Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Karina Marshall-Goebel

Publications and source records attributed to Karina Marshall-Goebel.

33 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Exploration Extravehicular Activity (xEVA), or spacewalks, during NASA’s future Lunar (Artemis) missions are expected to be more physically and cognitively demanding than any previous missions. Characterizing the effects of xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue will be valuable, and perhaps essential, to the preservation of crew health and performance during xEVA.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Inter-Individual Variability in Astronaut Strength Response to Long-Duration Spaceflight May Be Dictated by In-Flight Exercise

BACKGROUND: Deconditioning induced by prolonged microgravity exposure during spaceflight hinders physical capacity. Examination of pre- to post-flight isokinetic strength measures shows that strength decreases; however, considerable variability between crewmembers exists. As in-flight exercise differs between crew, an examination of exercise training variables contributing to strength preservation is necessary. The purpose of this analysis was to examine in-flight exercise of astronauts who maintain strength compared to those with the greatest decrements in strength from pre- to post-flight. METHODS: The database of NASA International Space Station (ISS) crew who completed pre- and post-flight knee isokinetic testing (n = 87) was used to identify “responders” (R) and “non-responders” (NR) to in-flight exercise (≥ 90-day flight duration). R were those that maintained or improved strength (mean of knee extension and flexion at 60°/sec) (n = 14; 5.6 ± 7.8%), and NR were those with the most severe decrements (n = 14; -32.8 ± 4.1%) from pre- to post-flight. In-flight daily exercise records (cycle ergometer, treadmill, resistance exercise) were aggregated on a weekly basis. Independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare groups for in-flight exercise variables (i.e., frequency, time, intensity, volume). RESULTS: In-flight cycle ergometer frequency (2.4 ± 0.8 vs. 3.3 ± 1.0 days/wk; p = 0.021), total time (78.5 ± 20.4 vs. 114.0 ± 49.3 min/wk; p = 0.021), and active time (59.3 ± 17.2 vs. 86.9 ± 44.1 min/wk; p = 0.050) were greater in NR than R, but no differences for cycle intensity were observed. Treadmill distance traveled per session was greater in R than NR (4.6 ± 0.8 vs 3.6 ± 1.3 km/sess, p = 0.031), but no differences for treadmill frequency, total time, or active time were observed. Lower body resistance exercise intensity relative to pre-flight body weight was greater in R than NR (110.0 ± 16.5 vs 88.7 ± 25.0%; p = 0.012), but no differences in upper body or core resistance exercise intensity, volume, or frequency existed. CONCLUSIONS: The unique musculoskeletal loading provided by treadmill running at the expense of cycle ergometry, combined with using higher relative lower body loads during resistance training, may contribute to preserving strength in ISS crewmembers during long-duration spaceflight.

Alyssa N. Varanoske↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cardiovascular Responses to Daily Use of Lower Body Negative Pressure During 30 Days of Strict Head-Down Tilt Bedrest

The purpose of this study was to (1) measure the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) response and subject tolerance before and during twice daily use of 3 hours of 25 mmHg LBNP during 30 days of HDTBR and (2) determine if this level of LBNP during HDTBR would reverse the headward fluid shift to a similar degree as upright posture.

Jason R. Lytle↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Habitability Assessments And Lessons-learned From 3-day And 11-day Enriched Oxygen Hypobaric Chamber Tests At NASA Johnson Space Center

INTRODUCTION: Decompression sickness (DCS) is a risk to the health and performance of astronauts and high-altitude aircrew. Tolerance to flammability, hypoxia, prebreathe duration, and DCS risk varies across different organizations, vehicles, suits, and destinations, necessitating a variety of DCS risk mitigation approaches. Existing models of altitude DCS risk are often insufficient to enable accurate risk-informed decisions during hardware development, mission planning, and flight operations. METHODS: NASA completed outfitting of a dedicated facility at Johnson Space Center to support testing of up to eight human subjects for multiple days in hypobaric and enriched oxygen atmospheres. The primary purpose of the testing capability is validation of DCS risk mitigation protocols for Artemis missions to the Moon; however, it will also support development and validation of a generalizable altitude DCS risk estimation tool. A 3-day and an 11-day prebreathe validation test were completed in 2022, each with 8 human subjects living at 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2, with 5 simulated EVAs performed on masks at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi), 85% O2, 15% N2. Facility and organizational lessons-learned and process improvements were recorded during and following the tests, and subjective habitability ratings were recorded daily during the 11-day test. Hypoxia and DCS-related physiological and cognitive outcome measures were recorded during both tests and are reported in companion presentations. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: All subjects completed each of the tests. Primary habitability issues related to mask discomfort during simulated EVAs and poor sleep quality due to thin mattresses. Polybenzimidazole (PBI) clothing was worn by all subjects due to the increased fire risk and may be required for Artemis missions; clothing was found to be acceptable overall with the worst ratings being due to poor fit and inelasticity. Chamber O2 and CO2 sensor inconsistency was observed that did not result in test termination but required post-test follow-up. Forward plans include additional hypobaric testing and integration of existing and future physiological outcome data into an open-source Aerospace Estimation Tool for Hypobaric Exposure Risk (AETHER). NASA is also working to make the testing capability available to commercial companies.

Andrew Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Developing A Hybrid Spacesuit Simulator as A Research Tool for Assessing Extravehicular Activity Relevant Workload

Conducting human tests in a pressurized spacesuit is limited by availability, cost, and manpower; however, pressurized spacesuits are not always needed depending on the objectives of testing, including the development and testing of new informatics capabilities. The Human Physiology, Performance, Protection & Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA is developing a Hybrid Spacesuit Simulator (HS3) to support testing and characterization of human performance during analog planetary exploration extravehicular activities (EVAs). The goal of HS3 is to create a low-cost, modular, and unpressurized spacesuit simulator as a research tool that provides relevant physical and cognitive workload approximations with EVA-like immersion. HS3 consists of a soft outer suit, thermal control, gloves, boots, helmet, and integrated bioinformatics and communications. Baseline HS3 assessments were performed during 3-hour EVA simulations in two different subjects (DEMO1 and DEMO2) that included traverses at variable resistances and geological sampling activities. Liquid cooling garment (LCG) temperature, mean skin temperature, heart rate, motion capture, and metabolic rate were collected during each 3-hour simulated EVA. During DEMO1 and DEMO2, baseline metabolic rates at rest were 836 ± 327 BTU/hr and 869 ± 207 BTU/hr and increased to 2124 ± 548 BTU/hr and 2269 ± 559 BTU/hr, respectively, during 500m traverse. Average inlet LCG temperatures were 29.57 ± 6.62 °C and 25.63 ± 6.48 °C for DEMO1 and DEMO2 with increased outlet LCG temperatures of 33.53 ± 6.62 °C and 29.21 ± 4.79 °C, respectively. Overall, HS3 will enable future studies to characterize EVA tasks, human performance, and test future EVA capabilities in analog test environments without the need for pressurized suited environments.

Suit simulator↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

NASA Crew Health & Performance Capability Development for Exploration: 2022 to 2023 Overview

NASA has identified twenty-eight specific risks to human health and performance that must be adequately understood and addressed to enable future crewed missions to Mars. These risks are due to radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and the effects of living within artificially created and controlled life support environments. Research and technology development is required to better understand these risks and to inform, develop, and test technologies and strategies to mitigate these risks. NASA’s System Capability Leads coordinate across the agency to continually identify, prioritize, and monitor technology investments in support of these future missions. This paper describes progress over the past year in strategic planning, coordination, and technology development related to crew health and performance capabilities that are needed for future Mars missions. Technology maturation progress and future plans are described in the following capability areas: crew health countermeasures; spacesuit physiology and performance; food and nutrition; and exploration medical capabilities.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Physical Workload Across Eva-Simulation Analog Environments: Hybrid Space Suit Simulator and Pressurized Suit Testing

NASA conducts research, testing, and training across a variety of analog environments to support characterization of human performance during Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). Time utilizing pressurized suits in an offloaded environment is both limited and expensive, making it challenging to carry out extensive research with these suits. The Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations (H-3PO) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center designed a Hybrid Space Suit Simulator (HS3) as a low-cost, workload approximator and easy access research tool to provide relevant physical and cognitive workloads during simulated EVAs. A pilot study was conducted in a 1g analog environment where six healthy subjects (3 male, 3 female) underwent simulated 5-hour EVAs in the HS3. This study used a COSMED K5 portable metabolic analyzer and a Polar H10 heart rate monitor to evaluate physical workload during the EVAs. For direct comparison, EVA tasks and timelines were modeled after a similar study conducted in pressurized suits (Mark-III spacesuit, n=3 male; small xPGS spacesuit, n=3 female) at NASA’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) offloaded to Lunar gravity (1/6 g). The 1g HS3 data demonstrated increased metabolic rate when compared to pressurized, Lunar-offloaded suited simulated EVAs for certain tasks including the kneeling scoop (HS3: 1194±199 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 860±170 BTU/hr, p < 0.05) and 20 lb object relocation (HS3: 1651±136 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1048±252.8 BTU/hr, p < 0.05), but it did not demonstrate any significant differences in heart rate (p > 0.05). Other simulated EVA tasks, such as a 500 m traverse (HS3: 1431±177 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1212±294 BTU/hr, p > 0.05), showed similar workload profiles with no significant workload differences between HS3 and ARGOS. The HS3 is a useful research tool for increasing workloads in EVA research without pressurized suits, though it may overestimate workload during certain EVA tasks when used in 1g environments.

Zachary Wusk↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure

Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.

Lauren Cox↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

CIPHER: Egress Fitness

The transition between gravity environments will involve one of the most complex, high-risk phases of exploration missions. The reduced functional capacity caused by physiological deconditioning adaptations in microgravity coupled with the stressors of re-entry into partial gravity environments will increase risks to crew, even with rigorous adherence to inflight countermeasures. Specifically, two high-risk scenarios may be required to be performed soon after gravity transitions: 1) nominal and/or emergency unassisted capsule egress task after return to Earth, and 2) planetary extravehicular activity (EVA) soon after landing on Mars or the Moon. Quantification of crewmember’s functional performance after long-duration spaceflight is necessary to inform concepts of operations for future exploration missions. The overarching aim of this study is to quantify post-landing functional performance with deconditioning after long-duration ISS missions. This study is broken down into two phases. Phase 1 includes a pilot study to assess the overall feasibility and demonstrate the capability to perform mission-like tasks shortly after landing. Phase 2, the Egress Fitness study, which is part of the Complement of Integrated Protocols for Human Exploration Research (CIPHER), uses a task-based approach to characterize functional performance in long-duration ISS crewmembers before flight and shortly after return to Earth. The pilot and full Egress Fitness study includes pre-flight and post-flight testing of simulated emergency egress out of a functional capsule mockup and a Mars gravity EVA simulation at the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility. The EVA simulation tasks include suit donning, hatch egress, ladder descent, task board cable operations, baggage transfer over sand/rocky regolith, alignment with a rear entry port, and suit egress. The post-flight simulated capsule egress test occurs 1–4 h after landing and the planetary EVA simulation occurs 18–36 h after landing. The full CIPHER Egress Fitness study has additional pre-flight sessions, longer EVA tasks that include traverse and geology sampling, and post-flight sessions on R+1, 4, and 8 to characterize the timeframe of recovery. Pilot Egress Fitness has completed baseline and post-flight testing on four crewmembers. That study remains open. Originally this was to cover the Boeing CFT mission, but now also includes private astronauts on commercial spaceflights. CIPHER study data collection is ongoing with 2 subjects completed and 4 additional subjects consented. This study will quantify post-landing functional performance in operationally relevant simulations to help inform fitness for duty standards and future planetary concepts of operations shortly after landing.

Jason Norcross↗