ALBERT

Description: Historically, spacesuit mobility has been characterized by directly measuring both range of motion and joint torque of individual anatomic joints. The work detailed herein aims to improve on this method, which is often prone to uncertainly, lack of repeatability, and a general lack of applicability to real-world functional tasks. Specifically, the goal of this work is to characterize suited mobility performance by directly measuring the metabolic performance of the occupant. Pilot testing was conducted in 2013, employing three subjects performing a range of functional tasks in two different suits prototypes, the Mark III and Z-1. Cursory analysis of the results shows the approach has merit, with consistent performance trends toward one suit over the other. Forward work includes the need to look at more subjects, a refined task set, and another suit in a different mass/mobility regime to validate the approach.

Description: A challenge in understanding human performance as a function of gravity is determining which tasks to research. Initial studies began with treadmill walking, which was easy to quantify and control. However, with the development of pressurized rovers, it is less important to optimize human performance for ambulation as pressurized rovers will likely perform gross translation for them. Future crews are likely to spend much of their extravehicular activity (EVA) performing geology, construction,a nd maintenance type tasks. With these types of tasks, people have different performance strategies, and it is often difficult to quantify the task and measure steady-state metabolic rates or perform biomechanical analysis. For many of these types of tasks, subjective feedback may be the only data that can be collected. However, subjective data may not fully support a rigorous scientific comparison of human performance across different gravity levels and suit factors. NASA would benefit from having a wide variety of quantifiable tasks that allow human performance comparison across different conditions. In order to determine which tasks will effectively support scientific studies, many different tasks and data analysis techniques will need to be employed. Many of these tasks and techniques will not be effective, but some will produce quantifiable results that are sensitive enough to show performance differences. One of the primary concerns related to EVA performance is metabolic rate. The higher the metabolic rate, the faster the astronaut will exhaust consumables. The focus of this poster will be on how different tasks affect metabolic rate across different gravity levels.

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: Physical effort, compensation, and controllability in a spacesuit can be affected by suit mass and gravity level. Because of limitations in certain reduced-gravity simulators and the finite selection of lunar prototype suits, it is difficult to ascertain how a change in suit mass affects suited human performance. One method of simulating a change in mass is to vary the total gravity-adjusted weight (TGAW), which is defined as the sum of the suit mass and subject mass, multiplied by the gravity level. PURPOSE: To determine if two methods of changing TGAW during parabolic flight - changing suit mass or gravity level - affect subjective ratings of suited human performance equally. METHODS: A custom weight support structure was connected to a lunar prototype spacesuit, allowing the addition of mass to the suit while maintaining a near-constant center of mass. In the varied-weight (VW) series, suit mass (120 kg) was constant at 0.1 G, 0.17 G, and 0.3 G, yielding TGAWs of 196, 333, and 588 N, assuming an 80-kg subject. In the varied-mass (VM) series, gravity level was constant at 0.17 G and suit mass was 89, 120, and 181 kg, yielding TGAWs of 282, 333, and 435 N. The 333 N condition was common to both series. Direct comparison was not possible due to limited adjustability of suit mass and limited options for parabolic profiles. Five astronaut subjects (80.3 11.8 kg) completed 4 different tasks (walk, bag pickup, lunge, and shoveling) in all conditions and provided ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and the gravity compensation and performance scale (GCPS) upon completion of each task. RESULTS: Where VM and VW series overlapped, RPE and GCPS trendlines were similar. Mean RPE and GCPS at 333 N was 8.4 and 3.7. Mean RPE and GCPS for VM was 7.8 and 3.8 for 282 N and 9.8 and 4.1 for 435 N. Extrapolation of the VM trend to match VW TGAWs 196 and 588 N predicts an RPE of 6.5 and 12.3 and GCPS of 4.4 and 5.9, whereas the measured VW values for RPE were 8.1 and 9.8 and GCPS were 4.4 and 3.7. CONCLUSION: Modeling a change in suit mass by altering weight alone may be an adequate simulation through a limited range when looking at gross metrics of subjective suited human performance. Whether altering weight alone will be sufficient for more precise metrics of human performance, and across a wider range of activities, still needs further study.

Description: No abstract available

Description: In general metabolic rates tend to be higher in NBL than in flight: a) Restraint method dependant; b) Significant differences between the NBL and flight for BRT and APFR (buoyancy effects). c) No significant difference between NBL and flight for free float and SRMS/SSRMS operations. The total metabolic energy expenditure for a given task and for the EVA as a whole are similar between NBL and flight: a) NBL metabolic rates are higher, but training EVAs are constrained to 5 1/2 hours. b) Flight metabolic rates are lower, but the EVAs are typically an hour or more longer in duration. NBL metabolic rates provide a useful operational tool for flight planning. Quantifying differences and similarities between training and flight improves knowledge for preparation of safe and efficient EVAs.

Description: Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). Many of these injuries refer to the gloves worn during EVA as the root cause. While pressurized, the bladder and outer material of these gloves restrict movement and create pressure points while performing tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally a more severe injury, onycholysis (fingernail delamination). The most common injury causes are glove contact (pressure point/rubbing), ill-fitting gloves, and/or performing EVA tasks in pressurized gloves. A brief review of the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health's injury database reveals over 57% of the total injuries to the upper extremities during EVA training occurred either to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, fingernail, or the fingertip. Twenty-five of these injuries resulted in a diagnosis of onycholysis

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.

Description: The Apollo lunar EVA experience revealed challenges with suit stability and control-likely a combination of mass, mobility, and center of gravity (CG) factors. The EVA Physiology, Systems and Performence (EPSP) Project is systematically working with other NASA projects, labs, and facilities to lead a series of studies to understand the role of suit mass, weight, CG, and other parameters on astronaut performance in partial gravity environments.