Prescribed Travel Schedules for Fatigue Management

The NASA Fatigue Management Team is developing recommendations for managing fatigue during travel and for shift work operations, as Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Circadian Desynchrony in ISS Operations. The Guidelines provide the International Space Station (ISS ) flight surgeons and other operational clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for mitigating fatigue and other factors related to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. As much international travel is involved both before and after flight, the guidelines provide recommendations for: pre-flight training, in-flight operations, and post-flight rehabilitation. The objective of is to standardize the process by which care is provided to crewmembers, ground controllers, and other support personnel such as trainers, when overseas travel or schedule shifting is required. Proper scheduling of countermeasures - light, darkness, melatonin, diet, exercise, and medications - is the cornerstone for facilitating circadian adaptation, improving sleep, enhancing alertness, and optimizing performance. The Guidelines provide, among other things, prescribed travel schedules that outline the specific implementation of these mitigation strategies. Each travel schedule offers evidence based protocols for properly using the NASA identified countermeasures for fatigue. This presentation will describe the travel implementation schedules and how these can be used to alleviate the effects of jet lag and/or schedule shifts

Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Work-Rest Cycles

BHP Program Element Goal: Identify, characterize, and prevent or reduce behavioral health and performance risks associated with space travel, exploration and return to terrestrial life. BHP Requirements: a) Characterize and assess risks (e.g., likelihood and consequences). b) Develop tools and technologies to prevent, monitor, and treat adverse outcomes. c) Inform standards. d) Develop technologies to: 1) reduce risks and human systems resource requirements (e.g., crew time, mass, volume, power) and 2) ensure effective human-system integration across exploration mission

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk as follows: Sleep loss is apparent during spaceflight. Astronauts consistently average less sleep during spaceflight relative to on the ground. The causes of this sleep loss remain unknown, however ground-based evidence suggests that the sleep duration of astronauts is likely to lead to performance impairment and short and long-term health consequences. Further research is needed in this area in order to develop screening tools to assess individual astronaut sleep need in order to quantify the magnitude of sleep loss during spaceflight; current and planned efforts in BHP's research portfolio address this need. In addition, it is still unclear whether the conditions of spaceflight environment lead to sleep loss or whether other factors, such as work overload lead to the reduced sleep duration. Future data mining efforts and continued data collection on the ISS will help to further characterize factors contributing to sleep loss. Sleep inertia has not been evaluated during spaceflight. Ground-based studies confirm that it takes two to four hours to achieve optimal performance after waking from a sleep episode. Sleep inertia has been associated with increased accidents and reduced performance in operational environments. Sleep inertia poses considerable risk during spaceflight when emergency situations necessitate that crewmembers wake from sleep and make quick decisions. A recently completed BHP investigation assesses the effects of sleep inertia upon abrupt awakening, with and without hypnotics currently used in spaceflight; results from this investigation will help to inform strategies relative to sleep inertia effects on performance. Circadian desynchrony has been observed during spaceflight. Circadian desynchrony during spaceflight develops due to schedule constraints requiring non-24 operations or 'slam-shifts' and due to insufficient or mis-timed light exposure. In addition, circadian misalignment has been associated with reduced sleep duration and increased medication use. In ground-based studies, circadian desynchrony has been associated with significant performance impairment and increased risk of accidents when operations coincide with the circadian nadir. There is a great deal of information available on how to manage circadian misalignment, however, there are currently no easily collected biomarkers that can be used during spaceflight to determine circadian phase. Current research efforts are addressing this gap. Work overload has been documented during current spaceflight operations. NASA has established work hour guidelines that limit shift duration, however, schedule creep, where duty requirements necessitate working beyond scheduled work hours, has been reported. This observation warrants the documentation of actual work hours in order to improve planning and in order to ensure that astronauts receive adequate down time. In addition to concerns about work overload, ground based evidence suggests that work underload may be a concern during deep space missions, where torpor may develop and physically demanding workload will be exchanged for monitoring of autonomous systems. Given that increased automation is anticipated for exploration vehicles, fatigue effects in the context of such systems needs to be further understood. Performance metrics are needed to evaluate fitness-for-duty during spaceflight. Although ground-based evidence supports the notion that sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and work overload lead to performance impairment, inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate performance during spaceflight make it difficult to evaluate the magnitude of performance impairment during spaceflight. Work is underway to standardize measures of performance evaluation during spaceflight. Once established, such performance indicators need to be correlated with operational performance. Individual differences in sleep need and circadian preference, phase shifting ability and period have been documented in ground-based studies. Individual differences in response to sleep loss and circadian misalignment have also been documented and are presumed to be associated with genetic polymorphisms. No studies have systematically reported individual differences in sleep or circadian-related outcomes during spaceflight. More work is needed in this area in order to identify genetic or phenotypic biomarkers that predict resilience or vulnerability to sleep loss in order to personalize countermeasure strategies and mitigate performance impairment during spaceflight. Two laboratory and field investigations specific to this topic are currently ongoing; additional efforts, including an effort to mine existing biological data from spaceflight relative to sleep and circadian outcomes, are planned. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian period and phase have been reported in ground-based studies. The impact of these sex differences on performance is unclear. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian rhythms have not been systematically studied during spaceflight, presumably due to the small number of women that have flown in space. More research is needed in this area to evaluate whether any of the observed sex differences in physiology lead to altered performance in spaceflight and on the ground

Slow Wave Sleep and Long Duration Spaceflight

While ground research has clearly shown that preserving adequate quantities of sleep is essential for optimal health and performance, changes in the progression, order and /or duration of specific stages of sleep is also associated with deleterious outcomes. As seen in Figure 1, in healthy individuals, REM and Non-REM sleep alternate cyclically, with stages of Non-REM sleep structured chronologically. In the early parts of the night, for instance, Non-REM stages 3 and 4 (Slow Wave Sleep, or SWS) last longer while REM sleep spans shorter; as night progresses, the length of SWS is reduced as REM sleep lengthens. This process allows for SWS to establish precedence , with increases in SWS seen when recovering from sleep deprivation. SWS is indeed regarded as the most restorative portion of sleep. During SWS, physiological activities such as hormone secretion, muscle recovery, and immune responses are underway, while neurological processes required for long term learning and memory consolidation, also occur. The structure and duration of specific sleep stages may vary independent of total sleep duration, and changes in the structure and duration have been shown to be associated with deleterious outcomes. Individuals with narcolepsy enter sleep through REM as opposed to stage 1 of NREM. Disrupting slow wave sleep for several consecutive nights without reducing total sleep duration or sleep efficiency is associated with decreased pain threshold, increased discomfort, fatigue, and the inflammatory flare response in skin. Depression has been shown to be associated with a reduction of slow wave sleep and increased REM sleep. Given research that shows deleterious outcomes are associated with changes in sleep structure, it is essential to characterize and mitigate not only total sleep duration, but also changes in sleep stages

Subjective Sleep Experience During Shuttle Missions

It is now known that for many astronauts, sleep is reduced in spaceflight. Given that sleep is intimately tied to performance, safety, health, and well being, it is important to characterize factors that hinder sleep in space, so countermeasures can be implemented. Lessons learned from current spaceflight can be used to inform the development of space habitats and mitigation strategies for future exploration missions. The purpose of this study was to implement a survey and one-on-one interviews to capture Shuttle flyers' subjective assessment of the factors that interfered with a "good nights sleep" during their missions. Strategies that crewmembers reported using to improve their sleep quality during spaceflight were also discussed. Highlights from the interview data are presented here

An Integrated, Evidence-Based Approach to Transitioning to Operations: Specifications for Future Replacement Lights on ISS

The International Space Station (ISS) currently uses General Luminaire Assemblies (GLAs) as its primary light source. These GLAs are composed of fluorescent lighting and are integrated into the electrical system on Station. Seventy seven of these units are distributed throughout the vehicle, and many of the lights, having reached their lifespan, are no longer functional; while backup panels are available on orbit, it is anticipated that the supplies of fluorescents on the station will be exhausted by 2015. The ISS vehicle office is therefore preparing to replace all of the GLAs, with Solid State Light Assemblies (SSLAs) composed of white Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). In the Spring of 2010, an announcement for the replacement lights was released. The announcement specified that proposed lighting systems should use LED technology, given certain power draw restrictions and no changes to how the lights are currently controlled (a central on/off switch per node, and a dial to turn on/off and increase brightness on each lighting unit). The replacement lights are to follow current specifications for brightness levels (lux) and color temperature (degrees Kelvin, or K). Reportedly, the lighting on orbit is dim and suboptimal. The average brightness of the lights (given all lights within a node are operational) is 291 lux; by comparison, recommended office lighting ranges from 200 to 500 lux, and daylight ranges on a typical overcast day, consists of 10,000 to 25,000 lux. Representatives from NASA Behavioral Health and Performance Element (BHP) and Human Factors and Habitability identified that maintaining current brightness levels limits visual acuity, work space, and the use of light as a countermeasure for improving circadian entrainment, hastening phase shifting, evoking acute alertness and enhancing performance. Revised lighting specifications are therefore needed to optimize the replacement lights for the ISS

Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload

Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk

Risk of Adverse Cognitive or Behavioral Conditions and Psychiatric Disorders

The NASA commitment to human space flight includes continuing to fly astronauts on the ISS until it is decommissioned as well as possibly returning astronauts to the moon or having astronauts venture to an asteroid or Mars. As missions leave low Earth orbit and explore deeper space, BHP supports and conducts research to enable a risk posture that considers the risk of adverse cognitive or behavioral conditions and psychiatric disorders acceptable given mitigations, for pre-, in, and post-flight.The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) determines the risk of various mission scenarios using a likelihood (per person per year) by consequences matrix examining those risks across two categorieslong term health and operational (within mission). Colors from a stoplight signal are used by HSRB and quickly provide a means of assessing overall perceived risk for a particular mission scenario. Risk associated with the current six month missions on the ISS are classified as accepted with monitoring while planetary missions, such as a mission to Mars, are recognized to be a red risk that requires mitigation to ensure mission success.Currently, the HSRB deems that the risk of adverse cognitive or behavioral conditions and psychiatric outcomes requires mitigation for planetary missions owing to long duration isolation and radiation exposure (see Table 1). While limited research evidence exists from spaceflight, it is well known anecdotally that the shift from the two week shuttle missions to the six month ISS missions renders the psychological stressors of space as more salient over longer duration missions. Shuttle astronauts were expected just to tolerate any stressors that arose during their mission and were successful at doing so (Whitmire et al, 2013). While it is possible to deal with stressors such as social isolation and to live with incompatible crewmembers for two weeks on shuttle, ignoring it is much less likely to be a successful coping mechanism on station. For the longer missions of the ISS, astronauts require a larger, more robust set of coping skills and more psychological support. Evidence of this are the number of BHPs Operational Psychology (Op Psy) staff who have been awarded silver Snoopys by long duration astronauts, in the statements of praise for the Op Psy and Family Support Office teams, and in the written and oral statements from flown astronauts regarding difficulty of longer missions and how much Op Psy helped

Risk of Adverse Cognitive or Behavioral Conditions and Psychiatric Disorders: Evidence Report

In April 2010, President Obama declared a space pioneering goal for the United States in general and NASA in particular. "Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite." Thus NASA's Strategic Objective 1.1 emerged as "expand human presence into the solar system and to the surface of Mars to advance exploration, science, innovation, benefits to humanity, and international collaboration" (NASA 2015b). Any space flight, be it of long or short duration, occurs in an extreme environment that has unique stressors. Even with excellent selection methods, the potential for behavioral problems among space flight crews remain a threat to mission success. Assessment of factors that are related to behavioral health can help minimize the chances of distress and, thus, reduce the likelihood of adverse cognitive or behavioral conditions and psychiatric disorders arising within a crew. Similarly, countermeasures that focus on prevention and treatment can mitigate the cognitive or behavioral conditions that, should they arise, would impact mission success. Given the general consensus that longer duration, isolation, and confined missions have a greater risk for behavioral health ensuring crew behavioral health over the long term is essential. Risk, which within the context of this report is assessed with respect to behavioral health and performance, is addressed to deter development of cognitive and behavioral degradations or psychiatric conditions in space flight and analog populations, and to monitor, detect, and treat early risk factors, predictors and other contributing factors. Based on space flight and analog evidence, the average incidence rate of an adverse behavioral health event occurring during a space mission is relatively low for the current conditions. While mood and anxiety disturbances have occurred, no behavioral emergencies have been reported to date in space flight. Anecdotal and empirical evidence indicate that the likelihood of an adverse cognitive or behavioral condition or psychiatric disorder occurring greatly increases with the length of a mission. Further, while cognitive, behavioral, or psychiatric conditions might not immediately and directly threaten mission success, such conditions can, and do, adversely impact individual and crew health, welfare, and performance

Development of a Ground Test & Analysis Protocol for NASA's NextSTEP Phase 2 Habitation Concepts

No abstract availabl