Assessing the Risk of Crew Injury Due to Dynamic Loads During Spaceflight
No abstract available
Somers, J.↗
Engineering topics
Gernhardt, M.
Publications and source records attributed to Gernhardt, M..
Assessing the Risk of Crew Injury Due to Dynamic Loads During Spaceflight
Spaceflight requires tremendous amounts of energy to achieve Earth orbit and to attain escape velocity for interplanetary missions. Although the majority of the energy is managed in such a way as to limit the accelerations on the crew, several mission phases may result in crew exposure to dynamic loads. In the automotive industry, risk of serious injury can be tolerated because the probability of a crash is remote each time a person enters a vehicle, resulting in a low total risk of injury. For spaceflight, the level of acceptable injury risk must be lower to achieve a low total risk of injury because the dynamic loads are expected on each flight. To mitigate the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, the NASA Human Research Program has developed a research plan to inform the knowledge gaps and develop relevant tools for assessing injury risk. The risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be further subdivided into extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Extrinsic risk factors include the vehicle dynamic profile, seat and restraint design, and spacesuit design. Human tolerance to loads varies considerably depending on the direction, amplitude, and rise-time of acceleration therefore the orientation of the body to the dynamic vector is critical to determining crew risk of injury. Although a particular vehicle dynamic profile may be safe for a particular design, the seat, restraint, and suit designs can affect the risk of injury due to localized effects. In addition, characteristics intrinsic to the crewmember may also contribute to the risk of injury, such as crewmember sex, age, anthropometry, and deconditioning due to spaceflight, and each astronaut may have a different risk profile because of these factors. The purpose of the research plan is to address any knowledge gaps in the risk factors to mitigate injury risk. Methods for assessing injury risk have been well documented in other analogous industries and include human volunteer testing, human exposure to dynamic environments, post-mortem human subject (PMHS) testing, animal testing, anthropomorphic test devices (ATD), dynamic models of the human, numerical models of ATDs, and numerical models of the human. Each has inherent strengths and limitations. For example, human volunteer testing is advantageous because a population can be selected that is similar to the astronaut corps; however, because of the inherent ethical limitations, only sub-injurious conditions can be tested. PMHSs can be tested in a variety of conditions including injurious levels, but the responses are not completely analogous to living human subjects. In addition, it is exceedingly difficult to select a PMHS population that is similar to the astronaut corps. ATDs are currently widely used in the automotive industry and military because they are highly repeatable and durable. Unfortunately, because they are mechanical models of the human body, the biofidelity of the responses are limited to dynamic conditions used to validate the ATD. Numerical models of the ATD, in addition to the strengths and limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional uncertainty. Dynamic models are simple and easy to use, but do not account for localized effects of the seat and suit. Finally, numerical models of the human have the potential to have the most advantages; however, the current models are not validated for the conditions expected during spaceflight. To properly assess spaceflight conditions with numerical human models, human data would be needed to optimize the model responses for those conditions. Using the appropriate assessment method with the knowledge gained for each risk factor, an appropriate approach for mitigating the risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be developed ensuring crew safety in future NASA vehicles.
Somers, J. T.↗
How Well Does the Latest Anthropomorphic Test Device Mimic Human Impact Responses?
One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10‐G 100 ms but not 10‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head xand z‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA
Newby, N.↗
Biosensors for EVA: Muscle Oxygen and pH During Walking, Running and Simulated Reduced Gravity
During lunar excursions in the EVA suit, real-time measurement of metabolic rate is required to manage consumables and guide activities to ensure safe return to the base. Metabolic rate, or oxygen consumption (VO2), is normally measured from pulmonary parameters but cannot be determined with standard techniques in the oxygen-rich environment of a spacesuit. Our group developed novel near infrared spectroscopic (NIRS) methods to calculate muscle oxygen saturation (SmO2), hematocrit, and pH, and we recently demonstrated that we can use our NIRS sensor to measure VO2 on the leg during cycling. Our NSBRI-funded project is looking to extend this methodology to examine activities which more appropriately represent EVA activities, such as walking and running and to better understand factors that determine the metabolic cost of exercise in both normal and lunar gravity. Our 4 year project specifically addresses risk: ExMC 4.18: Lack of adequate biomedical monitoring capability for Constellation EVA Suits and EPSP risk: Risk of compromised EVA performance and crew health due to inadequate EVA suit systems.
Lee, S. M. C.↗
Risk Assessment of Physiological Effects of Atmospheric Composition and Pressure in Constellation Vehicles
To limit the risk of fire and reduce denitrogenation time to prevent decompression sickness to support frequent extravehicular activities on the Moon, a hypobaric (PB = 414 mmHg) and mildly hypoxic (ppO2 = 132 mmHg, 32% O2 - 68% N2) living environment is considered for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). With acute change in ppO2 from 145-178 mmHg at standard vehicular operating pressure to less than 125 mmHg at desired lunar surface vehicular operating pressures, there is the possibility that some crewmembers may develop symptoms of Acute Mountain Sickness (AMS). The signs and symptoms of AMS (headache plus nausea, dizziness, fatigue, or sleeplessness), could impact crew health and performance on lunar surface missions. An exhaustive literature review on the topic of the physiological effects of reduced ppO2 and absolute pressure as may contribute to the development of altitude symptoms or AMS was performed. The results of the nine most rigorous studies were collated, analyzed and contents on AMS and hypoxia symptoms summarized. There is evidence for an absolute pressure effect per se on AMS, so the higher the altitude for a given hypoxic alveolar O2 partial pressure (PAO2), the greater the AMS response. About 25% of adults are likely to experience mild AMS near 2,000 m altitude following a rapid ascent from sea level while breathing air (6,500 feet, acute PAO2 = 75 mmHg). The operational experience with the Shuttle staged denitrogenation protocol at 528 mmHg (3,048 m) while breathing 26.5% O2 (acute PAO2 = 85 mmHg) in astronauts adapting to microgravity suggests a similar likely experience in the proposed CEV environment. We believe the risk of mild AMS is greater given a PAO2 of 77 mmHg at 4,876 m altitude while breathing 32% O2 than at 1,828 m altitude while breathing 21% O2. Only susceptible astronauts would develop mild and transient AMS with prolonged exposure to 414 mmHg (4,876 m) while breathing 32% O2 (acute PAO2 = 77 mmHg). So the following may be employed for operational risk reduction: 1) develop procedures to increase PB as needed in the CEV, and use a gradual or staged reduction in cabin pressure during lunar outbound; 2) train crews for symptoms of hypoxia, to allow early recognition and consider pre-adaptation of crews to a hypoxic environment prior to launch, 3) consider prophylactic acetazolamide for acute pressure changes and be prepared to treat any AMS associated symptoms early with both carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and supplemental oxygen.
Scheuring, Richard A.↗