Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Alejandro Garbino

Publications and source records attributed to Alejandro Garbino.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Updates to NASA’S Break-in-Prebreathe Flight Rules Due to Type II Decompression Sickness Risk Considerations

Investigation of a central neurological decompression sickness (DCS) case during hypobaric ground testing at Johnson Space Center (JSC) identified a ~3 min break-in-prebreathe (BiP) late in the prebreathe (13 min prior to depressurization) as the leading credible cause for the DCS case. This occurred despite applicable prebreathe payback rules being followed. Applicable NASA rules, for ground and flight, directed 2:1 payback of breaks up to 10 min in duration, regardless of when a break occurs relative to depress. Breaks lasting longer than 10 min require a complete restart of the prebreathe protocol. The adequacy of NASA’s BiP rules was evaluated prior to resuming any hypobaric ground testing or International Space Station (ISS) extravehicular activity (EVA). Of particular interest to the authors was the timing of the BiP in relation to the overall prebreathe timeline. Although there exists no agreed-upon definition, a ‘late’ BiP means towards the end of the prebreathe period, and in particular, the last hour prior to depressurization. The following information sources were reviewed prior to formulating recommendations: i) the type II DCS case report and findings from the investigation; ii) documented rationale for existing flight rules, iii) consultations with subject matter experts involved in definition of existing flight rules (several of whom had since left NASA); iv) relevant published literature; v) tissue gas loading model estimates; and vi) NASA’s operational experience with late breaks in prebreathe.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRS2024

Updates to NASA’s Break-in-Prebreathe Rules Due to Type II Decompression Sickness Risk Considerations

INTRODUCTION. Investigation of a central neurological decompression sickness (DCS) case during ground testing at Johnson Space Center identified a break-in-prebreathe (BIP) 13 minutes prior to depressurization as the leading credible cause despite applicable prebreathe payback rules being followed. Applicable NASA rules, for ground and flight, directed 2:1 payback of breaks up to 10 mins in duration, regardless of when a break occurs relative to depress. Full restart of prebreathe is directed following breaks > 10 min. The adequacy of NASA’s BIP rules was evaluated prior to resuming hypobaric ground testing or ISS extravehicular activities. METHODS. The following information sources were reviewed prior to formulating recommendations: i) Type II DCS case report and investigation findings; ii) documented rationale for existing flight rules, iii) consultations with subject matter experts involved in definition of existing flight rules (several of whom had since left NASA), iv) relevant published literature, v) model estimates of tissue on-gassing and off-gassing, and vi) NASA’s operational experience with late breaks in prebreathe. RESULTS. NASA’s nominal prebreathe protocols are validated via extensive ground testing to ensure DCS risk is reduced to within acceptable limits. Conversely, there exists a paucity of data, no validated models, and limited documentation regarding BIP risk for NASA prebreathe protocols. Flight rules implemented for shuttle and later ISS are based primarily on expert opinion and an assumption of symmetric on-gassing and off-gassing, which would make 2:1 payback a conservative mitigation for a BIP. Assumption of exponential gas kinetics makes late breaks higher risk, or require greater payback, than earlier breaks. Two BIPs have occurred using the current ISS prebreathe protocol, each of which was followed by greater than 2:1 payback and at least 59 minutes of 100% O2 pre-depress. No DCS cases have been reported during shuttle or ISS EVA operations. DISCUSSION. Interim changes were implemented to protect against late breaks during ground and flight prebreathes by ensuring negligible difference in conservatively modeled ppN2 pre-depress compared to nominal validated protocols. Additional documentation and literature review as well as chamber test planning are ongoing with the objective of further ground and flight rule updates and validation of a BIP risk model.

Prebreathe↗
NASA NTRS2024

Updates to NASA’s Break-in-Prebreathe Rules Due to Type II Decompression Sickness Risk Considerations

INTRODUCTION. Investigation of a central neurological decompression sickness (DCS) case during ground testing at Johnson Space Center identified a break-in-prebreathe (BIP) 13 minutes prior to depressurization as the leading credible cause despite applicable prebreathe payback rules being followed. Applicable NASA rules, for ground and flight, directed 2:1 payback of breaks up to 10 mins in duration, regardless of when a break occurs relative to depress. Full restart of prebreathe is directed following breaks > 10 min. The adequacy of NASA’s BIP rules was evaluated prior to resuming hypobaric ground testing or ISS extravehicular activities. METHODS. The following information sources were reviewed prior to formulating recommendations: i) Type II DCS case report and investigation findings; ii) documented rationale for existing flight rules, iii) consultations with subject matter experts involved in definition of existing flight rules (several of whom had since left NASA), iv) relevant published literature, v) model estimates of tissue on-gassing and off-gassing, and vi) NASA’s operational experience with late breaks in prebreathe. RESULTS. NASA’s nominal prebreathe protocols are validated via extensive ground testing to ensure DCS risk is reduced to within acceptable limits. Conversely, there exists a paucity of data, no validated models, and limited documentation regarding BIP risk for NASA prebreathe protocols. Flight rules implemented for shuttle and later ISS are based primarily on expert opinion and an assumption of symmetric on-gassing and off-gassing, which would make 2:1 payback a conservative mitigation for a BIP. Assumption of exponential gas kinetics makes late breaks higher risk, or require greater payback, than earlier breaks. Two BIPs have occurred using the current ISS prebreathe protocol, each of which was followed by greater than 2:1 payback and at least 59 minutes of 100% O2 pre-depress. No DCS cases have been reported during shuttle or ISS EVA operations. DISCUSSION. Interim changes were implemented to protect against late breaks during ground and flight prebreathes by ensuring negligible difference in conservatively modeled ppN2 pre-depress compared to nominal validated protocols. Additional documentation and literature review as well as chamber test planning are ongoing with the objective of further ground and flight rule updates and validation of a BIP risk model.

Prebreathe↗
NASA NTRS2023

Appetite and Food Intake During 11 Days of Mild Hypobaric Hypoxia

Introduction Reduced food consumption and loss of body mass and muscle mass have been observed during spaceflight. Hypoxic conditions that astronauts may encounter on exploration missions may further implicate satiety signals and dietary intake. Appetite, food intake, and satiety hormones were investigated under the conditions of mild hypoxia and high energy output during simulated extravehicular activity (EVA) to determine the adequacy of a mission relevant space food system to support energy balance and body composition. Methods Foods realistic to early Artemis missions was packed by meal for each subject for the 11-day test based on estimated energy requirements (EER) and estimated EVA caloric requirements. No hot water or food warmer was provided and only room temperature water was available to rehydrate food and beverages in-mission, mimicking plans for early Artemis missions. Measures included food records (pre-mission, in-mission); fasted body weight (pre-mission, in-mission); Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (pre-mission, post-mission); subjective ratings and feedback of food acceptability, mealtime and meal preparation sufficiency, appetite, and nausea (in-mission); and circulating ghrelin and leptin concentration in fasted blood samples (pre-mission, in-mission: pre-post EVA). Results All subjects consumed fewer calories in-mission than predicted. On average, subjects consumed 341 calories less on EVA days compared to non-EVA days in-mission (p=0.0511). The total weight loss estimate from daily weight measurements (-1.1 kg, p=0.0028) is consistent with underconsumption and supported by DXA measurements (-1.3 kg total body mass, p=0.0123 and -1.6 kg fat mass, p=0.0016). In general, most foods that were consumed were given acceptable scores, but subject comments indicated that the most acceptable foods were those not intended to be heated. Comments also indicated that subjects found their favorite foods early in the mission and avoided the foods that they did not like throughout the mission. Habitability scores indicated that overall aspects of the food system were considered borderline or unacceptable over the length of this mission. Foods that caused gas were avoided pre-EVA to prevent discomfort during pressure changes. Average fruit and vegetable intake decreased during the mission, dropping from 4.8 servings/d pre-mission to 3.4 servings/d on non-EVA days in-mission (p=0.0872) and 2.3 servings on EVA days (p=0.0020). Fasting ghrelin concentrations tended to be lower pre-EVA and on non-EVA days when exposed to mild hypoxia compared to normoxic conditions pre-mission and post-EVA (p=0.0136). Fasting levels of leptin did not change. Discussion Food intake was reduced in-mission, resulting in a caloric deficit and weight loss for most subjects. Crew food and appetite ratings and comments indicated this was due to a combination of food choices, lack of preference, lack of preparation capability, lack of time for meal preparation, consumption, and cleanup, and physiological challenges with the changing pressure. The regulation of appetite stimulating hormone ghrelin, but not the appetite suppressor leptin, appeared to be sensitive to hypoxic conditions. Conclusions Food preparation capabilities and time for meals are important for promoting adequate food intake. Reduced appetite and food intake during missions may further be aggravated under hypoxic conditions through the suppression of ghrelin. Lack of time for meals on EVA days, and avoidance of potential gas-causing foods (e.g., health promoting fruits and vegetables) prior to EVAs, demonstrate the importance of scheduling ample recovery time between EVA days.

Lichar Dillon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Validation of Decompression Sickness Risk Mitigation Protocols for Planetary Spaceflight Missions

BACKGROUND: Apollo missions used a 100% O2 cabin atmosphere which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activity (EVA) on the moon. NASA’s future missions to the moon and Mars are expected to use nitrox gas mixtures of up to 34% O2, 66% N2, which will reduce flammability risk compared with Apollo, but will necessitate Oxygen prebreathe prior to EVA to reduce DCS risk to acceptable levels. Prebreathe protocols used on the space shuttle and International Space Station are validated for microgravity EVAs, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary EVA. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA as a compromise that balances prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. However, this atmosphere may not be used for vehicles that do not support frequent EVA, and with commercial providers and international providers expected to provide landers, pressurized rovers, habitats, and spacesuits, different combinations of vehicle and spacesuit atmospheres are possible and will each require validated prebreathe protocols. OVERVIEW: Key components of a multi-year strategic roadmap include: 1) Establish hypobaric chamber facility capable of supporting 8-person EVA prebreathe validation tests at saturation atmospheres up to 36% O2; 2) validate an EVA physical workload simulation for use during prebreathe validation testing; 3) validate the recommended “exploration atmosphere” prebreathe protocol; 4) validate prebreathe protocols for additional atmospheric combinations that bound the most likely potential operating ranges of future vehicles and spacesuits; and 5) update DCS risk estimation models based on results of prebreathe validation studies. DISCUSSION: Details and data from completion of the first two steps of the strategic roadmap will be presented; the third step is currently underway, with pilot results provided in a companion presentation. Steps four and five will require a multi-year series of chamber tests; collaborations are being pursued.

Andrew F. J. Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Results of a 3-day Pilot Study to Validate Planetary Prebreathe Protocols Using a 56.5 kPa 34% O2, 66% N2 Saturation Cabin Atmosphere

INTRODUCTION: Apollo missions used 100% O2 cabin atmospheres which effectively eliminated the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) during extravehicular activities (EVAs, ‘spacewalks’); however, this atmosphere presented a flammability risk that is no longer acceptable to NASA. Denitrogenation prebreathe protocols used to mitigate DCS risk for Space Shuttle and International Space Station EVAs are validated for the microgravity environment, but the significantly increased risk of DCS during equivalent ambulatory surface EVAs make these protocols inapplicable to planetary/Lunar missions. An “exploration atmosphere” of 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2 has been recommended by NASA for future Moon and Mars missions as a compromise that balances subsequent pre-EVA prebreathe duration, hypoxia, and flammability risk, assuming a 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) spacesuit. Prebreathe validation studies was initiated utilizing a three-story 6m diameter hypobaric chamber at NASA’s Johnson Space Center. Here, we report the results of a 3-day human-in-the-loop system checkout. METHODS: Six volunteers acclimated to the 56.6kPa/34% O2 66% N2 environment for 48hrs prior to conducting a 20-minute prebreathe and a 6-hour simulated EVA at 34kPa/85% O2 / 15% N2. The EVA simulation was designed to include tasks that are physically and ergonomically representative of future planetary EVAs. Decompression stress was evaluated by serial doppler and echocardiographs, as well as by clinical features of DCS signs/symptoms. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Preliminary data analysis noted venous gas emboli (VGE) in 3 of 6 subjects, with peak Grade II VGE by Doppler and peak E-B score of 5 by cardiac ultrasonography. No volunteers were diagnosed with DCS during this initial test. No acute hypoxic symptoms were noted. Musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal complaints were noted, likely associated with the exercise load and the food system. Validation of exploration prebreathe protocols has since been initiated with an 11-day saturation test using the same facility and protocol.

Alejandro Garbino↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Thermal Assessment of Traverse and Geology Task Iterations During Simulated Lunar Extravehicular Activity

Spacewalks or extravehicular activities (EVA) in microgravity are mentally and physically demanding. Current microgravity EVAs are predominantly focused on upper body tasks on engineered surfaces; however, the introduction of gravity means that crew members during future lunar EVAs will be required to perform tasks that generate full body workloads such as navigating natural lunar terrain while conducting geological sampling. To date, only 12 people have walked on the surface of the Moon resulting in limited knowledge of suited thermal regulation under lunar-relevant physical workloads. To address this gap, a study is underway to focus on spacesuit operations with simulated lunar EVA workloads. This study presents methodology for collecting standard thermal measures during suit testing. In this pilot study, two suited subjects underwent simulated lunar EVAs using the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the effects of partial gravity. Each lunar EVA, lasting three to five hours, included various metabolically demanding EVA tasks. Subjects donned the NASA Mark III (MK III) space suit and were offloaded to 1/6th G (lunar gravity). A subset task circuit from one of these simulations replicated an EVA traverse to a lunar crater, taking a geological sample, and returning to base. The suited subject walked one 1500 m (0% grade) and three 500 m traverses at three different grades (10, 20, 30%). Between each traverse, subjects performed geology sampling tasks (0 and 10% grade). Thermal measurements included core and skin temperature, liquid cooling garment (LCG) inlet and outlet temperature, and spacesuit gas inlet and outlet temperature and humidity. Compared to baseline core temperature (S1 = 37.07±0.32 °C, S2 = 37.27±0.01 °C) and mean skin temperature (S1 = 32.38±0.34 °C, S2 = 33.62±0.03 °C), after a 1500 m traverse, each suited subject showed an increased core temperature (S1 = 37.23±0.12 °C, S2 = 37.41±0.11°C) and decreased mean skin temperature (S1 = 32.16±0.17 °C, S2 = 31.53±1.15 °C) at a delta LCG temperature (S1 = 1.86±0.24 °C, S2 = 2.20±0.76 °C) and delta suit humidity (S1 = 9.66±1.49 %, S2 = 11.50±1.58 %). Core temperature continued to increase from compounding traverse and geology tasks (S1 = 38.04±0.03 °C, S2 = 38.1±0.02 °C) accompanied by an increase in delta LCG temperature (S1 = 2.24±0.13 °C, S2 = 2.67±0.12 °C) and delta suit humidity (S1 = 28±2.42 %, S2 = 31±2.13 %). Conversely, as the circuit progressed, mean skin temperature continued to decrease due to sustained LCG heat rejection (S1 = 30.08±0.15 °C, S2 = 30.28±0.07 °C). During the simulated EVA circuit core temperature increased to elevated values and remained elevated as heat was retained while mean skin temperature decreased due to peripheral heat offloaded to the LCG. The thermal measures collected during this study provided critical heat loading dynamics during lunar EVA tasks. Including core and skin temperatures along with suited thermal measures provides a standard data collection scheme for human thermal metrics during EVA task management. Data collected in this configuration can be used to build future lunar EVA task circuits and human thermal predictions.

Bradley Hoffmann↗