Selecting Tasks for Evaluating Human Performance as a Function of Gravity

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

Development of an Objective Space Suit Mobility Performance Metric Using Metabolic Cost and Functional Tasks

Existing methods for evaluating EVA suit performance and mobility have historically concentrated on isolated joint range of motion and torque. However, these techniques do little to evaluate how well a suited crewmember can actually perform during an EVA. An alternative method of characterizing suited mobility through measurement of metabolic cost to the wearer has been evaluated at Johnson Space Center over the past several years. The most recent study involved six test subjects completing multiple trials of various functional tasks in each of three different space suits; the results indicated it was often possible to discern between different suit designs on the basis of metabolic cost alone. However, other variables may have an effect on real-world suited performance; namely, completion time of the task, the gravity field in which the task is completed, etc. While previous results have analyzed completion time, metabolic cost, and metabolic cost normalized to system mass individually, it is desirable to develop a single metric comprising these (and potentially other) performance metrics. This paper outlines the background upon which this single-score metric is determined to be feasible, and initial efforts to develop such a metric. Forward work includes variable coefficient determination and verification of the metric through repeated testing

CO2 Washout Testing of the REI and EM-ACES Space Suits

When a space suit is used during ground testing, adequate carbon dioxide (CO2) washout must be provided for the suited subject. Symptoms of acute CO2 exposure depend on partial pressure of CO2 (ppCO2), metabolic rate of the subject, and other factors. This test was done to characterize inspired oronasal ppCO2 in the Rear Entry I-Suit (REI) and the Enhanced Mobility Advanced Crew Escape Suit (EM-ACES) for a range of workloads and flow rates for which ground testing is nominally performed. Three subjects were tested in each suit. In all but one case, each subject performed the test twice. Suit pressure was maintained at 4.3 psid. Subjects wore the suit while resting, performing arm ergometry, and walking on a treadmill to generate metabolic workloads of about 500 to 3000 BTU/hr. Supply airflow was varied between 6, 5, and 4 actual cubic feet per minute (ACFM) at each workload. Subjects wore an oronasal mask with an open port in front of the mouth and were allowed to breathe freely. Oronasal ppCO2 was monitored in real time by gas analyzers with sampling tubes connected to the mask. Metabolic rate was calculated from the total CO2 production measured by an additional gas analyzer at the suit air outlet. Real-time metabolic rate was used to adjust the arm ergometer or treadmill workload to meet target metabolic rates. In both suits, inspired CO2 was affected mainly by the metabolic rate of the subject: increased metabolic rate significantly (P < 0.05) increased inspired ppCO2. Decreased air flow caused small increases in inspired ppCO2. The effect of flow was more evident at metabolic rates . 2000 BTU/hr. CO2 washout values of the EM-ACES were slightly but not significantly better than those of the REI suit. Regression equations were developed for each suit to predict the mean inspired ppCO2 as a function of metabolic rate and suit flow rate. This paper provides detailed descriptions of the test hardware, methodology, and results as well as implications for future ground testing in the REI-suit and EM-ACES

A Novel Method for Characterizing Spacesuit Mobility Through Metabolic Cost

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

EVA Risk Master Logic Diagram

No abstract availabl

Monitoring Human Performance During Suited Operations: A Technology Feasibility Study Using EMU Gloves

Mobility tracking of human subjects while conducting suited operations still remains focused on the external movement of the suit and little is known about the human movement within it. For this study, accelerometers and bend sensitive resistors were integrated into a custom carrier glove to quantify range of motion and dexterity from within the pressurized glove environment as a first stage feasibility study of sensor hardware, integration, and reporting capabilities. Sensors were also placed on the exterior of the pressurized glove to determine if it was possible to compare a glove joint angle to the anatomical joint angle of the subject during tasks. Quantifying human movement within the suit was feasible, with accelerometers clearly detecting movements in the wrist and reporting expected joint angles at maximum flexion or extension postures with repeatability of plus or minus 5 degrees between trials. Bend sensors placed on the proximal interphalangeal and distal interphalangeal joints performed less well. It was not possible to accurately determine the actual joint angle using these bend sensors, but these sensors could be used to determine when the joint was flexed to its maximum and provide a general range of mobility needed to complete a task. Further work includes additional testing with accelerometers and the possible inclusion of hardware such as magnetometers or gyroscopes to more precisely locate the joint in 3D space. We hope to eventually expand beyond the hand and glove and develop a more comprehensive suit sensor suite to characterize motion across more joints (knee, elbow, shoulder, etc.) and fully monitor the human body operating within the suit environment

CO2 Washout Testing of NASA Space Suits

During the presentation "CO2 Washout Testing of NASA Spacesuits," Jason Norcross discussed the results of recent carbon dioxide CO2 washout testing of NASA spacesuits including the Rear Entry I-suit (REI), Enhanced Mobility Advanced Crew Escape Suit (EM-ACES), and possibly the ACES and Z-1 EVA prototype. When a spacesuit is used during ground testing, adequate CO2 washout must be provided for the suited subject. Symptoms of acute CO2 exposure depend on the partial pressure of CO2 (ppCO2) available to enter the lungs during respiration. The primary factors during ground-based testing that influence the ppCO2 level in the oronasal area include the metabolic rate of the subject and air flow through the suit. These tests were done to characterize inspired oronasal ppCO2 for a range of workloads and flow rates for which ground testing is nominally performed. During this presentation, Norcross provided descriptions of the spacesuits, test hardware, methodology, and results, as well as implications for future ground testing and verification of flight requirements

Comparison of the US and Russian Cycle Ergometers

The purpose of this study was to compare the U.S. and Russian cycle ergometers focusing on the mechanical differences of the devices and the physiological differences observed while using the devices. Methods: First, the mechanical loads provided by the U.S. Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) and the Russian Veloergometer were measured using a calibration dynamometer. Results were compared and conversion equations were modeled to determine the actual load provided by each device. Second, ten male subjects (32.9 +/- 6.5 yrs, 180.6 +/- 4.4 cm; 81.9 +/- 6.9 kg) experienced with both cycling and exercise testing completed a standardized submaximal exercise test protocol on CEVIS and Veloergometer. The exercise protocol involved 8 sub-maximal workloads each lasting 3 minutes for a total of 24 minutes per session, or until the end of the stage when the subject reached 85% of peak oxygen consumption or age-predicted maximum heart rate (220 - age). The workload started at 50 Watts (W), increased to 100 W, and then increased 25 W every 3 minutes until reaching a peak workload of 250 W. Physiological variables were then compared at each workload by repeated measures ANOVA or paired t-tests (p<0.05). Results: While both CEVIS and Veloergometer produced significantly lower workloads than the displayed workload, CEVIS produced even lower loads than Veloergometer (p<0.05) at each indicated workload. Despite this fact, the only physiological variables that showed a significant difference between the ergometers were VE (125 - 250W), VO2 (175 and 250 W), and VCO2 (175 W). All other physiological data were not statistically different between CEVIS and Veloergometer. Conclusion: Although workloads were different between ergometers, relatively few physiological differences were observed. Therefore, CEVIS workloads of 87.5 - 262.5 W can be rounded to the nearest 25 W increment and performed on the Veloergometer

Using Analogs for Performance Testing of Humans in Spacesuits in Simulated Reduced Gravity

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

Initial Incidence of White Matter Hyperintensities on MRI in Astronauts

Introduction: Previous literature has described the increase in white matter hyperintensity (WMH) burden associated with hypobaric exposure in the U-2 and altitude chamber operating personnel. Although astronauts have similar hypobaric exposure pressures to the U2 pilot population, astronauts have far fewer exposures and each exposure would be associated with a much lower level of decompression stress due to rigorous countermeasures to prevent decompression sickness. Therefore, we postulated that the WMH burden in the astronaut population would be less than in U2 pilots. Methods: Twenty-one post-flight de-identified astronaut MRIs (5 mm slice thickness FLAIR sequences) were evaluated for WMH count and volume. The only additional data provided was an age range of the astronauts (43-57) and if they had ever performed an EVA (13 yes, 8 no). Results: WMH count in these 21 astronaut MRI was 21.0 +/- 24.8 (mean+/- SD) and volume was 0.382 +/- 0.602 ml, which was significantly higher than previously published results for the U2 pilots. No significant differences between EVA and no EVA groups existed. Age range of astronaut population is not directly comparable to the U2 population. Discussion: With significantly less frequent (sometimes none) and less stressful hypobaric exposures, yet a much higher incidence of increased WMH, this indicates the possibility of additional mechanisms beyond hypobaric exposure. This increase unlikely to be attributable just to the differences in age between astronauts and U2 pilots. Forward work includes continuing review of post-flight MRI and evaluation of pre to post flight MRI changes if available. Data mining for potential WMH risk factors includes collection of age, sex, spaceflight experience, EVA hours, other hypobaric exposures, hyperoxic exposures, radiation, high performance aircraft experience and past medical history. Finally, neurocognitive and vision/eye results will be evaluated for any evidence of impairment linked to increased WMH