Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Grant Harman

Publications and source records attributed to Grant Harman.

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new extravehicular (EVA) suit is being developed for National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) upcoming lunar missions that will be designed to operate in both the lunar surface and in microgravity. This suit will allow for increased range of motion compared to the current Extravehicular Mobility Unity (EMU) and Apollo era suits and have additional features (e.g. ability to increase pressure in the field) that will enhance the health and safety of exploration astronaut.

Teresa M Reiber↗
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

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Services (xEVAS) suit is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared to the current EMU and Apollo era suits and additional features will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS suit progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury. History has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight; therefore, currently planned training events to prepare for lunar missions and tasks during lunar surface EVAs were considered. Each scenario is ranked with likelihood and consequence scorings based on our current understanding of suit and application of Artemis design reference missions. The scoring allowed identification of the high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Mechanisms of injury, injury outcomes, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team; ergonomists; suit engineers; safety engineers; the flight operations directorate; flight doctors; astronauts; astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS); and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using these, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/longdistance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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.

Grace L Douglas↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations for Developing Space Suit Integrated Food Systems and Delivering Nutrition Before, During, and After Lunar EVA

INTRODUCTION Artemis missions will include a higher tempo and frequency of extravehicular activities (EVAs) than any previous space program. Because of the physical demands expected from the crew, future space suit designs are required to incorporate nutritional support to the astronauts during lunar surface EVAs lasting longer than 4 hours. The purpose of this project was to provide recommendations to aid the development of an in-suit system that can adequately, safely, and acceptably deliver nutrition to a crewmember while confined to a space suit during EVA. METHODS Physiological, logistical, and engineering aspects of potential in-suit nutrition approaches were assessed through literature reviews, assessments of commercial off the shelf (COTS) foods, suit volumetric modeling, and feedback from subject matter experts and crewmembers. Key driving factors in the development of in-suit nutrition requirements included how much and what type of nutrition should be included, what food formulations are appropriate and safe, what are inherent limitations of space suits, what are the potential risks to the crewmember in the suit, and what practices and preferences from astronauts should be considered. Design references were conceptualized and assessed for strengths and limitations as potential in-suit nutrition systems for surface EVA. RESULTS Acute exogenous energy demands vary greatly depending on activity intensity and duration, and partial energy replenishment (i.e., 60–80 kcal∙hr-1 of EVA, or 460–680 kcal for EVAs lasting up to 8 hours) during activities could improve performance, safety, and recovery. COTS foods capable of providing these energy requirements exist; however, no COTS foods have been identified that pass NASA flight standards for microbiological safety and stability. In-suit nutrition delivery design references that were considered included in-suit concepts for a prefilled drink bag, a hydratable drink bag, and a solid food stick. In addition, a helmet feed port concept was considered for use with drink bags external to the suit. Volumetric models of the in-suit drink bag concepts, based on xEMU dimensions, indicate challenges of fitting formulations > 200 ml (equating to approximately 200 kcal). Astronaut feedback on the four concepts indicated that despite some individual preferences for inclusion of solid foods and helmet port designs, the prefilled drink bag concept was the most preferred. A prefilled drink bag can only be used if food safety and stability can be ensured, possibly requiring advancements in food delivery hardware. CONCLUSION The ability to meet the increased need for nutrition during surface EVAs through provision of nutrients in the suited configuration would benefit overall crew health, performance, and morale, and thus increase the likelihood of mission success. It is recommended that in-suit nutrition capabilities provide at least 400–600 kcal within the suit during EVAs lasting > 4 hours and that suit designs include a dedicated volume for food grade nutrition systems. The developed food system should either allow for 1) installation of prefilled (sealed sterile) liquid nutrition in the suit and provide a mechanism to break the seal at the time that consumption is desired or 2) demonstrate that the unsealed food product shelf life allows for safe consumption after at least 12 hours of EVA.

space suit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Tessa Reiber↗