NASA NTRSDate not supplied
Shoulder Postures in EVA Training in Reduced Gravity Analogues K. Guhl1, L. Vu2, H. Kim3, S. Rajulu4 1KBR Inc., Houston, TX, 2Aegis Aerospace Inc., Houston, TX, 3Leidos Innovations, Houston, TX, 4NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. During extravehicular activities (EVAs) and EVA training in both the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and at the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS), crewmembers perform a variety of hand-intensive tasks with frequent arm/shoulder repositioning while wearing a pressurized spacesuit. As a result, crewmembers may experience ergonomic stressors such as awkward shoulder postures. The ergonomic shoulder risk is also compounded by limited or restricted shoulder mobility of the spacesuit, extreme work positions such as overhead tasks, and tasks with heavy tools and repetitive motions. Prolonged or frequent shoulder elevation and overhead work, in particular, can lead to excessive stresses and musculoskeletal injuries of the shoulder joints. Future EVA missions, specifically lunar surface EVAs, will also be longer in duration and thus increase the exposure to awkward shoulder postures. In this study, we aimed to assess the ergonomic risk of awkward shoulder postures in simulated lunar surface EVAs by quantifying when and how long the arms are raised above the chest level. We assessed video recordings of pilot lunar EVA simulations (3 lunar trials each in the NBL and at ARGOS and 2 microgravity EVA trials in the NBL). These runs consisted of both training and engineering test objectives. Actual demands for shoulder use varied for different EVA types and analogues, but many EVA runs have common tasks and require similar motion components. A video observation and event logging software was used to document the duration and occurrence of the subject’s arms being raised throughout the video recordings of each EVA run. An arm raised instance was classified as the arm being at 90 degrees or above with relation to gravity for lunar EVA training events and with relation to the body for microgravity EVA training events. Such events included EVA hardware maintenance or heavy geology sampling tool operations. Events where the arm load was partially supported by external objects, like climbing a ladder or leaning against a surface were separately identified and excluded. Statistical analysis was performed to summarize the timing, frequency, and durations of the arm raise events and compared across the different EVA tasks and analogue types. Preliminary observations indicated that the total duration and number of arm raised instances were surprisingly smaller for lunar surface EVA training as compared to microgravity EVA training. The observed difference may be attributed to differing task demands and unique environmental characteristics found in lunar EVAs in comparison to microgravity EVAs. A detailed statistical analysis will be performed between lunar surface EVA training events and microgravity EVA training events in the final submission. Overall, this analysis is expected to provide insight into how ergonomic recommendations can be refined for lunar EVA training with pressurized suits. It may also inform task design and influence suit padding design to better protect crewmembers during future lunar training.