a "canter"

type of motion.

57

following

table shows the respective right

and left

foot distances as

each was placed in advance of the other. distance for the left foot.

Note the generally shorter step

Successive stride I lengths, times, and rates, plus the foot advance distances, are as shown. Col. 1 Step I. Right 2. Left 3. Right 4. Left 5. Right 6. 7. 8. 9. lO. Left Right Left Right Left (stop) Col. 2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Stride Distance (ft.) Time (sec.) Rate (ft./sec.) 1.60 .67 2.4 2.73 1.46 1.9 3.15 1.50 2.1 2.12 1.34 1.6 2.18 1.38 1.6 (ALSEPRTGpackage starts to fall.) 2.18 1.36 1.6 .87 1.09 0.8 .80 1.17 0.7 1.28 1.28 l.O 2.75 1.16 2.4 (ALSEPRTGpackage hits surface.) Col. 5 Step Distance (ft.) 1.60 1.13 1.92 0.20 1.98 0.18 0.69 [Link] 1.17 1.58

Summary Segment3 data: of Distance - 10.58 ft. Time - 6.49

sec.

(based on left

foot)

Rate - 1.63 ft./sec. LMP stops with left foot on surface. does kicking type motion to about a 35-40 angle LMP

Right leg reacts,

to front and side, and comes continues

back to surface falling

in about

one (1) sec. with

to react to RTG package

at this point

the left LMP returned

foot moving

out to his left, and by a bouncing

type motion.

IStride:

Distance

moved by one foot from one stopped

position

to the next.

58 both feet to surface at about the sameposition they were in just before

"stop" (#10) shownabove. This reaction took about 1.5 seconds. Another 3.5 seconds were used by LMPto regain balance, makea 90 turn to his right to face package, and prepare to approach it. reflect the effect of the

The last three or four steps (#7-I0 incl.) RTGpackage dropping off. 1.6 and 2.0 ft./sec., evident.

The pace up to this point was averaging between was

but considerable bouncing, and kicking of soil,

The load of 41.5 pounds moonweight (ALSEPpackages of approxireduced the velocity and mobility of the of

mately 21 Ibs. each) evidently

LMP. This event (package dropping), however, demonstrates the ability crewmento react promptly, and without disability, EVA2 - CDRTraverse
Down Rim of Cinco B Crater GET) both crewmen 135 feet south

to anomalies in load.

At 2.25 hours into EVA 2 (start at [Link] were at Station (at 7 o'clock) 4, Cinco B, at a location of the LRV which sample

approximately

is inside of the crater. and started

The crewmen this

had just completed mobility ]. segment General

collection, Detail

for the LRV, when

began.

data are as follows: LRV (and camera) increased from just over ridge dis-

- CDR moves a curving 15%.

toward

of crater,

making

path which

the straight-line

tance by an estimated lO with the surface with

The path was down a slope of approximately to the CDR's sizes up to left about 3 feet traverse lO . The area

also sloping

was covered 2.

rocks of various - Station

across. from a point

Location

4, Cinco

B Crater,

approximately sloping

135 feet lO .

to the south

(7 o'clock)

of the LRV to the LRV,

downhill,

59

3.

Mode- Walk, generally even steps, with characteristic

widespread

stance and a bouncing motion. These tools,

Carrying rake and gnomon, one in each hand. had to be held by

about 32 and 38 inches long respectively,

the CDR with his arms extended almost horizontally 4.

in front of him.

Rate - Distance traveled was 16g feet in 76 seconds at 2.22 ft./sec. or an average

Took 81 steps for an average distance of 2.09 ft./step, stride 5. of 4.18 feet.
Conmaent - The average rate is consistent

with other walk

traverses than

of

longer distances. the hopping-type

CDR used a more conventional pace used by most astronauts. both fairly long,

pace, rather

The fact

that the CDR had ef him,

to carry the rake and gnomon, probably slowed

held out in front

the rate of traverse. slopes caused

It is apparent

that this and the degree of cauarea, while

rocky downhill

the CDR to exercise level,

a greater

tion in this traverse not carrying might were anything.

than over a nominal, Under the latter

uncluttered

conditions, the camera

a 15% to 20% increase at the same time motion, (both with

be attained.

The LMP came toward

in the picture),

and used a distinct

hop or canter-type up more

one foot always

in front.

The latter kicked

soil than the CDR, with many of his steps.

who used the I/6-g to advantage It is apparent depending that both modes

by using a "bounce" of traverse

may be used effectively,

on the individual

crewmember. to House Rock at Station II II, the crewrock The

EVA 3 - CDR on Traverse

At 2 hours and 20 minutes men traversed

into EVA 3, while collection

at Station

from the site of sample

#388 to a large

known as House Rock. distance traveled

The GET was [Link]

at start direction,

of traverse. across

was 258 feet in a northeast

relatively

60

smooth, level terrain,

which contained scattered large rocks.

There was

a gradual downwardslope near the rock.

The CDR followed a "wandering" distance. The nature of

route which added about 15%to the straight-line this terrain presented no mobility difficulty

and the CDR was able to move

in a walking-type gait at about 3.0 ft./sec. 1.

475-500 Location - Station 11, approaching of the LRV. #388, House Rock, located about

feet to the northeast

The path followed located about

by the CDR

(and LMP) was from the site of sample east of the I_RV. 2. Mod___eeCDR used walk, motion.

220 feet north-

with generally resulted

even steps,

widespread

stance, and

and bouncing breaking

This mode

in a minimum

of soil kicking or other

of stride.

The CDR also was not carrying

any tools

equipment. 3. Rate - Distance traveled was 297 feet in 99 seconds for an average The average this trav-

rate of 3.0 ft./sec.

Average

length of step was 2.28 feet. Metabolic

length of stride was 4.56 feet. erse was 1112 BTU. (distance, motion, segment 4.

rate for CDR during essentially

The LMP accomplished

the same traverse type of

rate, etc.), resulted

but used more of the "hop" or "canter" in more dirt kicking. His metabolic

which was

rate for this

1185 BTU/hr. - This traverse represented distance. the highest mobility rate yet

Comment

maintained

for any significant

Here the conditions to reach

were favor-

able to such a traverse, nificant geological

and the incentive

one of the most sigthe successful are just about nor-

sites of any EVA, also influenced that the BTU rates

accomplishment. mal for walking

It is noteworthy activity.

61

APPENDIX C

TIME COMPARISONSSUB-TASKS OF

62
TIME COMPARISON& OF SUB-TASKS

Sub-task

(Commander)

I-G Training 2/24 3/29 4/II

EVA 1 4/21

Ratio

(A)
driveLRV

(B)

(C)

(D)

(D/C)
2.04

EVA Data Source

Checkout

LRV and test N/D 3.37 3.20 6.541 V

Mount

Offload I.

Far

U.V.

Camera LM and site on 1.75 1.40 3.80 1.90 4.25 1.41 2.30 V V 4.15 3.90 3.20 2.60 4.80 l .85

Remove camera from carry to deployment Deploy surface Level camera and aim

2. 3.

& battery camera

Flag I. 2. 3.

Deploy Unstow Deploy and assemble flag flag 2.10 .55 1.36 2.00 .35 1.55 1.80 .55 .85 3.58 .92 l .12 1.99 1.67 1.32 TV V TV

on surface at flag

Photography

Connect I.

RTG RTG cable to central (C/S). 5.933 2.58 1.45 V

Connect station

2.90

2.20

2.30

2.

Remove subpallet and PSE stool from Package 2.

3.70

4.95

3.60

5.21

VTV

ZCDR did considerably

more driving

inflight

than during and more

training. than

21nflight aiming procedures were different the aiming procedures used in training. 3CDR commented that cable to the C/S. N/D - No Data V - Voice TV - Television NOTE: All times are in decimal minutes. he had considerable

time-consuming

difficulty

connecting

the RTG

63

TIME COMPARISONS OF SUB-TASKS

(continued)

Sub-task

(Commander)

I-G 2/24 (A)

Training 3/29 (B)

4/I 1 (C)

EVA 1 4/21

Ratio (D/C)

(D)

EVA Data Source

Deploy I. 2.

PSE Deploy and level PSE thumper 1.90 1.45 .90 2.48 VTV 6.40 4.45 4. O0 2.12

Remove & deploy geophone (T/G)

Offload

Mortar

Fackage mortar 2.40 2.45 2. O0 2.38 1.19 TV

Remove and deploy package (M/P)

Assemble

and Ali9n C/S

Antenna .50 N/D .45 .98 2.18

Activate

Deploy I, 2.

LSM Carry Deploy LSM to deploy site N/D N/D 1.85 3.55 1.55 2.50 1.80 4.72 1.16 1.89 TV VTV

and align

LSM

Active

Seismic T/G firing

Experiment N/D II.I0 12.00 14.95 s 1.24 VTV

Set I. 2. 3.

Up Mortar

Package site & N/D N/D base N/D 1.40 1.60 1.05 I.I0 .95 1.75 6.27 6 1.76 3.75 5.70 1.85 2.14 VTV VTV VTV

Carry M/P to deploy set on surface Deploy Place M/P M/P in

4CDR had difficulty with the T/G cable reel tension. (The tension was so great that it caused the C/S to move when the CDR pulled on the T/G.) Slnflight the CDR had to wait for the LMP to stop moving before every thumper firing. During training this procedure was not rigorously followed. 6CDR had considerable problems deploying the M/P base legs.

64

TIME COMPARISONSSUB-TASKS OF (continued)

l-G Training 2/24 3/29 4/I l EVA l 4/21 Ratio (D/C) EVA Data Source

Sub-task (Lunar Module Pilot)

LM Inspection Photo LM & Pans

(A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

5.52

5.15

3.15

I0.021

3.24

Load LRV I. 2. Load LCRU & HGA on LRV Load & configure on LRV TV camera N/D 4.52 4.55 5.623 1.24 9.83 II.93 13.10 12.832 98

Deploy

HFE Obtain & configure ALSD 3.65 N/D 3.68 5.27 l .43 TV

Bore Hole I.

1 Drilling bore stems onto N/D into N/D 3.88 2.34 l .20s .51 TV N/D .g5 3.444 3.63 TV

Assemble drill

2.

Drill Ist bore stem surface

3.

Assemble 2nd bore stem onto drill

N/D

N/D

1.37

3.204,. '

2.34

TV

ILMP was required to take many more practiced in training. 2LMP had difficulty locking

photographs

than was planned

and

the HGA dish. at 12:00/50'. Inflight the TV

31n training the TV camera was on a tripod camera was obtained from the MESA. WLMP had considerable chuck. difficulty inserting

the bore stem into the drill

SThe differences in soil characteristics the lunar surface make these activities

between the training nencomparable.

site and