NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 20170000796: EVA Human Health and Performance Benchmarking Study Overview and Development of a Microgravity Protocol

2.2 MB·English

by  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

EVA Human Health and Performance
Benchmarking Study Overview and
Development of a Microgravity
Protocol
Jason Norcross, KBRwyle
Sarah Jarvis, MEI Technologies
Omar Bekdash, KBRwyle
Scott Cupples, NASA JSC
Andrew Abercromby, PhD, NASA JSC
1
Multi-Disciplinary Team
HH&P
Engineering
•EVA Physiology
•Spacesuit & Crew
•Anthropometry & Survival Systems
Biomechanics Facility
•EVA Tools
•Exercise Physiology &
•ARGOS
Countermeasures
•Neurosciences
•Behavioral Health &
Human Factors
•Biostatistics
Operations
•EVA Office
•Medical Operations
•Crew Health & Safety
Program
Other Partners
•Astronaut Office
•MIT’s Department of •EVA Operations
Aero & Astronautics
•AstromaterialsResearch
& Exploration Science
2
Study Objective
• The primary objective of this study is to develop a protocol to
reliably characterize human health and performance metrics for
individuals working inside various EVA suits under realistic
spaceflight conditions.
• Expected results and methodologies developed during this study
will provide the baseline benchmarking data and protocols with
which future EVA suits and suit configurations (eg, varied
pressure, mass, center of gravity [CG]) and different test subject
populations (eg, deconditioned crewmembers) may be reliably
assessed and compared.
• Results may also be used, in conjunction with subsequent
testing, to inform fitness-for-duty standards, as well as design
requirements and operations concepts for future EVA suits and
other exploration systems.
3
HRP Risks and Gaps
HRP Gap Relevance to Gap
m EVA7: How do EVA suit system design parameters Expected results will provide data and methods with which future EVA suits and different
n
r g affect crew health and performance in exploration suit configurations (e.g. varied pressure, mass, CG) may be reliably compared in
of is
n e environments? subsequent tests. Results may also inform requirements and operations concepts for
i d
– y future EVA suits and other exploration systems.
s d
p u
a t EVA8: What are the physiological inputs and Expected results will characterize metabolic and relevant consumable benchmark data
G s
y yr outputs associated with EVA operations in for a standard set of EVA tasks. Results may also inform design requirements and
r a
a m exploration environments and how can they be operations concepts for future EVA suits and other exploration systems.
m
ir irp modeled?
P
s EVA11: How do EVA operations in exploration This study will provide an opportunity to use the Crew Health and Safety suit exposure
t
c
e environments increase the risk of crew injury and questionnaire in the planetary gravity environment and will provide benchmark data on
p
s n how can the risk be mitigated? the likelihood and consequence of symptoms and injuries associated with EVA operations
a g
la ise in different suits.
tn d
e y EVA6: What crew physiological & performance This study will provide health and human performance data for a comprehensive set of
m d
e u capabilities are required for EVA operations in exploration EVA tasks. Standardized data and methodologies will also enable comparison
lpp ts m exploration environments? with different subject populations such as deconditioned crewmembers in subsequent
u o tests, which may inform fitness-for-duty standards.
s
m rf
ro tif M4: Establish muscle fitness standards for Strength, muscle performance, and aerobic fitness data from subject characterization
fn en successful completion of mission tasks. may be used to predict EVA task performance. Standardized data and methodologies will
i e
– b A4: Establish aerobic fitness standards for also enable comparison with different subject populations such as (simulated and/or
sp ro successful completion of mission tasks. actual) deconditioned crewmembers in subsequent tests.
a y
G d
y u SM6.1: Determine if sensorimotor dysfunction
rad ts f during and after long-duration spaceflight affects Results will provide baseline data on how being in an EVA suit affects sensorimotor
n o ability to control spacecraft and associated systems. performance. Standardized data and methodologies will also enable comparison with
o
c different subject populations such as deconditioned crewmembers in subsequent tests.
e
S
– BMed3: Identify and quantify the key threats to and Results will provide pilot data on how being in an EVA suit affects neurocognitive
spaG yra & atad to ytilibisa paannroddm /pooertr lefoornsrg mo dfa imnstciaesns dicouenr ei rnxegpl elaovuratanottnio bonem mhoaiusvssio,i olronanls .hg edaultrha tion performance and if it can be measured reliably and accurately while suited.
itre lip ef 4
T
Specific Aims
• Specific Aim 1: Define a set of standardized EVA benchmarking tasks
• Specific Aim 2: Develop valid and reliable metrics and methodologies to
accompany the benchmarking tasks
Initial Mid End
Contact Stanc Conta
e ct
• Specific Aim 3: Develop a
methodology for quantifying suit fit
SUITED
• Specific Aim 4: Characterize the anthropometry
and physiology of the subject population
Task Identification and Downselect
6
ARGOS – Microgravity Conditions
Versatile Neutral Capability
Microgravity Protocol Layout
Horizontal Interface (VNCHI)
Unsuited
EMU Mark III Z-2
Translation Circuit
Quick Disconnect
Translation Video Task Board
Cable Routing
8
Microgravity Tasks
Work Envelope Functional Bolts Task Board
Strength Free Float
Functional Task
Free Float
Foot Restraint
Foot Restraint
Reach Envelope
Task Timeline Data Metrics
Translation Circuit • Metabolic
Familiarization
– Metabolic rate
Translation Circuit #1
– Metabolic cost/time to completion
Bolt Task Board Familiarization
– Heart rate
Bolt Task Board #1
• Motion Capture
Free Float Translation Circuit #2
– Isolated joint range of motion
Bolt Task Board #2
– Path length
Translation Circuit #3
– Body position
Bolt Task Board #3
– Reach & work envelope
Wide Reach Translation
Strength Testing • Subjective Ratings
Break – Change Gimbals – RPE
Strength Testing – Discomfort
Bolt Task Board – Task acceptability
Foot Restraint Functional Work Envelope – Simulation quality
Shoulder ROM
– Muscle fatigue
Reach Envelope
• Force
– Maximum isometric
10