Spacesuit Portable Life Support System Breadboard (PLSS 1.0) Development and Test Results

A multi-year effort has been carried out at the Johnson Space Center to develop an advanced EVA PLSS design intended to further the current state of the art by increasing operational flexibility, reducing consumables, and increasing robustness. This multi-year effort has culminated in the construction and operation of PLSS 1.0, a test rig that simulates full functionality of the advanced PLSS design. PLSS 1.0 integrates commercial off-the-shelf hardware with prototype technology development components, including the primary and secondary oxygen regulators, ventilation loop fan, Rapid Cycle Amine (RCA) swingbed, and Spacesuit Water Membrane Evaporator (SWME). PLSS 1.0 was tested from June 17th through September 30th, 2011. Testing accumulated 233 hours over 45 days, while executing 119 test points. An additional 164 hours of operational time were accrued during the test series, bringing the total operational time for PLSS 1.0 testing to 397 hours. Specific PLSS 1.0 test objectives assessed during this testing include: (1) Confirming prototype components perform in a system level test as they have performed during component level testing, (2) Identifying unexpected system-level interactions (3) Operating PLSS 1.0 in nominal steady-state EVA modes to baseline subsystem performance with respect to metabolic rate, ventilation loop pressure and flow rate, and environmental conditions (4) Simulating nominal transient EVA operational scenarios (5) Simulating contingency EVA operational scenarios (6) Further evaluating prototype technology development components Successful testing of the PLSS 1.0 provided a large database of test results that characterize system level and component performance. With the exception of several minor anomalies, the PLSS 1.0 test rig performed as expected. Documented anomalies and observations include: (1) Ventilation loop fan controller issues at high fan speeds (near 70,000 rpm, whereas the fan speed during nominal operations would be closer to 35,000 rpm) (2) RCA performance at boundary conditions, including carbon dioxide and water vapor saturation events, as well as reduced vacuum quality (3) SWME valve anomalies (4 documented cases where the SWME failed to respond to a control signal or physically jammed, preventing SWME control) (4) Reduction of SWME hollow fiber hydrophobicity and significant reduction of the SWME degassing capability after significant accumulated test time.