Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Jeffrey T Somers

Publications and source records attributed to Jeffrey T Somers.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and Human Volunteer Responses in Simulated Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa M Reiber↗
NASA NTRS2024

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and Human Volunteer Responses in Simulated Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa M Reiber↗
NASA NTRS2023

Modeling and Simulation Credibility Assessments of Whole-Body Finite Element Computational Models for Use in NASA Extravehicular Activity Applications

Computational finite element (FE) models are used in suited astronaut injury risk assessments; however, these models’ verification, validation, and credibility (VV&C) procedures for simulating injuries in altered gravity environments are limited. Our study conducts VV&C assessments of THUMS and Elemance whole-body FE models for predicting suited astronaut injury biomechanics using eight credibility factors, as per NASA-STD-7009A. Credibility factor ordinal scores are assigned by reviewing existing documentation describing VV&C practices, and credibility sufficiency thresholds are assigned based on input from subject matter experts. Our results show the FE models are credible for suited astronaut injury investigation in specific ranges of kinematic and kinetic conditions correlating to highway and contact sports events. Nevertheless, these models are deficient when applied outside these ranges. Several credibility elevation strategies are prescribed to improve models’ credibility for the NASA-centric application domain.

Finite Element↗
NASA NTRS2022

Astronaut Kinematics and Injury Risk for Piloted Lunar Landings and Launches While Standing

During future lunar missions, astronauts may be required to pilot vehicles while standing, and the associated kinematic and injury response is not well understood. In this study we used human body modeling to predict unsuited astronaut kinematics and injury risk for piloted lunar launches and landings in the standing posture. Three pulses (2-5 g; 10–150 ms rise times) were applied in 10 directions (vertical; ± 10-degree offsets) for a total of 30 simulations. Across all simulations, motion envelopes were computed to quantify displacement of the astronaut’s head (max 9.0 cm forward, 7.0 cm backward, 2.1 cm upward, 7.3 cm downward, 2.4 cm lateral) and arms (max 25 cm forward, 35 cm backward, 15 cm upward, 20 cm downward, 20 cm lateral). All head, neck, lumbar, and lower extremity injury metrics were within NASA’s tolerance limits, except tibia compression forces (0–1543 N upper tibia; 0–1482 N lower tibia; tolerance—1350 N) and revised tibia index (0.04–0.58 upper tibia; 0.03–0.48 lower tibia; tolerance—0.43) for the 2.7 g/150 ms pulse. Pulse magnitude and duration contributed over 80% to the injury metric values, whereas loading direction contributed less than 3%. Overall, these simulations suggest piloting a lunar lander vehicle in the standing posture presents a low risk of injury to the astronaut, although risk of tibia injury is potentially outside NASA’s acceptance limits and warrants further investigation.

Mitesh Lalwala↗
NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Transient Accelerations White Paper

Recently, the United States announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 [8]. Lunar landing (and subsequent Mars landing) architecture was not considered when the current NASA standards and vehicle design requirements for crew injury risk were developed. Therefore a gap exists in protecting the crew in planetary landing scenarios. One of the interesting aspects of this design reference mission (DRM)is the consideration of having the crew stand during dynamic phases of flight. Although this approach was contemplated for the Apollo Lunar Module, current NASA standards do not address design solutions that allow the crew to stand. Currently, NASA uses several tools and associated limits to mitigate crew injury because of dynamic loads. Some of these tools are the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion (BDRC) model and Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) [10]; and these have several limitations for assessing spaceflight loading environments, as well as specific underlying assumptions that may not be applicable in planetary landing vehicles. The BDRC is a simple lumped mass parameter model developed by the U.S. military, and has been used primarily to evaluate injury risk associated with aircraft ejection systems. The model evaluates seat accelerations in each axis to determine injury risk. Because the model treats the human-seat-restraint system as a single system, it is contingent on a restraint system and seat with similar characteristics of the original test data underlying the model. In particular, the model requires a rigid seat with a minimum natural frequency of 15Hz, minimal seat pan padding, side supports, and multipoint harness. The BDRC model uses undamped natural frequency and damping coefficients based on these requirements and any deviations may render the model injury predictions void. In lunar landing, one expects that a minimal or even no seat with minimal restraints will be employed. In this case, the original model parameters are likely to not be applicable. For capsule-based spacecraft returning crew to Earth, the Hybrid III ATD in various sizes also is used to supplement the BDRC. This analytical tool was added to address limitations in the BDRC related to spacecraft landings while wearing a pressure garment and helmet. Although the Hybrid III ATD has additional measurement capability; head, neck,and lumbar spine responses were the only metrics included because of the limitations imposed by the model.Lunar landing acceleration limits must assume the crew is standing during landing, an orientation for which we have limited data.Although the Apollo missions did employ a standing orientation for the crew, much of the data is lost. Therefore data from othersources havebeen examined to inform lunar landing acceleration limits.

Jeffrey T Somers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Physical Demand during Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Returning to the moon requires many advances in current space technology. One major aspect of this development is a new exploration spacesuit (xEMU). Taking lessons learned from Apollo era suitsand the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) used on the International Space Station (ISS), xEMU will have increased mobility, dust mitigation, headspace, glove fit, and life support capabilities. Artemis astronauts in xEMU will complete a far more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedule than Apolloand ISS. Notably, metabolic rates during Apollo lunar EVA tasks were observed to be up to 50% lower than similar tasks performed in a ground analog environment under simulated partial gravity with newer suits. Therefore, understanding the physical demands of lunar surface exploration operations is criticalto ensuring best outcomes operating within the constraints of xEMU and planning for exploration EVA activities. This study utilized the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the lunar environment and continuously offload subjects to lunar gravity. Two male subjects completed two days of EVAs wearing the pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing suit fit and mobility checks, as well as simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverse tasks in an end-to-end EVA (E2E) task block and standalone (SA) task blocks. We recorded continuous values of metabolic rate (MR) and heart rate (HR) to assess physical demand. During the E2E task block, subjects did not rest between tasks to simulate continuous effort from task to task, as in real EVAs. In comparison, subjects had a 5-minute break after each SA task block to allow for the metabolic rate and heart rate to return to baseline.MR values were categorized as low (≤ 700 BTU/hr), medium (700-1000 BTU/HR), and high (≥ 1000 BTU/hr), while HR values were categorized as low (≤150) and high (>150). During the 16 tasks in the E2E block, subjects averaged low MR in 6% of tasks, medium MR in 47% of tasks, and high MR in 47% of tasks. While MR was consistent between subjects, Subject 1 averaged low HR for 100% of these tasks, while Subject 2 averaged low HR in 44% of tasks. During the 23 tasks in the SA task blocks, subjects averaged low MR in 26% of tasks, medium MR in 52% of tasks, and high MR in 22% of tasks. Again, HR was different between subjects, with subject 1 averaging low HR in 100% of these tasks while subject 2 averaged low HR in 70%. Across all tasks in this study, subjects reached maximum MR and HR values during a 500m traverse at 30% grade in the E2E block (subject 1: 1747 BTU/hr, 150 BPM; subject 2: 1656 BTU/hr, 177 BPM).Understanding the physical demand to complete exploration EVA tasks will be instrumental to the future success of exploration spacesuit designs and missions. Further work in this study will be needed to characterize MR during exploration EVA tasks, including expanding the subject pool and testing new suit designs.

Taylor E Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Toward an IMU-Based Space Suit Motion Capture System

Spacesuits are complex engineering systems that sustain human health and enable performance outside Earth-like environments. These systems must support human mobility and physical workload demands while minimizing injury risk during extravehicular activity (EVA). Future EVA operations on the Lunar surface are expected to be more frequent and require higher physical workloads than previously during the ISS, Shuttle, and Apollo programs. To characterize the workloads and ergonomics needs a suit must support, the kinematics of the space suit must be measured during operationally-relevant tasks in ground analog environments. Kinematics capture of the suit is challenging for traditional optical motion capture (OMC) approaches due to marker occlusion, harsh lighting or environmental conditions, and tests with suit surrogates in outdoor field environments. To this end, engineers at NASA are developing the Augmented Suit Inverse Kinematics (ASIK) system, a complete motion capture method and inverse kinematics solver which relies solely on a network of wireless inertial measurement units (IMUs) attached to the major kinematic segments of the spacesuit. The ASIK modeling language allows for the simple inclusion of probabilistic priors such as suit size and shape or IMU poses. The ASIK system was tested in a 7-subject pilot study. Each subject donned NASA’s new prototype exploration spacesuit in the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. The suits were outfitted with 12 IMUs to estimate lower body and trunk kinematics. The suits were also outfitted with a set of reflective OMC markers, and traditional OMC data was collected and processed. Characterization of the ASIK-derived suit joint angles’ accuracy against an optical motion capture datum will be presented. Discussion of these results, as well as discussion of system calibration and nuances of mathematical observability, will be included.

IMU↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Decision Support System for Extravehicular Operations Under Significant Communication Latency

Within the next few decades, humanity hopes to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the surface of Mars; however, several technical and operational challenges must first be overcome. Foremost among these challenges is managing a significant two-way communication latency between Earth and Mars. Current and historical paradigms of EVA operations have required near-real-time communication between the crewmember(s) performing an EVA and an Earth-based mission control. Next-generation operational paradigms for supporting deep space exploration will necessitate a distributed decision authority system, including delayed Earth-based mission control, the on-planet extravehicular crewmember(s), and intermediate mission support from intravehicular crewmember(s) within real-time communication range. This latter group is of particular interest: they must provide operations support without the plentiful resources available to mission control on Earth. For this purpose, NASA is developing the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support (PersEIDS) software platform. PersEIDS is designed to bolster operator situational awareness and offload operator workload by automating the tracking and projection of consumables usage over an EVA timeline, providing real-time probabilistic safety assessments of an EVA timeline given consumables constraints, and recommending alternative EVA timeline(s) when the active timeline is not expected to be completed under consumables limits. The PersEIDS concept of operations, use cases, and models will be presented. A limited version of PersEIDS was demonstrated during a three-day-long study where each day a roughly four-hour-long simulated Martian EVA was performed in virtual reality at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The first day was a control trial without PersEIDS support; the second and third days represented different levels of decision support provided by PersEIDS to the intravehicular crewmember acting as mission control. With PersEIDS support, the IV crewmember was able to manage the mission to completion faster and with more remaining consumables; however, additional testing is required to understand confounding factors, e.g. training bias.

Mars↗