ALBERT

Description: Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. Some elements of exploration may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but certain critical elements will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without causing undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA-intensive phases of missions. After re-evaluation in 2012, the 8/32 environment was altered to 8.2 psia and 34% O2 to reduce the hypoxic stress to a crewmember. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring the additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This report provides a review of the human health and performance risks associated with the use of the 8.2 psia / 34% O2 environment during spaceflight. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system (CNS), including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of transient acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasure protocols, effective food preparation at 8.2 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Description: The Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) is identified by the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) as a recognized risk to human health and performance in space, as defined in the HRP Program Requirements Document (PRD). This Evidence Report provides a summary of the evidence that has been used to identify and characterize this risk. Given that tissue inert gas partial pressure is often greater than ambient pressure during phases of a mission, primarily during extravehicular activity (EVA), there is a possibility that decompression sickness may occur.

Description: Decompression sickness (DCS) is multivariable. But we hypothesize an aerobically fit person is less likely to experience hypobaric DCS than an unfit person given that fitness is exploited as part of the denitrogenation (prebreathe, PB) process prior to an altitude exposure. Aerobic fitness is peak oxygen uptake (VO2pk, ml/kg/min). METHODS: Treadmill or cycle protocols were used over 15 years to determine VO2pks. We evaluated dichotomous DCS outcome and venous gas emboli (VGE) outcome detected in the pulmonary artery with Doppler ultrasound associated with VO2pk for two classes of experiments: 1) those with no PB or PB under resting conditions prior to ascent in an altitude chamber, and 2) PB that included exercise for some part of the PB. There were 165 exposures (mean VO2pk 40.5 +/- 7.6 SD) with 25 cases of DCS in the first protocol class and 172 exposures (mean VO2pk 41.4 +/- 7.2 SD) with 25 cases of DCS in the second. Similar incidence of the DCS (15.2% vs. 14.5%) and VGE (45.5% vs. 44.8%) between the two classes indicates that decompression stress was similar. The strength of association between outcome and VO2pk was evaluated using univariate logistic regression. RESULTS: An inverse relationship between the DCS outcome and VO2pk was evident, but the relationship was strongest when exercise was done as part of the PB (exercise PB, coef. = -0.058, p = 0.07; rest or no PB, coef. = -0.005, p = 0.86). There was no relationship between VGE outcome and VO2pk (exercise PB, coef. = -0.003, p = 0.89; rest or no PB, coef. = 0.014, p = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: A significant change in probability of DCS was associated with fitness only when exercise was included in the denitrogenation process. We believe a fit person that exercises during PB efficiently eliminates dissolved nitrogen from tissues.

Description: The Hypobaric Decompression Sickness (DCS) Treatment Model links a decrease in computed bubble volume from increased pressure (DeltaP), increased oxygen (O2) partial pressure, and passage of time during treatment to the probability of symptom resolution [P(symptom resolution)]. The decrease in offending volume is realized in 2 stages: a) during compression via Boyle's Law and b) during subsequent dissolution of the gas phase via the O2 window. We established an empirical model for the P(symptom resolution) while accounting for multiple symptoms within subjects. The data consisted of 154 cases of hypobaric DCS symptoms along with ancillary information from tests on 56 men and 18 women. Our best estimated model is P(symptom resolution) = 1 / (1+exp(-(ln(Delta P) - 1.510 + 0.795AMB - 0.00308Ts) / 0.478)), where (DeltaP) is pressure difference (psid), AMB = 1 if ambulation took place during part of the altitude exposure, otherwise AMB = 0; and where Ts is the elapsed time in mins from start of the altitude exposure to recognition of a DCS symptom. To apply this model in future scenarios, values of DeltaP as inputs to the model would be calculated from the Tissue Bubble Dynamics Model based on the effective treatment pressure: (DeltaP) = P2 - P1 | = P1V1/V2 - P1, where V1 is the computed volume of a spherical bubble in a unit volume of tissue at low pressure P1 and V2 is computed volume after a change to a higher pressure P2. If 100% ground level O2 (GLO) was breathed in place of air, then V2 continues to decrease through time at P2 at a faster rate. This calculated value of (DeltaP then represents the effective treatment pressure at any point in time. Simulation of a "pain-only" symptom at 203 min into an ambulatory extravehicular activity (EVA) at 4.3 psia on Mars resulted in a P(symptom resolution) of 0.49 (0.36 to 0.62 95% confidence intervals) on immediate return to 8.2 psia in the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle. The P(symptom resolution) increased to near certainty (0.99) after 2 hrs of GLO at 8.2 psia or with less certainty on immediate pressurization to 14.7 psia [0.90 (0.83 - 0.95)]. Given the low probability of DCS during EVA and the prompt treatment of a symptom with guidance from the model, it is likely that the symptom and gas phase will resolve with minimum resources and minimal impact on astronaut health, safety, and productivity.