- My name is Grier Wilt, and I'm an EVA flight controller, and instructor, for the International Space Station. - [Interviewer] And does that, you talk about kinda what that involves with EVA, and your role in making sure those go up safely. - Yeah, so EVA is just a fancy word for, it's an acronym for Extravehicular Activity. It's a fancy word for a space walk. And what space walks entail are, well, we can do space walks for multiple reasons. One is to install a new module or element, or experiment on the space station. Or to fix and repair something; remove and replace an element, for example. So, my specific role within that, and as an EVA flight control officer, is to plan space walks. So, say we know when a new docking adaptor is going to the space station. We would figure out, okay, what are the dimensions for this docking adaptor? What's all gonna be required for it? Are there fluid lines attached to it? Electrical connectors? And we plan all of that out, kind of on paper first, then we dive and plan the actual choreography for it, and then get assigned crew members, and train astronauts how to perform that specific space walk. And when the astronauts finally launch the space station, and execute space walk on orbit, I'll be in Mission Control supporting their space walk, and troubleshooting if anything comes up. - [Interviewer] So, the last 15 years or so have really kind of been a golden age for space walks, because you had the space shuttle program, and it was necessitated for them to do lots of EVAs, to build the station. And now, there's fairly regular EVAs on station to maintain it, and upgrade it. What have we learned about, kind of the risks of EVAs, or what have we got better at, with all of that experience in the last decade or so? - The space station now, it's relatively full-assembly. We have some small modifications, but I think people forget that the space station itself was built robotically, and with humans literally taking large, bedroom-sized elements, and bolting them, and forming the space station. So, the space station was built by humans in space, performing space walks. In the shuttle days, we would know exactly what space walk we were doing, right? A shuttle was carrying up an element to the space station. So, we would know what that element looks like, we would know what crew was gonna be on that specific shuttle, so we would have a lot of time to train for each space walk required. Now we're moving into ISS, assembly complete, and we don't necessarily know when, you know, the crew might be up there, but the hardware that they're gonna install launches on a different vehicle. So, it might come up later, and that crew's not even there anymore. And things fail on the space station, it's getting older. So, we have to kind of change our training mentality. The crew members no longer know exactly know what they're gonna do, if at all, so we had to go in and assess our training plan. When International Space Station crews are selected, we have about two years to train them in advance, and we train them primarily on, they have nine training events in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab, and we try to hit space walks that cover a wide range of potential space walks. So, what are some critical elements on the space station that could fail, that they might have to remove and replace? And so they're prepared for that. One example for it is a pump module that sends ammonia to the radiators to cool the space station. So, how to, how to remove and replace those and be prepared for that. And then, as we get closer to the mission, if we have an idea of what they might be installing, what specific hardware, we try to train them on that. So, the overall goal, both for ourselves, and the ground as flight controllers, and the crew, is to be able to be trained generically enough to handle a wide variety of things. So, exploring all of the different interfaces, fluid Qds, electrical connectors and bolts, any attachment mechanisms that might be unique. Getting an opportunity to view all of those, but being flexible, and being able to say, "okay, I haven't seen this specific element that I'm changing out and fixing, but I've at least seen something similar, and I have the skills that I'm able to perform this task, and complete it successfully." So, it's more skills-based now, versus task-based training. - [Interviewer] I previously interviewed Zeb Scoville, when he was the Task Replete of the NBL. - Yeah. - [Interviewer] And he explained, as part of talking about the NBL, how some of the training there requires breaking down even basic assumptions of how you know, your kinematics work, and microgravity, and you have to, even traversing from one segment of the station of the other can be extremely confusing, and so they deal, at first at least, in training, you know, not just going here to here, but you have to move your arm this way. You know, "the motion as you traverse has to be like this." Can you talk a little bit here about kind of the assumptions that you have to throw away when you're maneuvering outside the station, and how the training leads up to that? - Yeah, that's great question. Especially, we don't have a perfect analog to microgravity here on Earth, right? So, we have to augment our training with a variety of simulations. So, one is the Neutral Buoyancy Lab, it's the huge swimming pool that we perform practice space walks in. But unfortunately, that still has a element of gravity. So, while the space suit itself is floating in the pool, they're effectively either standing, or laying in the suit. And when they're moving on the space station in the pool, there's still drag. So they don't have that momentum build up like they would on orbit. So, we have to train them first just generically, "okay, you know, this is how you translate, hand over hand translation." But then we'll also perform mass operations, where we do partial gravity simulation, where we, the crew member isn't suited, but they're in normal clothes, they're suspended horizontally, and perform tasks where they understand what momentum might feel like, right? If they're holding onto a 1,700 pound box, an ammonia tank assembly, for an example, you don't want to be translating quickly with that, 'cause as soon as you stop, it could rip away from you. So, we have to train in virtual reality, partial gravity, in the pool, to kind of get, and you hope that through all of this training, you get a holistic image of what it will be like. And on orbit, yeah, I mean the smallest wrist movements, I keep using my hands because when you go on a space walk, you aren't walking with your feet, you're walking with your hands. There's a series of hand rails on the outside of the space station, which they traverse on to get to their work sites. And a simple roll of the wrist could send their head into something. So it's reminding them, and trying to prepare them for that in advance. - [Interviewer] And this is knowledge, how these kinematics work, how your movement work, this is knowledge that's been gained over a tremendous amount of time, right? - Absolutely. So, this knowledge has been built up over time. When Ed White performed his first space walk he was floundering about, and didn't have much control over his motions. Neil Armstrong had similar feedback. When you're in space, you really, you can't get that training on the ground. Or at least at the time they didn't have that. So then they looked at, "what are some analogs we might have on Earth that we could practice in?" So they moved to the swimming pool to help again, prepare for that, and get the crew members at least adjusted, and familiarize themselves with what motions they'll have to perform on orbit. - [Interviewer] Over the course of the past 10 or 15 years, have you been able to retire risk? Because, where I'm going with this is, you know, back when they were considering the design of the space station, I think that they wanted to try and minimize the number of EVAs, because with the design of the station. Because they were concerned about, obviously it's dangerous when you go outside in a space suit. But, have you been able to retire the risk, or sort of gain a better handle on risk assessment of sending crew out during an EVA? - Unfortunately we can't ever eliminate risk. And yes, we wanted to, once assembly was complete on the space station, we wanted to minimize the amount of space walks we did. It would just be, again, for minor modifications if things came up, and for repair. But we did realize that the space station's getting older, like anything in your home, even. You know, your refrigerator goes out, or your washing machine. So, we have to adjust. The failures we expected aren't always what we see. Sometimes there's failures that we didn't foresee, or happen sooner than we anticipated. So, we always have that risk, and we are still performing a fair amount of space walks. I mean, this year I think we've already had six or so. We have two more planned at the end of the year. That's almost a shuttle a year, when we did have space walks planned. So, risk is always inherent, and we always have to plan for it. We've kind of moved to the mindset, you hear it around the office, "you don't know what you don't know." And, with Apollo, with any accident, sometimes people have mentioned, you know, there was a failure of imagination. So, maybe it's made us not fun in our personal lives because we're always thinking of what could fail next, but it's been great training for us to always think of "what's the next thing that could happen?" And by doing that we've been very prepared to handle the things that come up that we didn't specifically predict, but that we at least thought through similar things, and can be prepared for that. - [Interviewer] I understand that you've done some work, or some thinking about kinda the parallels between where NASA is now, and in terms of developing hardware to go into deep space, and where we were in terms of Apollo 1. What have you learned from that? - There's a really interesting legacy in flight operations. And a lot of that started with Jane Kranz, and his emphasis on foundations, you know, being tough and confident, being responsible for your actions, and knowing that your actions could have the ultimate consequence. In flight operations, it's very apparent. When we put on our headset, and walk through the doors of Mission Control, we know that we have to be prepared, and our friends, you know, who we've trained, who we've worked with, who we've developed a relationship, are no longer just training on the ground, or working in the space laboratory. You know, they're our friends working in space, in a very, very hostile environment. So, you wanna be prepared for that, and know that your actions can have significant consequences. And that's very apparent in out culture. That said, in the engineering culture, you're designing something and your design might not come into fruition. A crew member might not touch that for years. Or it might not even be in the environment you design it to be in for years. And I see now with Orion, and Commercial Crew, I mean, even just going back to the capsule design, we're in a very, very similar design state, and phase in our program as we were back in Apollo 1. So, that one particularly, that accident really resonated with me, because we're always under schedule pressures, of course, but we're in a design phase, and as engineers sitting at a computer, we aren't walking through Mission Control, and you don't feel that buzz. You don't have a flight director sitting next to your computer while you're working on solid works asking you, "are you go, or no go with this decision?" So, I think by learning from those lessons, and also by story-telling, hearing from the people who lived those experiences, Apollo, Columbia, Challenger, that can be more in the forefront of our mind, and we can be really understanding that our decisions have consequences. And we wanna make sure we're comfortable and confident with those. - [Interviewer] Do you find that the agency today, after those three accidents, is, do you feel it's striking the right balance between being, you know, taking on risk but also not being so risk-averse that you can't get out there and actually do your job in terms of going to deep space? - Absolutely, and I think the safety culture, we've definitely changed a lot, as a result of those accidents. And I think the safety culture now is more open. One, it's just more apparent, it's very, it's talked about quite frequently, and even as a young person, or a newer person, anyone can raise a concern. And that has been very empowering, just knowing that if you are concerned, your voice can be heard. I think, if anything, maybe we've become a little too risk-averse. And that's because we've learned from those accidents. I'd rather err on that side, but again, we have to remember, astronauts know what they're getting into, and you know, Gus Grissom's mentioned that as well. And we have these accidents, but we get better because of them. So, while I don't wish that we ever have one again, we do learn from them, and we move on. But we have to understand, we are in a risky business. Risk is a consequence of progress, and we're aware of that, and I think we just need to try to balance it, and move forward, but not let it limit us in what we can do. - [Interviewer] What were your formative experiences that sort of led you to a career, and interest in space, to where you are now? - Yeah. I grew up in a really small town in central Pennsylvania, and I didn't even know an engineer or anything, I just remember looking up at the stars, and loving them, and asking my dad, you know, "how can I go there?" And he said "become an astronaut." So, that was my goal from a very, very young age, and I didn't know anyone who worked at NASA, I don't think I knew where it was located, aside from in Apollo 13, when they say "Houston, we have a problem." But, I knew that was the path I wanted to go on, so I knew that, "okay, I have to go to college," and finally meet an engineer, and figure out what that is, or a scientist, and figure out which rout I wanted to go on. But I guess I just, I always wanted to explore. But not just that, I guess. This is cheesy, and I wouldn't necessarily use this, but I mean, every single human who ever lived has been able to look up at the night sky, and see the moon, for example. And while I wasn't alive in 69, it was just an exciting time. Like, at one point we decided, "that thing up there, we're gonna go, and we're gonna actually see what it looks like." And that's something that I wanted to be a part of. It was bigger than myself, it's bigger than us, it's humanity, it's the collective, you know. We're building on the shoulder of giants, the people that came before us, really that science, that knowledge and technology we've learned, using what we've learned to go further, and expand on that, and see things that we haven't before. I think it's daring, and and exciting, and it's something I really wanted to be a part of. And something I believe in now working here. - [Interviewer] Can you tell us a bit about your engineering background? - Yeah, so, I'm a mechanical engineer. I went to Penn State for mechanical engineering, and then University of Washington for graduate school, mechanical engineering. - [Interviewer] Is that what you would tell [clears throat] someone who's about to embark on, maybe about to get into their undergrad, is that how you would guide them, if they wanted to be a part of, maybe FOD, or part of one of the directorants here, to do engineering work for NASA? - I would say, I think engineering has a bad branding right now. Well, just in general. I always just try to even explain it to people. I mean, engineers are really inventors. And, you know, they're on the forefront. They're thinking of things people haven't done before. So I would encourage someone to be an engineer, and pursue NASA. But I think engineering is, you could be a scientist, there's so many things you could do, so it's tough. But I would say an engineer is the best route to get into NASA, and I think just being an engineer gives you the skill set you need to solve problems, and and go where we haven't before. - [New Interviewer] So, part of this series is looking back to the Apollo Missions, but it's also looking forward. And I would love to hear your thoughts about the risk-management of companies such as Space-X, and Blue Origin. Compared to how you guys approach it. - Yeah. And I can't speak officially on this, and it's not like I've observed their work habits, but that was one thing that maybe gave me pause, or I just, I really hope that while the safety culture here at JSC is very open, and we're encouraged to learn from lessons of the past, that private companies are also doing the same. They're learning both from their own mistakes, and encouraging that within their own organization, and then also leaning from ours, and each others'. So, I really hope that there's an open communication between the private industries. At least in regards to safety, I know some things have to be private, but it's imperative going forward, especially when humans are in the loop. - [Original Interviewer] Let's go a little theoretical. What would you estimate would be the qualitative differences between say, a lower orbit EVA for a station repair, and an EVA in deep cis-lunar space, or an EVA en rout to Mars? What are the different challenges from LAO, to far out? - The big difference I can think of, and particularly as a flight controller, is any com delay. So, again, as we, we're slowly removing almost the amount of training, and the flight control aspect of space exploration in the sense that from shuttle we prepared a lot more, we knew exactly what we were gonna do, and now that assembly is complete in space station, we have to be more flexible, and just understand the types of things that can go wrong, and be more skill-based. And moving forward with longer com delays, the crew has to be a lot more autonomous, and be able to troubleshoot on their own, have the tools they need to complete the task, and so that should go into design. Not have a many different interfaces, as many common interfaces as possible, but really being flexible, and more autonomous as we go deeper into the solar system. - [Interviewer] As a flight controller, does that make you nervous? That the crew has more autonomy, and that, you know, Mission Control won't be involved directly in real-time decision making? - I wouldn't say removing Mission Control makes me nervous, because the crew is very competent, and we'll know that going into it. We'll know that there will be a com delay, and they will train accordingly. I do recognize the challenges that come with that, though. On the ground, you know, when something goes wrong, it's really remarkable to see. We just, the team pulls together, you know, we're on the floor pulling hardware together, thinking "okay, we just lost something, we need to fix this within six and a half hours," which is about the length of a space walk, it varies, and we need to come up with a solution with the things we have available to us. And obviously the more people you have, the more brains you can put together in a short amount of time to fix something, the better. So, there are challenges associated with that. But we'll overcome them. And we'll train accordingly, and make sure we have the right tools available to us to perform what we need to. - [Interviewer] What really motivates you to get up and come to work each day? Is it the idea of making the environment on the station, and outside of the station, as safe as possible for your friends who are going up there? Is it the potential, one day, of humans on the moon, or sort of taking the next step and going to Mars? What do you feel you're working for? - Kind of all of the above. And I love coming to work because there's always a challenge. I'm changing facilities, so I'll be at the Neutral Buoyancy Lab, and we'll have, you know, think of how can we train somebody to do something they haven't done before, for example. Or, you know, partial gravity, or maybe I'll be working in Mission Control that day. So one, I like the variety, and I just love the challenges. Again, things go wrong, and you have to resolve it, and figure out a solution in a short amount of time. So, my drive is more localized in that regard. I just like the challenge. And then there are times when you're in Mission Control, and you look up at the Mission Control board, and you see your friend, you know, someone you've been training for two years, and they're working on a science experiment, you know, on heart cells. Or when they're on a space walk, you'll get views, and you'll see them performing the same task you taught them to do in the pool. You'll see the same hardware, except this time the world's beneath them, the Earth. And that just is incredibly motivating and inspiring, and something, again, I'm just proud, and feel lucky to be a part of. - [Interviewer] A couple of years ago, I mentioned I talked to Zeb Scoville, and it so happened on that trip, when I was at the NBL, it was the same trip, during which Luca Parmitano and Chris Cassidy were rehearsing for some of their EVAs. I dunno if you were with the director at the time when Luca had his own orbit issue with water? But can you tell us a little bit about that incident, and kind of use it, if it's an applicable one, as sort of illustrative of the risks of EVA? - Absolutely, so in 2013 we had a water in helmet scenario where we had a failure, wasn't expected, and we had to cut the EVA early. We had to go back inside, and remove a crew member from his suit because water was coming into it. It was definitely an eye-opening experience. Again, because it wasn't something that we expected could happen in this particular scenario, and it made us all stop, and really reflect on, you know, any time something like this happens, you really look back. What are we doing? Again, things are gonna go wrong. How can we prevent this? You know, "we don't know what we don't know. What else is there out there that we're not thinking of?" So, it was a really interesting time for all of us to to realize, you know, launch and landing are our most dangerous things, but the next thing is space walks, really. We're operating in a 100% oxygen environment. They're in a vacuum of space, traveling 17,500 miles per hour, and large temperature swings. And it's not a friendly, or safe environment, so it was just a gentle reminder for us to say "hey, how can we be more prepared for this?" and "this really is the real deal." And we won't let anything happen to our crew. - [Interviewer] I know that Luca was totally cool, um, Cassidy was also very cool. And obviously the official line is that the incident happened, and there was, everybody was fine, and it was handled. But if you can, if you could speak candidly about it, I mean, there is the potential for [cough drowns out interviewers voice] There's the potential for loss of life in that incident. As it was occurring, and in the aftermath, you mentioned it was eye-opening, I mean, how did you, how did it make you feel? How did you feel about it? - It was an interesting time for me with the water in helmet scenario, because I had left to go to graduate, I was working here, and then left to go to graduate school, so it was actually the summer before coming back. And I was watching it, I was laying on my bed watching the EVA, and I even had my schematic of the suit out as soon as it happened. And was trying to figure out what might have happened. In that case it was really interesting because Luca was almost too calm in some ways. Because he was too calm we thought, "okay, maybe it could have been the drink bag," or something more straight forward. I mean, yeah, since I wasn't on console, I can't really comment to that, but you know, it really did give us pause for what can happen. - [Interviewer] My understanding of the RCA is that it was an issue with the suit's eliminator, and the water supply going to the subliminator, or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong, that's my memory of reading the RCA. But, did this, that unknown sort of became a known, right? - Mmhm - [Interviewer] Did you guys have to revisit how EVA planning worked, how the EMUs were maintained, or was there a design issue? Can you talk just briefly about kind of the aftermath of that, and what you had to do to integrate that new risk into your planning? - Absolutely. So, I wasn't on the suit side. So, we have two different groups that we work in at various times, and we cross-train. So, the suit guy's focused on that within my group, and from the task perspective, we had to train, "okay, we have to change our operations now." So, we have a series of checks. Whenever the crew goes out on a space walk, we'll have what we call "buddy checks". So we ensure their helmet lights are on, that their safety tethers are set up correctly, it's kind of a final check before they go out to their work sites, and maybe even split apart during the space walk. And now we have, because of water in the helmet, and lessons learned, we now have two pieces of hardware that are in the space suit. One is called a helmet absorption pad, which is put on top of the com cap, which is where the oxygen's delivered. And we also have something called a snorkel, which will allow a crew member to breathe air from lower in the suit, because if water were delivered to the crew member, again, it could be delivered directly to their face, and we want them to be able to still breathe. So we had some modifications to the user, in this case, and some maintenance, but I can't speak to the maintenance. To the user, and then also we had checks. So, periodically, I wanna say it's every 90 minutes, we'll ask for a hap check. So they'll push their head up against that helmet absorption pad, and as cheesy as it sounds, if it feels squishy, that likely means you have water, and so that, or if they see water in the suit. We have pre-canned, we evaluate it, if we see water, how much water is acceptable? What is just maybe expected sublimated carryover? Or what is, this is out of family, and this is concerning? And what actions do we need to take? So we have, the crew has a cuff checklist. So, it has, if anything goes wrong with their suit they'll hear a tone, and it'll direct them to a certain page for that malfunction. And so, we added additional steps in. If there's water in helmet, there's a page, and it will tell them what to do in that scenario. You know, if it's open a helmet purge valve, or turn off their cooling. So we have pre-canned steps for the crew, even if there's loss of com, that they know exactly what to do, and how to get back inside. - [Interviewer] Let me ask a bigger picture question here. You mentioned earlier about how, kind of, in terms of hardware production, we're kind of where we were leading up to Apollo 1 with the capsule and a launch rocket. How optimistic, or how do you feel about the future of NASA, and current exploration plans? - When I'm thinking about NASA's future plans, I wish we were a bit more ambitious, but that's probably a bit selfish. I think that we're doing the right things. We're understanding how to live and work in space on the International Space Station, and then we're taking the next steps to go in, you know, whether it's to the moon, cis-lunar, and then to Mars, or, what path that will be as we get directed. But we're taking stepping stones to get to Mars, and I'm just excited to get to Mars, and see another planet, but. - [Interviewer] This is a silly one, but [clears throat] can you tell us how an astronaut deals with an itchy nose for about three and a half hours into a six hour space walk? Yeah, so, we have, similar to an airplane, if you've flown before, as you change pressure you have to pop your ears. Some people can do that by yawning, or the valsalva maneuver, where you plug your nose and blow, and you can pop your ears. So, obviously in the suit, their hands are in the gloves, and they can't access their nose to help with that. So we have a device called a valsalva device, and it just allows the crew member to put their nose up against it, and they can plug their nose, and then pop their ears. So, some people don't even use it for that, they use it as a nose-scratcher, in that case. But, yeah. - [Interviewer] Do you have any advice for, I sort of asked this earlier, I kinda wanna ask it in a different way, do you have any advice for young folks who are on the cusp of choosing an engineering career, and might have the opportunity to go work New Space, or the opportunity to go work here, potentially, or an old space contractor. What's your advice for somebody about to start an engineering career? I guess the broad question is, and this is kind of a cynical question, is NASA still the best place to go spend a career with all of this New Space stuff on the horizon? In your opinion. - I would say, I guess, well, I would encourage them to do an internship, or coop first. Each of them, if they can. For example, I worked in private industry at like, a design, a product-development company just to see what that world was like. And compare that to government work, for example. Then I felt more confident with my decision. I wouldn't always guess, what would it have been like if I had gone to a different industry. So, I would encourage you to try different styles of human space flight, whether that's a private company or at NASA. For me, personally, I really love NASA. I think that now, with commercial crew coming into the picture, they're gonna help us out by taking care of the easier stuff, the things we know how to do, so that we can now focus on the things that don't have a profit base, don't have economic benefit right now. It's more the science and technology benefit, where we can explore the solar system. So, that aspect is more appealing to me, and I want to be a part of that. The new things, the things we haven't done before. And also, it's more of a career job. I think people spend their lives here, and really love it, and feel a part of a family. And I like that aspect of it, and I know that NASA's invested in myself as well. - [Interviewer] It doesn't have to be what you're saying. It doesn't have to be an us versus them mentality. There's a place for commercial and government space flight in the same sky. - Absolutely, there is a place for everyone at the table, and in fact we're all critical to advancing human spaceflight exploration. So, really, we're all a team here, and everyone plays a part in it.