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

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

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

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

Integrated Suit Test 1 - A Study to Evaluate Effects of Suit Weight, Pressure, and Kinematics on Human Performance during Lunar Ambulation

In an effort to design the next generation Lunar suit, NASA has initiated a series of tests aimed at understanding the human physiological and biomechanical affects of space suits under a variety of conditions. The first of these tests was the EVA Walkback Test (ICES 2007-01-3133). NASA-JSC assembled a multi-disciplinary team to conduct the second test of the series, titled Integrated Suit Test 1 (IST-1), from March 6 through July 24, 2007. Similar to the Walkback Test, this study was performed with the Mark III (MKIII) EVA Technology Demonstrator suit, a treadmill, and the Partial Gravity Simulator in the Space Vehicle Mock-Up Facility at Johnson Space Center. The data collected for IST-1 included metabolic rates, ground reaction forces, biomechanics, and subjective workload and controllability feedback on both suited and unsuited (shirt-sleeve) astronaut subjects. For IST-1 the center of gravity was controlled to a nearly perfect position while the weight, pressure and biomechanics (waist locked vs. unlocked) were varied individually to evaluate the effects of each on the ability to perform level (0 degree incline) ambulation in simulated Lunar gravity. The detailed test methodology and preliminary key findings of IST-1 are summarized in this report

The Potential of Wearable Sensor Technology for EVA Glove Ergonomic Evaluation

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 onycholysi

Evidence-based Approach to Establish Space Suit Carbon Dioxide Limits

A literature survey was conducted to assess if published data (evidence) could help inform a space suit carbon dioxide (CO2) limit. The search identified more than 120 documents about human interaction with elevated CO2. Until now, the guiding philosophy has been to drive space suit CO2 as low as reasonably achievable. NASAs EVA Office requested an evidencebased approach to support a new generation of exploration-class extravehicular activity (EVA) space suits. Specific literature data about CO2 are not available for EVA in microgravity because EVA is an operational activity and not a research platform. However, enough data from groundbased research are available to facilitate a consensus of expert opinion on space suit CO2 limits. The compilation of data in this report can answer many but not all concerns about the consequences of hypercapnic exercise in a space suit. Inspired partial pressure of CO2 (PICO2) and not dry-gas partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) is the appropriate metric for hypercapnic dose to establish space suit CO2 limits. The reduction of inspired gas partial pressures by saturation of the inspired gases with water vapor at 37C is a significant factor under conditions of hypobaric space suit operation. Otherwise healthy EVA astronauts will exhibit wide variability in responses to acute hypercapnia while at rest and during exercise. What is clear from the literature is the absence of prospective (objective) accept or reject criteria for CO2 exposure in general, and no such criteria exist for operating a space suit. There is no absolute Gold Standard for an acceptable acute hypercapnic limit, just a gradual decrease in performance as CO2 increases. Acceptable CO2 exposure limits are occupation, situation (learned or novel tasks), and personspecific. Investigators who measured hypercapnic physiology rarely correlated those changes to neurocognitive symptoms, and those that measured hypercapnic neurocognition rarely correlated those changes with physiology. Some answers about changes in neurocognition and functional EVA performance during hypercapnic exercise in a space suit await new research

The Potential of Wearable Sensor Technology for EVA Glove Ergonomic Evaluation

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

Spacesuit Glove-Induced Hand Trauma and Analysis of Potentially Related Risk Variables

Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). When the gloves are pressurized, they restrict movement and create pressure points during tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally more severe injuries such as onycholysis. Glove injuries, both anecdotal and recorded, have been reported during EVA training and flight persistently through NASA's history regardless of mission or glove model. Theories as to causation such as glove-hand fit are common but often lacking in supporting evidence. Previous statistical analysis has evaluated onycholysis in the context of crew anthropometry only (Opperman et al 2010). The purpose of this study was to analyze all injuries (as documented in the medical records) and available risk factor variables with the goal to determine engineering and operational controls that may reduce hand injuries due to the EVA glove in the future. A literature review and data mining study were conducted between 2012 and 2014. This study included 179 US NASA crew who trained or completed an EVA between 1981 and 2010 (crossing both Shuttle and ISS eras) and wore either the 4000 Series or Phase VI glove during Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuit EVA training and flight. All injuries recorded in medical records were analyzed in their association to candidate risk factor variables. Those risk factor variables included demographic characteristics, hand anthropometry, glove fit characteristics, and training/EVA characteristics. Utilizing literature, medical records and anecdotal causation comments recorded in crewmember injury data, investigators were able to identify several risk factors associated with increased risk of glove related injuries. Prime among them were smaller hand anthropometry, duration of individual suited exposures, and improper glove-hand fit as calculated by the difference in the anthropometry middle finger length compared to the baseline EVA glove middle finger length

Kinematic Differences Between Motorized and Nonmotorized Treadmill Locomotion

There are few scientific publications comparing human locomotion between motorized and nonmotorized treadmills. Lakomy (1987) and Gamble et al (1988) reported that forward lean is greater on a nonmotorized treadmill to aid in the generation of horizontal force necessary for belt propulsion, but there are no data concerning lower limb kinematics. During long-term spaceflight, astronauts use locomotive exercise to mitigate the physiological effects caused by long-term exposure to microgravity. A critical decision for mission planners concerns the requirements for a treadmill to be used during potential trips to the Moon and Mars. Treadmill operation in an un-powered configuration could reduce mission resource demands, but also may impact the efficacy of treadmill exercise countermeasures. To ascertain the most appropriate type of treadmill to be used, it is important to understand biomechanical differences between motorized (M) and nonmotorized (NM) locomotion. The purpose of this evaluation was to test for differences in lower limb kinematics that occur during M and NM treadmill locomotion at two speeds. It was hypothesized that hip and knee joint angle trajectories would differ between the conditions