ALBERT

Description: INTRODUCTION: Variables that define who we are, such as age, weight and fitness level influence the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) and venous gas emboli (VGE) from diving and aviation decompressions. We focus on age since astronauts that perform space walks are approximately 10 yr older than our test subjects. Our null hypothesis is that age is not statistically associated with the VGE outcomes from decompression to 4.3 psia. METHODS: Our data are from 7 different NASA tests where 188 men and 50 women performed light exercise at 4.3 psia for planned exposures no less than 4 h. Prebreathe (PB) time on 100% oxygen ranged from 150-270 min, including ascent time, with exercise of different intensity and length being performed during the PB in four of the seven tests with 150 min of PB. Subjects were monitored for VGE in the pulmonary artery using a Doppler ultrasound bubble detector for a 4-min period every 12 min. There were six design variables; the presence or absence of lower body adynamia and five PB variables; plus five concomitant variables on physical characteristics: age, weight height, body mass index, and gender that were available for logistic regression (LR). We used LR models for the probability of DCS and VGE, and multinomial logit (ML) models for the probability of Spencer VGE Grades 0-IV at exposure times of 61, 95, 131, 183 min, and for the entire exposure. RESULTS: Age was significantly associated with VGE in both the LR and ML models, so we reject the null hypothesis. Lower body adynamia was significant for all responses. CONCLUSIONS: Our selection of tests produced a wide range of the explanatory variables, but only age, lower body adynamia, height, and total PB time was helpful in various combinations to model the probability of DCS and VGE.

Description: A patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been reported to be an important risk factor for cardioembolic cerebrovascular accidents through paradoxical systemic embolization, and it provides one potential mechanism for the paradoxical systemic embolization of venous gas bubbles produced after altitude or hyperbaric decompressions. Here, we present in a single document a summary of the original findings and views from authors in this field. It is a comprehensive review of 145 peer-reviewed journal articles related to PFO that is intended to encourage reflection on PFO detection methods and on the possible association between PFO and stroke. There is a heightened debate on whether aviators, astronauts, and scuba divers should go through screening for PFO. Because it is a source of an important controversy, we prefer to present the findings in the format of a neutral bibliographic review independent of our own opinions. Each cited peer-reviewed article includes a short summary in which we attempt to present potential parallels with the pathophysiology of decompression bubbles. Two types of articles are summarized, as follows. First, we report the original clinical and physiological findings which focus on PFO. The consistent reporting sequence begins by describing the method of detection of PFO and goal of the study, followed by bulleted results, and finally the discussion and conclusion. Second, we summarize from review papers the issues related only to PFO. At the end of each section, an abstract with concluding remarks based on the cited articles provides guidelines.

Description: The world's first extravehicular activity (EVA) was performed by A. A. Leonov on March 18, 1965 during the Russian Voskhod-2 mission. The first US EVA was executed by Gemini IV astronaut Ed White on June 3, 1965, with an umbilical tether that included communications and an oxygen supply. A hand-held maneuvering unit (HHMU) also was used to test maneuverability during the brief EVA; however the somewhat stiff umbilical limited controlled movement. That constraint, plus difficulty returning through the vehicle hatch, highlighted the need for increased thermal control and improved EVA ergonomics. Clearly, requirements for a useful EVA were interrelated with the vehicle design. The early Gemini EVAs generated requirements for suits providing micro-meteor protection, adequate visual field and eye protection from solar visual and infrared radiation, gloves optimized for dexterity while pressurized, and thermal systems capable of protecting the astronaut while rejecting metabolic heat during high workloads. Subsequent Gemini EVAs built upon this early experience and included development of a portable environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) and an astronaut maneuvering unit. The ECLSS provided a pressure vessel and controller with functional control over suit pressure, oxygen flow, carbon dioxide removal, humidity, and temperature control. Gemini EVA experience also identified the usefulness of underwater neutral buoyancy and altitude chamber task training, and the importance of developing reliable task timelines. Improved thermal management and carbon dioxide control also were required for high workload tasks. With the Apollo project, EVA activity was primarily on the lunar surface; and suit durability, integrated liquid cooling garments, and low suit operating pressures (3.75 pounds per square inch absolute [psia] or 25.8 kilopascal [kPa],) were required to facilitate longer EVAs with ambulation and significant physical workloads with average metabolic rates of 1000 BTU/hr and peaks of up to 2200 BTU/hr. Mobility was further augmented with the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The Apollo extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) was made up of over 15 components, ranging from a biomedical belt for capturing and transmitting biomedical data, urine and fecal containment systems, a liquid cooling garment, communications cap, a modular portable life support system (PLSS), a boot system, thermal overgloves, and a bubble helmet with eye protection. Apollo lunar astronauts performed successful EVAs on the lunar surface from a 5 psia (34.4 kPa) 100% oxygen environment in the Lunar Lander. A maximum of three EVAs were performed on any mission. For Skylab a modified A7LB suit, used for Apollo 15, was selected. The Skylab astronaut life support assembly (ALSA) provided umbilical support through the life support umbilical (LSU) and used open loop oxygen flow, rather than closed-loop as in Apollo missions. Thermal control was provided by liquid water circulated by spacecraft pumps and electrical power also was provided from the spacecraft via the umbilical. The cabin atmosphere of 5 psia (34.4 kPa), 70% oxygen, provided a normoxic atmosphere and because of the very low nitrogen partial pressures, no special protocols were required to protect against decompression sickness (DCS) as was the case with the Apollo spacecraft with a 5 psi, 100% oxygen environment.

Description: The purpose was to develop an enhanced plan to diagnose, treat, and manage decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activity (EVA). This plan is merited by the high frequency of upcoming EVAs necessary to construct and maintain the International Space Station (ISS). The upcoming ISS era will demand a significant increase in EVA. The DCS Risk and Contingency Plan provided a new and improved approach to DCS reporting, treatment, management, and training.

Description: To develop and test a 2-hour prebreathe protocol for performing extravehicular activities (EVAs) from the International Space Station (ISS). Combinations of adynamia (non-walking), prebreathe exercise, and space suit donning options (10.2 vs. 14.7 psi) were evaluated, against timeline and consumable contraints to develop an operational 2- hour prebreathe protocol. Prospective accept/reject criteria were defined for decompression sickness (DCS) and venous gas emboli (VGE) from analysis of historical DCS data, combined with risk management of DCS under ISS mission circumstances. Maximum operational DCS levels were defined based on protecting for EVA capability with two crew-members at 95% confidence, throughout ISS lifetime (within the constraints of NASA DCS disposition policy JPG 1800.3). The accept/reject limits were adjusted for greater safety based on analysis of related medical factors. Monte-Carlo simulation was performed to design a closed sequential, multi-center human trial. Protocols were tested with 4 different prebreathe exercises (Phases I-IV), prior to exposure to 4.3 psi for 4 hrs. Subject selection, Doppler monitoring for VGE, test termination criteria, and DCS definitions were standardized. Phase I: upper and lower body exercises using dual-cycle ergometry (75% VO2 max for 10 min). Phase II: ergometry plus 24 min of light exercise (simulating space-suit preparations). Phase III: same 24 min of light exercise but no ergometry, and Phase IV: 56 min of light exercise without ergometry. A prebreathe procedure was accepted if, at 95% confidence, the incidence of DCS was less than 15% (with no Type II DCS), and Grade IV VGE was less than 20%.

Description: The Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2011 field test involved the planning and execution of a series of exploration scenarios under operational conditions similar to those that would be expected during a human exploration mission to a near-Earth asteroid (NEA). The focus was on understanding the operations tempo during simulated NEA exploration and the implications of communications latency and limited data bandwidth. Anchoring technologies and sampling techniques were not evaluated due to the immaturity of those technologies and the inability to meaningfully test them at D-RATS. Reduced gravity analogs and simulations are being used to fully evaluate Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) and extravehicular (EVA) operations and interactions in near-weightlessness at a NEA as part of NASA s integrated analogs program. Hypotheses were tested by planning and performing a series of 1-day simulated exploration excursions comparing test conditions all of which involved a single Deep Space Habitat (DSH) and either zero, one, or two MMSEVs; three or four crewmembers; one of two different communications bandwidths; and a 100-second roundtrip communications latency between the field site and Houston. Excursions were executed at the Black Point Lava Flow test site with a Mission Control Center and Science Support Room at Johnson Space Center (JSC) being operated with 100-second roundtrip communication latency to the field. Crews were composed of astronauts and professional field geologists and teams of Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach (EPO) experts also supported the mission simulations each day. Data were collected separately from the Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and EPO teams to assess the test conditions from multiple perspectives. For the operations tested, data indicates practically significant benefits may be realized by including at least one MMSEV and by including 4 versus 3 crewmembers in the NEA exploration architecture as measured by increased Scientific Data Quality, EVA Exploration Time, Capability Assessment Ratings, and Overall Acceptability ratings by Crew, Mission Operations, Science, and Education & Public Outreach teams. A combination of text and voice was used to effectively communicate over the 100-second roundtrip communications latency and increased communication bandwidth yielded a small but practically significant improvement in Overall Acceptability as rated by the Science team, although the impact of bandwidth on scientific strategic planning was not assessed. No effect of increased bandwidth was observed with respect to Crew, Mission Operations, or EPO team ratings of Overall Acceptability.

Description: The NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 15 mission was focused on near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) exploration techniques evaluation. It began with a University of Delaware autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) systematically mapping the coral reef for hundreds of meters surrounding the Aquarius habitat. This activity is akin to the type of "far field survey" approach that may be used by a robotic precursor in advance of a human mission to a NEA. Data from the far-field survey were then examined by the NEEMO science team and follow-up exploration traverses were planned, which used Deepworker single-person submersibles. Science traverses at NEEMO 15 were planned according to a prioritized list of scientific objectives developed by the science team based on review and discussion of previous related marine science research including previous marine science saturation missions conducted at the Aquarius habitat. AUV data was used to select several areas of scientific interest. The Deepworker science traverses were then executed at these areas of interest during 4 days of the NEEMO 15 mission and provided higher resolution data such as coral species distribution and mortality. These traverses are analogous to the "near field survey" approach that is expected to be performed by a multi mission space exploration vehicle (MMSEV) during a human mission to a NEA before conducting extravehicular activities (EVA)s. In addition to the science objectives that were pursued, the NEEMO 15 science traverses provided an opportunity to test newly developed software and techniques. Sample collection and instrument deployment on the NEA surface by EVA crew would follow the "near field survey" in a human NEA mission. Sample collection was not necessary for the purposes of the NEEMO science objectives; however, the engineering and operations objectives during NEEMO 15 were to evaluate different combinations of vehicles, crewmembers, tools, and equipment that could be used to perform these tasks on a NEA. Specifically, the productivity and acceptability of simulated NEA exploration activities were systematically quantified and compared when operating with different combinations of crew sizes and exploration systems including MMSEVs, EVA jet packs, and EVA translation devices.

Description: Introduction: A pair of small pressurized rovers (Space Exploration Vehicles, or SEVs) is at the center of the Global Point-of-Departure architecture for future human planetary exploration. Simultaneous operation of multiple crewed surface assets should maximize productive crew time, minimize overhead, and preserve contingency return paths. Methods: A 14-day mission simulation was conducted in the Arizona desert as part of NASA?s 2010 Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS). The simulation involved two SEV concept vehicles performing geological exploration under varied operational modes affecting both the extent to which the SEVs must maintain real-time communications with mission control ("Continuous" vs. "Twice-a-Day") and their proximity to each other ("Lead-and-Follow" vs. "Divide-and-Conquer"). As part of a minimalist lunar architecture, no communications relay satellites were assumed. Two-person crews consisting of an astronaut and a field geologist operated each SEV, day and night, throughout the entire 14-day mission, only leaving via the suit ports to perform simulated extravehicular activities. Standard metrics enabled quantification of the habitability and usability of all aspects of the SEV concept vehicles throughout the mission, as well as comparison of the extent to which the operating modes affected crew productivity and performance. Practically significant differences in the relevant metrics were prospectively defined for the testing of all hypotheses. Results and Discussion: Data showed a significant 14% increase in available science time (AST) during Lead-and-Follow mode compared with Divide-and-Conquer, primarily because of the minimal overhead required to maintain communications during Lead-and-Follow. In Lead-and-Follow mode, there was a non-significant 2% increase in AST during Twice-a-Day vs. Continuous communications. Situational awareness of the other vehicle?s location, activities, and contingency return constraints were enhanced during Lead-and-Follow and Twice-a-Day communications modes due to line-of-sight and direct SEV-to-SEV communication. Preliminary analysis of Scientific Data Quality and Observation Quality metrics showed no significant differences between modes.

Description: The ultimate success of future human space exploration missions is dependent on the ability to perform extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks effectively, efficiently, and safely, whether those tasks represent a nominal mode of operation or a contingency capability. To optimize EVA systems for the best human performance, it is critical to study the effects of varying key factors such as suit center of gravity (CG), suit mass, and gravity level. During the 2-week NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 14 mission, four crewmembers performed a series of EVA tasks under different simulated EVA suit configurations and used full-scale mockups of a Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV) rover and lander. NEEMO is an underwater spaceflight analog that allows a true mission-like operational environment and uses buoyancy effects and added weight to simulate different gravity levels. Quantitative and qualitative data collected during NEEMO 14, as well as from spacesuit tests in parabolic flight and with overhead suspension, are being used to directly inform ongoing hardware and operations concept development of the SEV, exploration EVA systems, and future EVA suits. OBJECTIVE: To compare human performance across different weight and CG configurations. METHODS: Four subjects were weighed out to simulate reduced gravity and wore either a specially designed rig to allow adjustment of CG or a PLSS mockup. Subjects completed tasks including level ambulation, incline/decline ambulation, standing from the kneeling and prone position, picking up objects, shoveling, ladder climbing, incapacitated crewmember handling, and small and large payload transfer. Subjective compensation, exertion, task acceptability, and duration data as well as photo and video were collected. RESULTS: There appear to be interactions between CG, weight, and task. CGs nearest the subject s natural CG are the most predictable in terms of acceptable performance across tasks. Future research should focus on understanding the interactions between CG, mass, and subject differences.

Description: This study developed, analyzed, and compared mission architectures for human exploration of Mars' Moons within the context of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. METHODS: All trades assumed conjunction class missions to Phobos (approximately 500 days in Mars system) as it was considered the driving case for the transportation architecture. All architectures assumed that the Mars Transit Habitat would remain in a High Mars Orbit with crewmembers transferring between HMO and Phobos in a small crew taxi vehicle. A reference science / exploration program was developed including performance of a standard set of tasks at 55 locations on the Phobos surface. Detailed EVA timelines were developed using realistic flight rules to accomplish the reference science tasks using exploration systems ranging from jetpacks to multi-person pressurized excursion vehicles combined with Phobos surface and orbital (L1, L4/L5, 20km Distant Retrograde Orbit) habitat options. Detailed models of propellant mass, crew time, science productivity, radiation exposure, systems and consumables masses, and other figures of merit were integrated to enable quantitative comparison of different architectural options. Options for pre-staging assets using solar electric propulsion (SEP) vs. delivering all systems with the crew were also evaluated. Seven discrete mission architectures were evaluated. RESULTS: The driving consideration for habitat location (Phobos surface vs. orbital) was radiation exposure, with an estimated reduction in cumulative mission radiation exposure of up to 34% (vs. Mars orbital mission) when the habitat is located on the Phobos surface, compared with only 3-6% reduction for a habitat in a 20km DRO. The exploration utility of lightweight unpressurized excursion vehicles was limited by the need to remain within 20 minutes of Solar Particle Event radiation protection combined with complex GN&C systems required by the non-intuitive and highly-variable gravitational environment. Two-person pressurized excursion vehicles as well as mobile surface habitats offer significant exploration capability and operational benefits compared with unpressurized EVA mobility systems at the cost of increased system and propellant mass. Mechanical surface translation modes (i.e. hopping) were modeled and offer potentially significant propellant savings and the possibility of extended exploration operations between crewed missions. Options for extending the utilization of the crew taxi vehicle were examined, including use as an exploration asset for Phobos surface exploration (when combined with an alternate mobility system) and as an EVA platform, both on Phobos and for contingency EVA on the Mars Transit Habitat. CONCLUSIONS: Human exploration of Phobos offers a scientifically meaningful first step towards human Mars surface missions that develops and validates transportation, habitation, and exploration systems and operations in advance of the Mars landing systems.