Search NASA⌕ Search
Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20160012339

Human Research Program Advanced Exercise Concepts (AEC) Overview

Perusek, Gail·Lewandowski, Beth·Nall, Marsha·Norsk, Peter·Linnehan, Rick·Baumann, David
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Exercise countermeasures provide benefits that are crucial for successful human spaceflight, to mitigate the spaceflight physiological deconditioning which occurs during exposure to microgravity. The NASA Human Research Program (HRP) within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate (HEOMD) is managing next generation Advanced Exercise Concepts (AEC) requirements development and candidate technology maturation to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7 (ground prototyping and flight demonstration) for all exploration mission profiles from Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) Exploration Missions (up to 21 day duration) to Mars Transit (up to 1000 day duration) missions. These validated and optimized exercise countermeasures systems will be provided to the ISS Program and MPCV Program for subsequent flight development and operations. The International Space Station (ISS) currently has three major pieces of operational exercise countermeasures hardware: the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED), the second-generation (T2) treadmill, and the cycle ergometer with vibration isolation system (CEVIS). This suite of exercise countermeasures hardware serves as a benchmark and is a vast improvement over previous generations of countermeasures hardware, providing both aerobic and resistive exercise for the crew. However, vehicle and resource constraints for future exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit will require that the exercise countermeasures hardware mass, volume, and power be minimized, while preserving the current ISS capabilities or even enhancing these exercise capabilities directed at mission specific physiological functional performance and medical standards requirements. Further, mission-specific considerations such as preservation of sensorimotor function, autonomous and adaptable operation, integration with medical data systems, rehabilitation, and in-flight monitoring and feedback are being developed for integration with the exercise countermeasures systems. Numerous technologies have been considered and evaluated against HRP-approved functional device requirements for these extreme mission profiles, and include wearable sensors, exoskeletons, flywheel, pneumatic, and closed-loop microprocessor controlled motor driven systems. Each technology has unique advantages and disadvantages. The Advanced Exercise Concepts project oversees development of candidate next generation exercise countermeasures hardware, performs trade studies of current and state of the art exercise technologies, manages and supports candidate systems physiological evaluations with human test subjects on the ground, in flight analogs and flight. The near term goal is evaluation of candidate systems in flight, culminating in an integrated candidate next generation exercise countermeasures suite on the ISS which coalesces research findings from HRP disciplines in the areas of exercise performance for muscle, bone, cardiovascular, sensorimotor, behavioral health, and nutrition for optimal benefit to the crew.

Explore related subjects

Countermeasuresmicrogravityphysical exercise

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Perusek, Gail, Lewandowski, Beth, Nall, Marsha, Norsk, Peter, Linnehan, Rick, Baumann, David. 2015-02-10. Human Research Program Advanced Exercise Concepts (AEC) Overview. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160012339

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2023

Modeling and Simulation for Exercise Vibration Isolation and Stabilization System Design

The microgravity environment that crew members experience on orbit presents a well-known health challenge, particularly when it comes to loss of muscle and bone mass. To counteract these negative effects, exercise countermeasures play a critical role in the daily routine of the crew on the International Space Station (ISS). To help inform requirements for upcoming exploration missions such as the Gateway Program, a new device, called the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D), is being built by the European Space Agency through their contractor, the Danish Aerospace Company. The E4D is being demonstrated on the ISS and is unique from other current exercise devices in that it provides four separate modalities in a single device: resistive, cycle ergometry, seated aerobic rowing, and rope pulling. To support the integration of E4D on ISS, a passive Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system was required by NASA, and this responsibility was given to the Johnson Space Center. This paper describes the end-to-end process of modeling, simulation, and analysis used to inform the mechanical design of the VIS system. The process begins with the collection of representative exerciser motion capture (MoCap) through ground-based testing with the developmental E4D in both the Prototype Immersive Technology (PIT) Laboratory and the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility at the Johnson Space Center. These collected MoCap data are processed through human biomechanics modeling to create forcing functions as input to a multibody dynamics simulation of the combined E4D/VIS system, with numerous resulting outputs. These outputs include microgravity accelerations, overall system displacements, internal and transmitted loads, as well as collisions. Microgravity accelerations are compared for compliance against ISS requirements while displacements are used for sway space determinations on the design and volumetric constraints within the targeted module. Internal loads are supplied to the supporting stress analysis teams and external loads for structural loads and dynamics teams, both at NASA and ESA. Finally, contact and clearance analysis is performed using the simulation to eliminate potential design issues. To ensure that the elements of the multibody simulation were verified and validated, correlation against multiple VIS related ground hardware testbeds was performed and characterized. In addition to the isolation part of the VIS problem, stabilization is also key to the integrated performance and evaluation. Due to the difficulty in defining ISS requirements in this area, the stability of the exerciser was inspected via analysis. Loss of balance was defined analytically as occurring when the resultant force vector acting on the exerciser lies outside the base of support of the feet. Both the VIS and E4D teams have recently gone through their Critical Design Reviews (CDRs) and the iterative model-based approach has been integral to inform mechanical design, particularly in the case of the VIS. This same end-to-end approach is now being applied for the Gateway Program, where an Exploration Exercise Device (EED) derived from the E4D and notional VIS for the device are under concept development.

Countermeasures↗
NASA NTRS2016

Biomechanical Modeling of the Deadlift Exercise on the HULK Device to Improve the Efficacy of Resistive Exercise Microgravity Countermeasures

Extended spaceflight typically results in the loss of muscular strength and bone density due to exposure to microgravity. Resistive exercise countermeasures have been developed to maintain musculoskeletal health during spaceflight. The Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED) is the "gold standard" of available devices; however, its footprint and volume are too large for use in space capsules employed in exploration missions. The Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK) device, with its smaller footprint, is a prototype exercise device for exploration missions. This work models the deadlift exercise being performed on the HULK device using biomechanical simulation, with the long-term goal to improve and optimize astronauts' exercise prescriptions, to maximize the benefit of exercise while minimizing time and effort invested.

Countermeasures↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Retrospectives: Intersection of Spaceflight Stressors and Microbial Risk to Crew and Craft

OVERVIEW The spaceflight environment has several unique stressors that affect the health of both the crew and the spacecraft. An area of continued, albeit incomplete, study is the interaction of these stressors on microbial populations inherent to both astronauts and spacecraft surfaces and systems. A primary concern is the potential for the spaceflight environment to perturb the phenotype of these populations towards negative outcomes for crew and craft. In order to effectively mitigate these potential risks, they must first be characterized. We performed a retrospective literature analysis to assess the current state of knowledge regarding the affects of ionizing radiation and elevated CO2 on relevant microbial populations. The results of these retrospectives will guide next steps in the decisions of what (if any) further studies should be pursued and to guide decisions of the need for countermeasures. STRESSORS Ionizing radiation. The health risk involved with increased exposure to cosmic radiation has been studied in crew for 35+ years, with human health and cancer risk being the main focus. However, space radiation could also affect both the resident microorganisms aboard the ISS and the normal, healthy astronaut microbiomes that are of direct concern for crew health. A retrospective review of over 250 publications was accomplished looking at the impact of cumulative ionizing radiation doses lower than 3 Gy (chronic or acute) on microbial populations. Elevated CO2. The health risk involved with elevated atmospheric CO2 in spacecraft, primarily focusing on human toxicological risks, is understudied. The current Spaceflight Maximum Allowance Concentration for 24-hour average CO2 is 0.4% (3 mm Hg), which is significantly higher than terrestrial levels (0.04%). Whether these elevated ambient CO2 levels aboard spacecraft influence the diversity and phenotypic responses of the resident microbial communities from both the spacecraft environment (air, surface, water) and crew members (gut, nasal,skin microbiomes) is not known. A retrospective review was accomplished looking at the impact of chronic CO2 exposure up to 0.7% (5 mm Hg) for up to 6 months and acute exposure up to 2.6% (20 mm Hg) for up to 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: MICROBIOME OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The microbiome of the built spacecraft environment has been sampled consistently over the course of human spaceflight and significant advancements have been made in identifying microbial populations on the ISS. The dominant source of microbes on spacecraft surfaces are human-derived. Once in the spacecraft built environment,the extreme environment selects for features that enhance survival. While efforts to understand potential antibiotic resistance and pathogenicity of ISS isolates is robust, there is little to no understanding of which spaceflight environmental stressors, to include ionizing radiation or elevated CO2, drive the evolutionary trajectory of spacecraft-associated microbial populations. CONCLUSIONS: MICROBE-HOST INTERACTIONS The host-microbiome field has emerged as an important factor in human health on Earth as well in spaceflight. The field is struggling with the complexity of the system under investigation as there is substantial taxonomic and functional heterogeneity in these communities, making it difficult to establish clear stimulus-response dynamics.Taxonomic characterization is the norm; however, the functional role of each community member is key to linking environmental perturbations to potential dysbiosis. For both ionizing radiation and elevated CO2, the likely target of the perturbation is the host tissue, not the microbes themselves.. Any resulting changes to the microbial community composition and/or function is likely a result of adapting to those changes in the host physiology. RECOMMENDATIONS Emphasize functional characterization as opposed to taxonomic characterization of microbial communities.Increase the number of investigations using chronic, spaceflight-relevant doses of ionizing radiation. MoBE studies should move away from observational studies towards predictive modeling of community dynamics. Continue to develop scale-down models, such as tissues-on-a-chip & defined microbial communities. Focus on the crew response to elevated CO2 over MoBE considerations. Assess how direct contact with the hypercapnic environment affects skin microbiome dynamics.

Countermeasures↗