Human-Centric Approach for Design of Exploration Mission Habitats
No abstract available
Whitmore, Mihriban↗
Engineering topics
Whitmire, Alexandra
Publications and source records attributed to Whitmire, Alexandra.
Integrating Behavioral Health into Recommendations for Future Exploration Habitats
No abstract available
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
Architectural and Behavioral Systems Design Methodology and Analysis for Optimal Habitation in a Volume-Limited Spacecraft for Long Duration Flights
As our human spaceflight missions change as we reach towards Mars, the risk of an adverse behavioral outcome increases, and requirements for crew health, safety, and performance, and the internal architecture, will need to change to accommodate unprecedented mission demands. Evidence shows that architectural arrangement and habitability elements impact behavior. Net habitable volume is the volume available to the crew after accounting for elements that decrease the functional volume of the spacecraft. Determination of minimum acceptable net habitable volume and associated architectural design elements, as mission duration and environment varies, is key to enabling, maintaining, andor enhancing human performance and psychological and behavioral health. Current NASA efforts to derive minimum acceptable net habitable volumes and study the interaction of covariates and stressors, such as sensory stimulation, communication, autonomy, and privacy, and application to internal architecture design layouts, attributes, and use of advanced accommodations will be presented. Furthermore, implications of crew adaptation to available volume as they transfer from Earth accommodations, to deep space travel, to planetary surface habitats, and return, will be discussed.
Human Space Flight↗
Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload
Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk as follows: Sleep loss is apparent during spaceflight. Astronauts consistently average less sleep during spaceflight relative to on the ground. The causes of this sleep loss remain unknown, however ground-based evidence suggests that the sleep duration of astronauts is likely to lead to performance impairment and short and long-term health consequences. Further research is needed in this area in order to develop screening tools to assess individual astronaut sleep need in order to quantify the magnitude of sleep loss during spaceflight; current and planned efforts in BHP's research portfolio address this need. In addition, it is still unclear whether the conditions of spaceflight environment lead to sleep loss or whether other factors, such as work overload lead to the reduced sleep duration. Future data mining efforts and continued data collection on the ISS will help to further characterize factors contributing to sleep loss. Sleep inertia has not been evaluated during spaceflight. Ground-based studies confirm that it takes two to four hours to achieve optimal performance after waking from a sleep episode. Sleep inertia has been associated with increased accidents and reduced performance in operational environments. Sleep inertia poses considerable risk during spaceflight when emergency situations necessitate that crewmembers wake from sleep and make quick decisions. A recently completed BHP investigation assesses the effects of sleep inertia upon abrupt awakening, with and without hypnotics currently used in spaceflight; results from this investigation will help to inform strategies relative to sleep inertia effects on performance. Circadian desynchrony has been observed during spaceflight. Circadian desynchrony during spaceflight develops due to schedule constraints requiring non-24 operations or 'slam-shifts' and due to insufficient or mis-timed light exposure. In addition, circadian misalignment has been associated with reduced sleep duration and increased medication use. In ground-based studies, circadian desynchrony has been associated with significant performance impairment and increased risk of accidents when operations coincide with the circadian nadir. There is a great deal of information available on how to manage circadian misalignment, however, there are currently no easily collected biomarkers that can be used during spaceflight to determine circadian phase. Current research efforts are addressing this gap. Work overload has been documented during current spaceflight operations. NASA has established work hour guidelines that limit shift duration, however, schedule creep, where duty requirements necessitate working beyond scheduled work hours, has been reported. This observation warrants the documentation of actual work hours in order to improve planning and in order to ensure that astronauts receive adequate down time. In addition to concerns about work overload, ground based evidence suggests that work underload may be a concern during deep space missions, where torpor may develop and physically demanding workload will be exchanged for monitoring of autonomous systems. Given that increased automation is anticipated for exploration vehicles, fatigue effects in the context of such systems needs to be further understood. Performance metrics are needed to evaluate fitness-for-duty during spaceflight. Although ground-based evidence supports the notion that sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and work overload lead to performance impairment, inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate performance during spaceflight make it difficult to evaluate the magnitude of performance impairment during spaceflight. Work is underway to standardize measures of performance evaluation during spaceflight. Once established, such performance indicators need to be correlated with operational performance. Individual differences in sleep need and circadian preference, phase shifting ability and period have been documented in ground-based studies. Individual differences in response to sleep loss and circadian misalignment have also been documented and are presumed to be associated with genetic polymorphisms. No studies have systematically reported individual differences in sleep or circadian-related outcomes during spaceflight. More work is needed in this area in order to identify genetic or phenotypic biomarkers that predict resilience or vulnerability to sleep loss in order to personalize countermeasure strategies and mitigate performance impairment during spaceflight. Two laboratory and field investigations specific to this topic are currently ongoing; additional efforts, including an effort to mine existing biological data from spaceflight relative to sleep and circadian outcomes, are planned. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian period and phase have been reported in ground-based studies. The impact of these sex differences on performance is unclear. Sex differences in sleep need and circadian rhythms have not been systematically studied during spaceflight, presumably due to the small number of women that have flown in space. More research is needed in this area to evaluate whether any of the observed sex differences in physiology lead to altered performance in spaceflight and on the ground.
Flynn-Evans, Erin↗
Evidence-Based Recommendations for Optimizing Light in Day-to-Day Spaceflight Operations
NASA Behavioral Health and Performance Element (BHP) personnel have previously reported on efforts to transition evidence‐based recommendations for a flexible lighting system on the International Space Station (ISS). Based on these recommendations, beginning in 2016 the ISS will replace the current fluorescent‐based lights with an LED‐based system to optimize visual performance, facilitate circadian alignment, promote sleep, and hasten schedule shifting. Additional efforts related to lighting countermeasures in spaceflight operations have also been underway. As an example, a recent BHP research study led by investigators at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, evaluated the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of blue‐enriched light exposure during exercise breaks for flight controllers working the overnight shift in the Mission Control Center (MCC) at NASA Johnson Space Center. This effort, along with published laboratory studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of appropriately timed light for promoting alertness, served as an impetus for new light options, and educational protocols for flight controllers. In addition, a separate set of guidelines related to the light emitted from electronic devices, were provided to the Astronaut Office this past year. These guidelines were based on an assessment led by NASA's Lighting Environment Test Facility that included measuring the spectral power distribution, irradiance, and radiance of light emitted from ISS‐grade laptops and I‐Pads, as well as Android devices. Evaluations were conducted with and without the use of off‐the‐shelf screen filters as well as a software application that touts minimizing the short‐wave length of the visible light spectrum. This presentation will focus on the transition for operations process related to lighting countermeasures in the MCC, as well as the evidence to support recommendations for optimal use of laptops, I‐Pads, and Android devices during all phases of spaceflight operations.
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
Risk of Performance Decrements and Adverse Health Outcomes Resulting from Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, and Work Overload
Sleep loss, circadian desynchronization, and work overload occur to some extent for ground and flight crews, prior to and during spaceflight missions. Ground evidence indicates that such risk factors may lead to performance decrements and adverse health outcomes, which could potentially compromise mission objectives. Efforts are needed to identify the environmental and mission conditions that interfere with sleep and circadian alignment, as well as individual differences in vulnerability and resiliency to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. Specifically, this report highlights a collection of new evidence to better characterize the risk and reveals new gaps in this risk.
Evans-Flynn, Erin↗
Evidence Report: Risk of Hypobaric Hypoxia from the Exploration Atmosphere
Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. Some elements of exploration may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but certain critical elements will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without causing undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA-intensive phases of missions. After re-evaluation in 2012, the 8/32 environment was altered to 8.2 psia and 34% O2 to reduce the hypoxic stress to a crewmember. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring the additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This report provides a review of the human health and performance risks associated with the use of the 8.2 psia / 34% O2 environment during spaceflight. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system (CNS), including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of transient acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasure protocols, effective food preparation at 8.2 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.
Norcross, Jason R.↗
Minimum Acceptable Net Habitable Volume for Long-Duration Exploration Missions Subject Matter Expert Consensus Session Report
No abstract available
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
Slow Wave Sleep and Long Duration Spaceflight
While ground research has clearly shown that preserving adequate quantities of sleep is essential for optimal health and performance, changes in the progression, order and /or duration of specific stages of sleep is also associated with deleterious outcomes. As seen in Figure 1, in healthy individuals, REM and Non-REM sleep alternate cyclically, with stages of Non-REM sleep structured chronologically. In the early parts of the night, for instance, Non-REM stages 3 and 4 (Slow Wave Sleep, or SWS) last longer while REM sleep spans shorter; as night progresses, the length of SWS is reduced as REM sleep lengthens. This process allows for SWS to establish precedence , with increases in SWS seen when recovering from sleep deprivation. SWS is indeed regarded as the most restorative portion of sleep. During SWS, physiological activities such as hormone secretion, muscle recovery, and immune responses are underway, while neurological processes required for long term learning and memory consolidation, also occur. The structure and duration of specific sleep stages may vary independent of total sleep duration, and changes in the structure and duration have been shown to be associated with deleterious outcomes. Individuals with narcolepsy enter sleep through REM as opposed to stage 1 of NREM. Disrupting slow wave sleep for several consecutive nights without reducing total sleep duration or sleep efficiency is associated with decreased pain threshold, increased discomfort, fatigue, and the inflammatory flare response in skin. Depression has been shown to be associated with a reduction of slow wave sleep and increased REM sleep. Given research that shows deleterious outcomes are associated with changes in sleep structure, it is essential to characterize and mitigate not only total sleep duration, but also changes in sleep stages.
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
Subjective Sleep Experience During Shuttle Missions
It is now known that for many astronauts, sleep is reduced in spaceflight. Given that sleep is intimately tied to performance, safety, health, and well being, it is important to characterize factors that hinder sleep in space, so countermeasures can be implemented. Lessons learned from current spaceflight can be used to inform the development of space habitats and mitigation strategies for future exploration missions. The purpose of this study was to implement a survey and one-on-one interviews to capture Shuttle flyers' subjective assessment of the factors that interfered with a "good nights sleep" during their missions. Strategies that crewmembers reported using to improve their sleep quality during spaceflight were also discussed. Highlights from the interview data are presented here.
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
Building a Shared Definitional Model of Long Duration Human Spaceflight
Objective: To establish the need for a shared definitional model of long duration human spaceflight, that would provide a framework and vision to facilitate communication, research and practice In 1956, on the eve of human space travel, Hubertus Strughold first proposed a "simple classification of the present and future stages of manned flight" that identified key factors, risks and developmental stages for the evolutionary journey ahead. As we look to new destinations, we need a current shared working definitional model of long duration human space flight to help guide our path. Here we describe our preliminary findings and outline potential approaches for the future development of a definition and broader classification system
Arias, Diana↗
Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Work-Rest Cycles
BHP Program Element Goal: Identify, characterize, and prevent or reduce behavioral health and performance risks associated with space travel, exploration and return to terrestrial life. BHP Requirements: a) Characterize and assess risks (e.g., likelihood and consequences). b) Develop tools and technologies to prevent, monitor, and treat adverse outcomes. c) Inform standards. d) Develop technologies to: 1) reduce risks and human systems resource requirements (e.g., crew time, mass, volume, power) and 2) ensure effective human-system integration across exploration mission.
Leveton, Lauren B.↗
Fatigue Management in Spaceflight Operations
Sleep loss and fatigue remain an issue for crewmembers working on the International Space Station, and the ground crews who support them. Schedule shifts on the ISS are required for conducting mission operations. These shifts lead to tasks being performed during the biological night, and sleep scheduled during the biological day, for flight crews and the ground teams who support them. Other stressors have been recognized as hindering sleep in space; these include workload, thinking about upcoming tasks, environmental factors, and inadequate day/night cues. It is unknown if and how other factors such as microgravity, carbon dioxide levels, or increased radiation, may also play a part. Efforts are underway to standardize and provide care for crewmembers, ground controllers and other support personnel. Through collaborations between research and operations, evidenced-based clinical practice guidelines are being developed to equip flight surgeons with the tools and processes needed for treating circadian desynchrony (and subsequent sleep loss) caused by jet lag and shift work. The proper implementation of countermeasures such as schedules, lighting protocols, and cognitive behavioral education can hasten phase shifting, enhance sleep and optimize performance. This panel will focus on Fatigue Management in Spaceflight Operations. Speakers will present on research-based recommendations and technologies aimed at mitigating sleep loss, circadian desynchronization and fatigue on-orbit. Gaps in current mitigations and future recommendations will also be discussed.
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
Prescribed Travel Schedules for Fatigue Management
The NASA Fatigue Management Team is developing recommendations for managing fatigue during travel and for shift work operations, as Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Circadian Desynchrony in ISS Operations. The Guidelines provide the International Space Station (ISS ) flight surgeons and other operational clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for mitigating fatigue and other factors related to sleep loss and circadian desynchronization. As much international travel is involved both before and after flight, the guidelines provide recommendations for: pre-flight training, in-flight operations, and post-flight rehabilitation. The objective of is to standardize the process by which care is provided to crewmembers, ground controllers, and other support personnel such as trainers, when overseas travel or schedule shifting is required. Proper scheduling of countermeasures - light, darkness, melatonin, diet, exercise, and medications - is the cornerstone for facilitating circadian adaptation, improving sleep, enhancing alertness, and optimizing performance. The Guidelines provide, among other things, prescribed travel schedules that outline the specific implementation of these mitigation strategies. Each travel schedule offers evidence based protocols for properly using the NASA identified countermeasures for fatigue. This presentation will describe the travel implementation schedules and how these can be used to alleviate the effects of jet lag and/or schedule shifts.
Whitmire, Alexandra↗
An Integrated, Evidence-Based Approach to Transitioning to Operations: Specifications for Future Replacement Lights on ISS
The International Space Station (ISS) currently uses General Luminaire Assemblies (GLAs) as its primary light source. These GLAs are composed of fluorescent lighting and are integrated into the electrical system on Station. Seventy seven of these units are distributed throughout the vehicle, and many of the lights, having reached their lifespan, are no longer functional; while backup panels are available on orbit, it is anticipated that the supplies of fluorescents on the station will be exhausted by 2015. The ISS vehicle office is therefore preparing to replace all of the GLAs, with Solid State Light Assemblies (SSLAs) composed of white Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). In the Spring of 2010, an announcement for the replacement lights was released. The announcement specified that proposed lighting systems should use LED technology, given certain power draw restrictions and no changes to how the lights are currently controlled (a central on/off switch per node, and a dial to turn on/off and increase brightness on each lighting unit). The replacement lights are to follow current specifications for brightness levels (lux) and color temperature (degrees Kelvin, or K). Reportedly, the lighting on orbit is dim and suboptimal. The average brightness of the lights (given all lights within a node are operational) is 291 lux; by comparison, recommended office lighting ranges from 200 to 500 lux, and daylight ranges on a typical overcast day, consists of 10,000 to 25,000 lux. Representatives from NASA Behavioral Health and Performance Element (BHP) and Human Factors and Habitability identified that maintaining current brightness levels limits visual acuity, work space, and the use of light as a countermeasure for improving circadian entrainment, hastening phase shifting, evoking acute alertness and enhancing performance. Revised lighting specifications are therefore needed to optimize the replacement lights for the ISS.
Leveton, Lauren↗
Exploration of Habitability Factors Influencing Short Duration Spaceflight: Structured Postflight Interviews of Shuttle Crewmembers
Astronauts report significant difficulties with sleep during Space missions. Psychological, physiological, and habitability factors are all thought to play a role in spaceflight insomnia. Crewmembers gain experience with the spaceflight sleep environment as their missions progress, but this knowledge is not formally collected and communicated to subsequent crews. This lack of information transfer prevents crews from optimizing their capability to sleep during mission, which leads to fatigue and its potentially deleterious effects. The goal of this project is astronauts with recent spaceflight experience to gather their knowledge of and insights into sleep in Space. Structured interviews consisting of standardized closed and open-ended questionnaires are administered to astronauts who have flown on the Space Shuttle since the Columbia disaster. It is hoped that review and analysis of the pooled responses to the interview questions will lead to greater understanding of the sleep environment during short duration spaceflight, with attention placed on problem aspects and their potential solutions.
Locke, James↗