Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Han Kim

Publications and source records attributed to Han Kim.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Development of Weigh-out Process and Evaluations for Underwater Partial Gravity Simulations

For the upcoming Artemis lunar missions, astronauts will need to train in a spacesuit where partial gravity can be simulated such as the NASA Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL). At the NBL, dive weights and foam can be added around the spacesuit to attain a satisfactory center of buoyancy (CB) and center of gravity (CG) location to simulate the lunar gravity (1/6thG) effects. If CG and CB are not co-located properly, incorrect righting moments can be introduced, and both simulation quality and EVA task performance can be impaired. Based on the findings from the initial testing using xEMU spacesuits, it was observed that the weigh-out method (i.e., determination of the weights and foam quantities and position) needed further development to improve the simulation quality, especially for the subjects who experienced excessive instability. This paper aims to present the on-going effort to improve the weigh-out process for enabling NBL lunar EVA simulations. For this effort, a human-suit model was created to use suit CAD and 3D human body scans to estimate both CB and CG location for each suited subject. NBL weigh-out testing was performed to characterize the effects of CG and CB positioning, in which the 3D human-suit model was used to determine optimal weigh-out combinations of weights and foam. Postural, balance, and subjective feedback were gathered for each weigh-out configuration. The results indicated that, as the CB was shifted higher and the CB and CG located closer to each other, the subject tended to be more stable and their EVA performance improved. A high CB location was then prioritized across 4 additional subjects in both small and large size spacesuits. When compared to the initial xEMU test series, improved performance was observed across all subjects as the CB moved higher and aligned closer to the system CG.

Pouyan Sabahi↗
NASA NTRS2024

Development of Weigh-out Process and Evaluations for Underwater Partial Gravity Simulations

For the upcoming Artemis lunar missions, astronauts will need to train in a spacesuit where partial gravity can be simulated such as the NASA Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL). At the NBL, dive weights and foam can be added around the spacesuit to attain a satisfactory center of buoyancy (CB) and center of gravity (CG) location to simulate the lunar gravity (1/6thG) effects. If CG and CB are not co-located properly, incorrect righting moments can be introduced, and both simulation quality and EVA task performance can be impaired. Based on the findings from the initial testing using xEMU spacesuits, it was observed that the weigh-out method (i.e., determination of the weights and foam quantities and position) needed further development to improve the simulation quality, especially for the subjects who experienced excessive instability. This paper aims to present the on-going effort to improve the weigh-out process for enabling NBL lunar EVA simulations. For this effort, a human-suit model was created to use suit CAD and 3D human body scans to estimate both CB and CG location for each suited subject. NBL weigh-out testing was performed to characterize the effects of CG and CB positioning, in which the 3D human-suit model was used to determine optimal weigh-out combinations of weights and foam. Postural, balance, and subjective feedback were gathered for each weigh-out configuration. The results indicated that, as the CB was shifted higher and the CB and CG located closer to each other, the subject tended to be more stable and their EVA performance improved. A high CB location was then prioritized across 4 additional subjects in both small and large size spacesuits. When compared to the initial xEMU test series, improved performance was observed across all subjects as the CB moved higher and aligned closer to the system CG.

Pouyan Sabahi↗
NASA NTRS2024

Anthropometric Measurement Procedures at the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility

The Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is the centralized source of anthropometry data at NASA for use in requirement development, engineering design, and verification of human-system integrations such as spacesuits and vehicles. To ensure the collection of consistent, accurate, and valid anthropometry data, ABF has defined anthropometric measurements and anatomical landmarks which are generally based on the Anthropometric Survey for US Army Personnel (ANSUR), but with additional measurements which have been uniquely designed for spacesuit and hardware accommodation purposes. Unlike ANSUR, NASA anthropometry measurements primarily rely on 3D body scanning, a method which allows for explicitly defining the process of collecting measurements and the quality control methods used to ensure measurement reliability. In addition to ABF’s anthropometry measurement definitions and procedures, this presentation will also compare specifics of different measurement techniques ABF uses, for example, laser scanning versus manual measurement methods (e.g., tape measure or anthropometer-based), and the benefits and considerations of each method. The evolution of ABF’s measurement process will also be addressed, as new spaceflight programs have been introduced which have required unique measurements and the need to capture body shape changes over time was identified to be critical for spacesuit fit in some instances.

Garima Gupta↗
NASA NTRS2024

Population Accommodation for NASA Spacesuit and Hardware

The goal of this work is to review the population accommodation principles and methodologies NASA Johnson Space Center has developed for the spacesuit, vehicle hardware, and habitats. NASA has defined the target population characteristics in the Human-System Integration Requirements based on the US Army Anthropometric Survey (ANSUR) database. However, the data was screened to select the cases of 30-50 year old subjects, given the historical characteristics of the crew. Further, accommodation ranges were defined for critical body measurements, as NASA aims to accommodate 1st percentile female to 99th percentile male of the crew-like population. The historical truncation thresholds of 5-95th percentiles were not used. This ensured that the accommodation range was not limited and accounted for the current astronaut population. A simulation study also showed that less than 68% of the population may have remained after multiple measurement truncations due to the anthropometry covariance patterns if the narrower range was retained. The ranges were also adjusted for long-term trends of body shape changes as predicted by the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Overall, the requirements were deemed critical to ensure the fit and accommodation of the new suit and space hardware. The requirements have specifically defined boundary cases for verifications and validations, of which the details have proven useful as standards across the different space programs. The specific use and benefits will be further discussed through case studies at the presentation.

Han Kim↗
NASA NTRS2024

Anthropometric Measurement Procedures at the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility

The Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is the centralized source of anthropometry data at NASA for use in requirement development, engineering design, and verification of human-system integrations such as spacesuits and vehicles. To ensure the collection of consistent, accurate, and valid anthropometry data, ABF has defined anthropometric measurements and anatomical landmarks which are generally based on the Anthropometric Survey for US Army Personnel (ANSUR), but with additional measurements which have been uniquely designed for spacesuit and hardware accommodation purposes. Unlike ANSUR, NASA anthropometry measurements primarily rely on 3D body scanning, a method which allows for explicitly defining the process of collecting measurements and the quality control methods used to ensure measurement reliability. In addition to ABF’s anthropometry measurement definitions and procedures, this presentation will also compare specifics of different measurement techniques ABF uses, for example, laser scanning versus manual measurement methods (e.g., tape measure or anthropometer-based), and the benefits and considerations of each method. The evolution of ABF’s measurement process will also be addressed, as new spaceflight programs have been introduced which have required unique measurements and the need to capture body shape changes over time was identified to be critical for spacesuit fit in some instances.

Garima Gupta↗
NASA NTRS2022

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

The concept of providing hydration and nutrition during extravehicular activity (EVA) is nearly as old as the space program itself. Astronauts currently have access to 32 ounces of water through a disposable in-suit drink bag (DIDB) while they are confined to their space suit. During the Apollo program, methods for providing food/nutrition to crewmembers in space suits were included as contingency solutions (1) but were eventually abandoned. The main reasons that provision of in-suit nutrition beyond water was discontinued after Apollo were the complicated engineering requirements, the additional mass and volume that was required for the applicable food formulations, hardware needed for a suit-specialized food system, and because the perceived need for in-suit nutrition during EVAs was not sufficient during the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS) eras. A custom-made 165-kcal fruit bar was fitted into the EVA suit during the Space Shuttle program, but crewmembers rarely consumed it during the EVA and rather chose to consume it before or after suited activities (2). Since 2011, between 4 and 13 EVAs have been conducted from the ISS each year, with durations ranging from 1:32 to 8:17 hours (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/spacewalks ). It has been acceptable for the crewmembers to schedule food intake around these relatively infrequent suited activities. Because upcoming Artemis missions will include nominal 8-hour lunar exploration EVAs that are expected to increase in frequency to several (4 to 5) sorties per week (3), the desire for an in-suit nutrition system has increased. In preparation for these missions, requirements to provide in-suit nutrition has been outlined in the most recent NASA Human Spaceflight Standards documents (4). Establishing general recommendations for in-suit nutrition systems precedes the selection of a lunar EVA pressure suit system. The current document is intended to define the rationale for nutrition to support EVA (whether in-suit or from the pantry in the habitat), document the requirements, constraints, and crewmember preferences, and recommend necessary next steps for developing an in-suit EVA nutrition system. Assessments presented in this report include a review of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) food products as potential in-suit formulations, a comparison of conceptual designs for delivering nutrition to a crewmember while confined to a space suit, an evaluation of space suit volume constraints for the placement of in-suit nutrition systems, and feedback from astronauts regarding preferences for nutrition support during EVA. Based on these assessments, recommendations were formulated that can be used to help develop a method to deliver nutrition safely and acceptably to a crewmember while they are confined to a space suit for an EVA duration of up to 8 hours, and a total time in the suit of up to 12 hours.

space suit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Virtual Fit Assessment: Validation using Historical Spacesuit Fit Data

Virtual fit tests using 3D body scans have provided a cost-effective means to predictively assess spacesuit fit for the current and future astronaut population. However, fit is a complex issue influenced by physical interferences, subjective preference, and many other factors. Fit can substantially differ between the type of hardware, environmental conditions, and tasks being performed. Namely, fit changes across different contexts, such as 3D printed mockup evaluations, pressurized one-g suited test events, neutral buoyancy and other training events, and flight extravehicular activities (EVA). These challenges make it difficult to validate virtual fit frameworks to physical suit sizing. This study proposes a new method of validation using the wealth of historically archived suit fit data. Physically Assessed Fit (PAF) data was assessed from astronauts and test volunteers who wore the legacy Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The data was collected during the past decades at NASA and considered to be most reliable and dependable. Each participant was 3D scanned for body shape and spacesuit-critical dimensions were measured per NASA guidelines. The participants’ size preference for hard upper torso (HUT) assembly was retrieved from their pressurized suit fit check records. Fit assessments were also updated after one-g EVA training, neutral buoyancy training, and EVA flights. Virtually Assessed Fit (VAF) was done by overlaying the CAD model of a HUT with the 3D body scans of the PAF participants. Each body scan was iteratively adjusted for the position inside the HUT to minimize the suit-to-body contact interference while satisfying a set of prescribed requirements. Then the residual contact area, depth, and volume were quantified as VAF metrics. This process was repeated for the different HUT sizes, including medium, large, and extra-large. Statistical modeling is currently in progress and will be presented at the conference. A statistical classifier will be developed to predict a fit probability for different HUT sizes as a function of the corresponding person’s VAF metrics. The HUT size with the highest fit probability will constitute the most likely size selection for the person, and the prediction will be compared against the corresponding PAF data. The participant data will be randomly pre-grouped into either a model development or validation subset. While the model development subset will be used to build the probability model, the validation subset will be used to assess the model accuracy. Also, the locations and magnitudes of suit-body-contacts will be estimated from VAF. This information can identify the critical suit geometry and body shape features that influence suit fit. The variations found in PAF size selections by subjects with similar VAF metrics will allow for investigations into subjective preferences, for example, tight versus loose fit. Overall, this study is expected to provide a structured validation of a virtual suit fit framework, which has not been possible in the past. The outcome can also provide useful insights and potential limitations for interpreting virtual fit tests for future spacesuit designs and population accommodation.

Han Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling Spacesuit-Human Interaction for Injury Risk Identification

Performing functional tasks while inside of the space suit introduces additional ergonomic challenges which can lead to musculoskeletal stresses and injuries in astronauts. Computational modeling of the suit-body interaction can be used alongside human-in-the-loop testing to understand and mitigate these risks and potentially improve the work performance. In this work, a static rigid-body model of the human body was integrated with the space suit and the process is described. This model enables prediction of the resulting joint torques and musculoskeletal loading from a simulated extravehicular activity (EVA) task. For representative EVA tasks, joint torque and body angles were used as parameters to predict the muscle strength required to achieve the task, as well as the percentage of the general and astronaut-like population that could achieve that strength demand. Population strength capability can be used as an indicator of the difficulty of a task and the level of injury risk for the given task types and crew anthropometry. The sensitivity of the model to inputs such as body joint location within the space suit and individual anthropometry will also be evaluated. Future work will use a database of3D human body scans and the movements of the body inside the suit during different EVA tasks to identify potential soft tissue contact points. The specific locations and magnitudes of contacts between the body and suit are expected to identify risk of repetitive tissue contact stresses. Overall, this model will provide a new tool to structurally identify the injury risks of EVA tasks and evaluate alternate strategies to reduce injury risk.

Garima Gupta↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Spacesuit Reach Capability and Work Volume Assessment

Work volumes and reach envelopes define the locations where work objects or interfaces can be placed around a person to reduce ergonomic risk. Spacesuits, however, show unique reach patterns, due to the stiffness and mechanical constraints from pressurization. This study measured the reach motion patterns and capabilities from subjects wearing a pressurized spacesuit using a 3D motion capture system. The subjects performed arm and hand motions, focusing on extreme lateral and vertical positions. These motions defined the maximum ranges. They also performed on-suit reaches to measure where they could or couldn’t reach on the suit surface to determine where critical controls and devices could be placed on the suit. A parametric model of the reach volume was statistically built using the collected hand position data. The observed shape and size of the work volume substantially vary by persons, depending on anthropometry and strength capability. It was also indicated that the traditional metrics (e.g., simple spherical or cylindrical representations) estimated from “unsuited” persons or computer simulations may not accurately capture such variations. The results of this study can help to design and optimize space hardware and task activities, to protect crewmembers from overexertion or injuries.

Han Kim↗
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

Spaceflight for All

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Han Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Considerations for Range of Motion Testing During Spacesuit Mobility Characterization

Mobility is a critical aspect for spacesuits as it directly influences how astronauts can perform tasks safely and efficiently, while wearing the pressurized suit. Spacesuit motion is dissimilar to human movement and consists of unique movement patterns as result of pressurization and the complex mechanical joint configurations. Thus, it is important to quantify the variations in suited movement patterns and the resulting performance of the wearer for the evaluation of the spacesuit itself and hardware interfaces such as payloads and tools. Traditionally, an individual body joint is assessed for the segment-wise range of motion. For example, the knee is measured through an isolated maneuvering of the joint between the max-to-max positions (e.g., flexion/extension), and the outcome represents the mobility capabilities. These measurements are often conducted using optical motion capture system with respect to anatomical planes. However, there are several considerations for range of motion assessments that are unique to the spacesuit. The purpose of this paper is to describe and provide examples of these additional challenges in representing spacesuit mobility capabilities. Specifically, joint mobility and the variations in suit movement patterns were investigated and compared between functional tasks and isolated range of motion measurements. Motion capture data from the next-gen spacesuit design verification testing was evaluated to compare isolated range of motion tasks to functional tasks, such as one-knee kneeling and squatting. The trajectories from the upper and lower body joint centers with respect to the spacesuit hardware were also calculated. Additionally, the joint trajectories for various functional tasks are presented and compared against the isolated range of motion measurements. In general, range of motion differs between isolated and functional tasks, where functional tasks may even induce greater joint angle excursions. Additionally, there is a large variation in joint range of motion across functional tasks. Combined with several relevant factors (spacesuit fit, physical strength, simulation facility, etc.), spacesuit mobility characterization efforts will need to incorporate the specific contexts, such as task demands and movement mechanisms, when evaluating range of motion assessments.

Linh Q Vu↗