Development of Injury Risk Functions for Hybrid-III and THOR-K Anthropomorphic Test Device
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
P Greenhalgh↗
Engineering topics
J T Somers
Publications and source records attributed to J T Somers.
Lunar Transport Vehicle Ocupant Protection Requirements
INTRODUCTION The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is preparing for future Artemis missions that will return humans to the lunar surface. A critical piece of these future missions is the Lunar Transport Vehicle (LTV), a transportation device to be used on the lunar surface. A vehicular method of transportation will allow for longer duration missions with increased capabilities to conduct research and transport soil, geological samples, or other materials of interest. The objective of this project is to provide occupant protection guidance for the design of the LTV. METHODS At the time of writing of occupant protection requirements, much of the LTV design is unknown. However, several general assumptions have been established. It is assumed that the LTV will be an unpressurized crewed rover with the occupant(s) wearing an EVA suit. Additionally, the occupant must be protected using established health limits as governing criteria to protect the occupant from hazardous levels of acceleration, jerk, and vibration. In addition to the health limits, it is expected that the LTV shall provide a comfortable transportation solution to Lunar operations. Several restraint configurations have been considered to allow for seated and standing operation of the vehicle. RESULTS Preliminary recommendations and metrics were put forward by a cross functional working group with members from Johnson Space Center and Ames Research Center. Exposure to acceleration, vibration, and jerk metrics above the proposed limits could create a risk of occupant injury. In addition to satisfying crew health needs, these limits permit the occupant to meet performance objectives including operating the vehicle and reading displays while traversing the Lunar surface. Initial guidance was refined during a Technical Interchange Meeting with external subject matter experts in industry, academia, and United States Air Force. CONCLUSION Operating a crewed vehicle in a lunar environment is a novel problem with few analogs to provide data. Based on terrestrial data from ISO & MIL Standards, occupant protection recommendations have been identified with several assumptions made about reduced gravity and deconditioned occupants. If the design of the vehicle attenuates energetics to levels below those put forward, there is high confidence the occupant will be able to repetitively operate the vehicle without physical harm or operational issues.
K Dolick↗
Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization
INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crewmembers and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80 individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of 2021. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3 %) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.
N Newby↗
Credibility Assessment and Evaluation of the Astronaut Musculoskeletal Boot/Ankle Injury Scenario Using Open SIM(TM) Computational Modeling
The musculoskeletal system of astronauts is subject to physiological changes, potentially leading to injuries due to the exposure to different gravitational environments experienced during spaceflight. These injuries can occur while an astronaut is performing an extravehicular activity (EVA) in space, on lunar or planetary surfaces or while wearing a spacesuit during terrestrial training for an EVA. One area of concern are injuries occurring at the feet and ankles due to a poor fit of the spacesuit boot. These injuries can occur if the boot does not support the ankle sufficiently and the astronaut steps awkwardly, twisting the ankle or foot, during an EVA. The OpenSimTM software can assess EVA induced musculoskeletal injuries for muscle strains, ligament injuries and joint injuries. A modeling and simulation credibility assessment of the OpenSim musculoskeletal modeling and simulation procedures, applied to the boot/ankle injury scenario injury mechanisms that may occur while carrying out tasks in these environments, is performed. These modeling and simulation credibility assessments give information on the credibility of the model’s use in simulating foot/ankle related injury mechanisms.
C A Gallo↗
Modeling and Simulation Credibility Assessment of Finite Element Models for Fall From Heights Injury Scenarios
Finite element (FE) computational models of the whole human body are being used to investigate the injury modalities and mechanisms arising from suited astronauts’ ExtraVehicular Activities (EVAs). These FE whole body models – simplified Elemance and THUMS pedestrian versions – have undergone a series of verification and validation (V&V) assessments for applications in automotive, domestic, and contact sports arenas. However, the FE models’ Modeling and Simulation (M&S) credibility assessments for simulating suited astronaut injuries due to fall from heights in altered gravity environments are limited. The current study evaluates the M&S credibility of simplified Elemance and THUMS pedestrian FE models based on eight credibility factors – data pedigree, input pedigree, code verification, solution verification, conceptual validation, referent validation, results uncertainty, and results robustness – as per NASA-STD-7009A [1]. These credibility factors were assigned ordinal scores ranging between 0 to 4, with a score of 0 in the case of insufficient evidence and 4 when all data for the model is known, used appropriately, and traceable to the Real-World System (RWS) with acceptable accuracy, precision, and uncertainty. The credibility factor sufficiency thresholds were assigned upon guidance from NASA EVA subject matter experts. The factor scores were ascertained through the evaluation of M&S credibility assessment procedures described in the published literature and FE model reports. The M&S credibility scores for the Elemance and THUMS FE models vary between 1 and 3 for data pedigree, input pedigree, and referent validation credibility factors, and between 0 and 1 for code verification, solution verification, conceptual validation, results uncertainty and results robustness. The results show that these FE models are credible for simulating fall from heights injury scenarios in specific kinematic and kinetic ranges that correlate with highway and contact sports-related external conditions. Multiple credibility elevation strategies are prescribed to improve the Elemance and THUMS models’ credibility for use in the EVA fall from height injury scenarios.
R A Perkins↗
Soyuz Landing Risk Characterization
INTRODUCTION United States On-orbit Segment (USOS) astronauts have been returning to Earth from the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz vehicle since 2003. The energetics associated with Soyuz landings are comparable to our next generation of US space vehicles (Orion, Crew Dragon, and Starliner). Soyuz also lands crew in a similar state of spaceflight deconditioning that is anticipated using the future vehicles. A number of injuries have now been observed during these Soyuz landings. Currently it is unknown how Soyuz landing accelerations and the numbers and types of associated injuries relate to the new occupant protection requirements levied upon future space vehicles. Understanding this relationship will allow better quantification of the risk of injury for future spacecraft designs. METHODS An estimate of injury occurrence during Soyuz landings has been determined using data contained in NASA flight medicine databases and supplemented with data collected from crew members and flight surgeons. At the time of this abstract, 96 USOS astronauts have returned to Earth in the Soyuz (59 US, 31 International Partner, and 6 spaceflight participants). Of that total, data from 80individual crew landings has been collected through this study as of September 2023. Injuries are classified either as contusions/abrasions, Class I (minor, no medical follow-up), Class II (moderate, medical follow-up necessary), Class III (severe), or Class IV (life threatening). Current NASA occupant protection standards are primarily based on the Multi-axial Dynamic Response Index (MDRI), which is a simple lumped-parameter spring, mass, damper model tuned to human impact responses in three orthogonal axes. RESULTS Using what is known about Soyuz landing dynamics from airborne and drop test data, the MDRI predicts essentially no Class IV or III injuries, < 1% Class II injuries, and < 5% Class I injuries. Approximately one-third of all USOS crewmembers for whom data has been gathered have suffered some sort of injury related to landing in the Soyuz vehicle. Most of these injuries fall into the contusion/abrasion category (21.3%) (n.b. This is the percent for whom contusion/abrasion was the worst injury. Those with class I or II injuries typically also received contusions/abrasions). Class I injuries have been sustained by 5.0% of all crew, and Class II injuries have been observed in 3.8%. No Class III or IV injuries have been sustained to date. Forty-three injuries have been documented, with some crewmembers sustaining more than one injury in a single landing. The knee was the most likely area of injury (n=9), followed by the back (n=8), then the arm (n=7). CONCLUSION Soyuz landing dynamics are the most comparable analog environment for the anticipated loads associated with Orion and commercial crew vehicle landings. The MDRI under predicts the percentage of Class II injuries experienced during Soyuz landings, but it is better at predicting Class I injury occurrences. However, if contusions/abrasions are included in the minor injury Class I category, then the MDRI vastly under predicts those injuries as well. Given this data, it is important to re-evaluate the expected injury rates for future vehicles and work toward improving the predictive tools for spaceflight use. Spaceflight deconditioning may account for some of the under prediction, and work is ongoing to assess the relationship between landing injuries and impact tolerance changes due to spaceflight deconditioning. Future work includes expanding this study to involve private space missions on new vehicles to better characterize the effects of time in flight, suit and seat design, and vehicle dynamics.
N Newby↗