Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Jeff Somers

Publications and source records attributed to Jeff Somers.

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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

Development of a THOR Anthropometric Test Device Lumbar Spine Injury Risk Function

Currently, the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criteria (BDRC) is used to assess the risk of thoraco-lumbar spinal injury for astronauts. The BDRC has been validated for predicting injury in military aircraft ejections (Brinkley, 1968; Brinkley and Schaffer, 1971). The objective of this study was to use the injurious data behind the BDRC and subinjurious human-volunteer data to develop an injury risk function for the Test device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR) to predict probability of thoraco-lumbar spine injury during space vehicle landings.

Jessica Wells↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Reconstructions

Introduction: Recent data show a landing-attributed injury rate among Soyuz crew members to be higher than predicted in original certification analysis. New vehicles being developed for NASA are being certified using analytical tools to quantify injury risk. This assessment will provide data to allow the Agency to evaluate whether these tools are able to capture true injury risk and allow a comparison between Soyuz landings and upcoming vehicles. Methods: A finite element model (FEM) of the Soyuz descent module (DM) and its landing environment were developed to recreate Soyuz landing conditions. Occupant breakout models composed of the Soyuz seat and Sokol helmet were then developed to evaluate occupant response. These models included both anthropomorphic test device (ATD) and human body model (HBM) surrogates in three anthropometric sizes. A generalized distribution analysis of the Soyuz landing environment was performed using landing variable distributions from available literature. Results were used to identify trends in vehicle landing acceleration with landing conditions and to compare landing model injury risk predictions with those estimated in vehicle certification analysis. Next, historic Soyuz landings identified as inducing occupant injury during were reconstructed using the developed landing model and estimated landing conditions. Results and Discussion: This assessment demonstrated the capability of certification metrics, which include a combination of vehicle- and occupant-level injury risk analysis, to identify elevated injury risk landing conditions. However, the developed landing load predictions were limited by available vehicle and landing condition data. Additional data, particularly landing acceleration data specific to historic Soyuz landing conditions, would greatly enhance this assessment’s findings.

Preston Greenhalgh↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Helmet-Mounted Display Technology for Eva Training in NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Lab

Currently, during extravehicular activity (EVA) on the International Space Station (ISS), astronauts are in constant communication with mission control; however, this paradigm will significantly change during future NASA exploration missions due to limited and time-delayed communications. As exploration missions will thereby require an increase in crew autonomy, it is hypothesized that heads-up display (HUD) technology can supplement communications with mission control. Before introducing novel display technology to EVA operations, it must first be demonstrated and evaluated in an EVA training environment. The UC Davis Center for Spaceflight Research, in collaboration with NASA Johnson Space Center’s Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations (H-3PO) Lab has developed a low-cost and rapid development helmet-mounted display (HMD) for EVA training at NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL). The first two phases of HMD testing (Phase I and II) at the NBL focused on technology and capability development and demonstration. Crew member feedback was obtained that evaluated aspects of HMD including its user satisfaction, visibility, readability, and usefulness. Overall, feedback indicated HMD was readable, un-obtrusive, and the available display modes had potential to be useful and enhance EVA training. HMD display modes currently available include: real-time biofeedback (metabolic rate), phase elapsed time (PET), ability to set timers, task procedural aids (e.g. Pistol Grip Tool settings) and custom messages. The goal for Phase III, which is currently underway, is to evaluate the effects that access to bioinformatics through HMD has on astronaut training and performance at the NBL. For this phase of testing, crewmembers will be asked to perform a go/no-go task while wearing HMD throughout the NBL run to characterize crew member state of situational awareness with respect to HMD. This information could be used to inform how best to display relatively important or supplemental, but not critical, data in the future.

Heads up display↗
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↗