SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Seating”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2008

The Use of a Vehicle Acceleration Exposure Limit Model and a Finite Element Crash Test Dummy Model to Evaluate the Risk of Injuries During Orion Crew Module Landings

A review of astronaut whole body impact tolerance is discussed for land or water landings of the next generation manned space capsule named Orion. LS-DYNA simulations of Orion capsule landings are performed to produce a low, moderate, and high probability of injury. The paper evaluates finite element (FE) seat and occupant simulations for assessing injury risk for the Orion crew and compares these simulations to whole body injury models commonly referred to as the Brinkley criteria. The FE seat and crash dummy models allow for varying the occupant restraint systems, cushion materials, side constraints, flailing of limbs, and detailed seat/occupant interactions to minimize landing injuries to the crew. The FE crash test dummies used in conjunction with the Brinkley criteria provides a useful set of tools for predicting potential crew injuries during vehicle landings.

Lawrence, Charles↗

NASA NTRS2004

Smart Structures for Vibration Control on Long-Term Space Exploration and Habitation Missions

The current vision for space exploration focuses on human missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. To support these goals, it is certain that new vehicles and intermediate bases will be developed, whether that means simply re-direction of the ISS as a "mission research facility" or construction of a lunar base. Since these facilities are expected to be constructed from inherently light-weight materials, this work examines some of the potential sources of vibration and noise as well as means for controlling these vibrations. Many of the operating components within these facilities, such as pumps, fans, and motors, will produce vibrations during operation. These vibrations become structure in which they are housed. Resonances can impact acoustic noise levels and noise quality within the environment, possibly affecting crew health and productivity. For long-term missions in particular, it is expected that crew members will spend significant portions of their time restrained in the structure, such as in seats. As a result, the general health and well-being of the crew can be improved by limiting the harmful effects of human exposure to long-term audible and tactile vibration input. Besides the human factor, this work also examines some operational considerations in which vibrations play an important role. Vibrations can impact the environment for science and in-situ manufacturing research within these vehicles. Since a benign vibratory environment is beneficial for most types of science experiments, there is a need for various forms of vibration control. Because the operational characteristics of a vehicle can change during a long-term mission, it is further expected that the characteristics of many of the vibratory excitations will change with time. Consequently, the form of vibration control needed to improve overall habitability and usefulness of the vehicle or element for exploration missions will rely to some degree on the vibration control system's ability to adapt. To address these needs, this work also examines the development and use of smart materials to tune the dynamic characteristics of the structure in a passive sense. One prime example is the use of an adaptive electrical shunt connected to a piezoelectric patch in order to provide tuned passive vibration damping. The work also examines the use of active vibration control, such as by applying power to that same piezoelectric patch. The overall goal is to examine the use of smart structures that can react to the environment thereby improving the overall living, working, and learning environment for these long-term missions.

Gattis, Christy B.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Orion Crew Member Injury Predictions during Land and Water Landings

Lawrence, Charles↗

NASA NTRS2008

Orion Crew Member Injury Predictions during Land and Water Landings

Lawrence, Charles↗

NASA NTRS2000

Explosive Fracturing of an F-16 Canopy for Through-Canopy Crew Egress

Through-canopy crew egress, such as in the Harrier (AV-8B) aircraft, expands escape envelopes by reducing seat ejection delays in waiting for canopy jettison. Adverse aircraft attitude and reduced forward flight speed can further increase the times for canopy jettison. However, the advent of heavy, high-strength polycarbonate canopies for bird-strike resistance has not only increased jettison times, but has made seat penetration impossible. The goal of the effort described in this paper was to demonstrate a method of explosively fracturing the F-16 polycarbonate canopy to allow through-canopy crew ejection. The objectives of this effort were to: 1. Mount the explosive materials on the exterior of the canopy within the mold line, 2. Minimize visual obstructions, 3. Minimize internal debris on explosive activation, 4. Operate within less than 10 ms, 5. Maintain the shape of the canopy after functioning to prevent major pieces from entering the cockpit, and 6. Minimize the resistance of the canopy to seat penetration. All goals and objectives were met in a full-scale test demonstration. In addition to expanding crew escape envelopes, this canopy fracture approach offers the potential for reducing system complexity, weight and cost, while increasing overall reliability, compared to current canopy jettison approaches. To comply with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and permit public disclosure, this document addresses only the principles of explosive fracturing of the F-16 canopy materials and the end result. ITAR regulations restrict information on improving the performance of weapon systems. Therefore, details on the explosive loads and final assembly of this canopy fracture approach, necessary to assure functional performance, are not included.

Bement, Laurence J.↗

NASA NTRS2000

Ergonomic Evaluation of Space Shuttle Light-Weight Seat Lever Position and Operation

During a Shuttle flight in the early part of 1999, one of the crewmembers was unable to operate the backrest lever for the light-weight seat in microgravity. It is essential that the crewmembers are able to adjust this back-rest lever, which is titled forward 2 degrees from vertical during launch and then moved backwards to 10 degrees aft of vertical upon reaching orbit. This adjustment is needed to cushion the crewmembers during an inadvertent crash landing situation. The original Shuttle seats, which had seat controls located on the front left and right sides of the seat, were replaced recently with the new light-weight seats. The controls for these new, seats were moved to the night side with one control at the front and the other at the back. While it was uncertain whether the problem encountered was unique to that crewmember or not it was clear to the personnel responsible for maintaining the Shuttle seats that not knowing the cause of the problem posed a safety concern for NASA. Hence the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) of the Johnson Space Center was requested to perform an evaluation of the seat controls and provide NASA with appropriate recommendations on whether the seat lever positions and operations should be modified. The ABF designed an experiment to investigate the amount of pull force exerted by subjects, wearing an unpressurized or pressurized crew launch escape suit, when controls were placed in the front and back (on the right side) of the light-weight seat. Single-axis load cells were attached to the seat levers, which measured the maximum static pull forces that were exerted by the subjects. Twelve subjects, six male and six female, participated in this study. Each subject was asked to perform the pull test at least three times for each combination of lever position and suit pressure conditions. The results from this study showed that as a whole (or in general), the subjects were able to pull on the lever at the back position with only about half the amount of force that they were able to exert on the lever at the front position. In addition, the results also showed that subjects wearing the pressurized suit were unable to reach the seat lever when it was located at the back. Furthermore, the pull forces on the front lever diminished about 50 % when subjects wore the pressurized suits. Based on these results from this study, it was recommended to NASA that the levers should not be located in the back position. In addition, further investigation is needed on whether the levers at the front of the seat could be modified or adjusted to increase the leverage for crew members wearing pressurized launch/escape suits.

Maida, J.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Functional Task Tests in Partial Gravity During Parabolic Flight

BACKGROUND Critical mission tasks required by crews immediately after landing on a planetary surface include walking, jumping, and egressing from a seat. Understanding how these functional tasks are performed in partial gravity such as on the moon or Mars is necessary to define effective and comprehensive countermeasure strategies for preserving crew performance during exploration-class missions. We propose to study the performance of these tasks during the partial gravity phases of parabolic flight. These tasks will be performed using the same equipment and procedures as those used with astronauts returning from spaceflight and with ground-based subjects after prolonged axial body unloading during bed rest (sensorimotor standard measures). HYPOTHESIS We hypothesize that partial gravity during parabolic flight will cause acute changes in vestibular, proprioceptive, and sensorimotor functions, and these changes will impact the performance of mission critical tasks such as standing, walking, and jumping. The largest changes in performance are expected at the lowest gravity level (0.25g) because subjects will no longer be able to use the gravitational reference for the perception of upright. Ultimately, this information could be used to assess performance risks and inform the design of countermeasures for NASA exploration-class human missions. METHODS Twelve subjects will be tested during three flights of 30 parabolas, including 10 parabolas at 0.25g, 10 parabolas at 0.5g, and 10 parabolas at 0.75g. Subjects also will perform tests in 1g between parabolas. The tasks will be the same as those tested on astronauts returning from spaceflight: sit-to-stand with obstacle walk, tandem rail balance, jump down, and recovery from fall. Measurements will include: (a) time to test completion (sit-to-stand with obstacle walk, recovery from fall); (b) time elapsed between the start of motion and the stabilization of upright posture (recovery from fall, jump down); (c) mean sway speed during quiet standing (recovery from fall, jump down); (d) changes in heart rate and blood pressure (recovery from fall); (e) balance time and torso accelerations (tandem rail balance); (f) cone of stability (jump down); and (g) severity of motion sickness symptoms. RELEVANCE Although gravitational dose-response curves have been obtained for some biochemical systems in animals, these dose-responses are unknown for most human physiologic systems. Our study will compare the outcomes of four functional task tests in 0.25g, 0.5g, 0.75g, and 1g with those previously obtained in ground-based subjects after prolonged axial body unloading and in astronauts immediately after spaceflight. These comparisons will help us understand the true extent of functional task performance deficits in partial gravity. The dose-response relationship between gravity level and task performance decrement also will help determining the gravity threshold for these functional tasks. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work is supported by the NASA’s Human Research Program Human Health Countermeasures Element.

T. R. Macaulay↗

NASA NTRS1989

STS-29: Pre-Launch Preparations/Launch and Landing

Live footage shows the crewmembers of STS-29, Commander Michael L. Coats, Pilot John E. Blaha, and Mission Specialists James P. Bagian, James F. Buchli, and Robert C. Springer, seated in the White Room with the traditional cake. The crew is seen performing various pre-launch activities including suit-up, and walk out to the Astro-van. This early morning launch shows countdown, main engine start, liftoff, booster separation, and various isolated footage of the launch from different cameras. Also presented are footage of the approach, gear touchdown, rollout at Edwards Air Force Base, and various isolated views of the landing.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1986

Effect of emerging technology on a convertible, business/interceptor, supersonic-cruise jet

This study was initiated to assess the feasibility of an eight-passenger, supersonic-cruise long range business jet aircraft that could be converted into a military missile carrying interceptor. The baseline passenger version has a flight crew of two with cabin space for four rows of two passenger seats plus baggage and lavatory room in the aft cabin. The ramp weight is 61,600 pounds with an internal fuel capacity of 30,904 pounds. Utilizing an improved version of a current technology low-bypass ratio turbofan engine, range is 3,622 nautical miles at Mach 2.0 cruise and standard day operating conditions. Balanced field takeoff distance is 6,600 feet and landing distance is 5,170 feet at 44,737 pounds. The passenger section from aft of the flight crew station to the aft pressure bulkhead in the cabin was modified for the interceptor version. Bomb bay type doors were added and volume is sufficient for four advanced air-to-air missiles mounted on a rotary launcher. Missile volume was based on a Phoenix type missile with a weight of 910 pounds per missile for a total payload weight of 3,640 pounds. Structural and equipment weights were adjusted and result in a ramp weight of 63,246 pounds with a fuel load of 30,938 pounds. Based on a typical intercept mission flight profile, the resulting radius is 1,609 nautical miles at a cruise Mach number of 2.0.

Beissner, F. L., Jr.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sleep Obtained by Cabin Crewmembers during a Long-haul Flight

Sleep loss and circadian disruption pose a significant risk in safety-sensitive occupations. In aviation, many studies have demonstrated how inflight rest locations influence alertness and performance among pilots, but few studies have evaluated cabin crew. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate sleep outcomes among cabin crewmembers sleeping in a bunk compared to a jump seat during one long-haul route. Thirty-one (6 male) cabin crewmembers (age M = 30, SD = +/-13) flew the same long-haul route (outbound and return) with a flight duration of 10:41 (± 0:14) hours. Participants were randomly assigned to fly on an aircraft with a bunk or a jump seat for their sleep opportunity. Participants wore an Actiwatch (Phillips-Respironics Spectrum) throughout the entire study and completed a sleep diary at bedtime and upon waking. During flight they completed a nap diary entering the start time of the inflight sleep (if any) and the duration. Sixty-five flights (32 outbound and 33 return) were included in the analyses. Seventy-seven percent of the flights had a bunk and 23% had a jump seat. Crewmembers obtained M = 146.46 (± 67.20) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 125.33 (± 64.91) minutes in the bunk. While using the jump seat, crewmembers obtained M = 169.53 (± 133.30) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 142.92 (± 149.72) minutes. When crewmembers slept in the bunk, sleep latency was shorter (M = 13.69 ± 12.64 minutes) and efficiency was better (M = 76.16 ± 16.09 %) compared to the jump seat (sleep onset: M = 16.77 ± 13.89 minutes; sleep efficiency: M = 60.64 ± 17.42 %). We found that cabin crewmembers slept for longer time when they used the jump seat. They fell asleep faster and their sleep efficiency was better when using the bunk compared to the jump seat. Further research is needed to understand how sleep quality and subsequent performance are influenced by sleep opportunity in a bunk compared to a jump seat.

cabin crew↗

NASA NTRS2010

Assessment of Prone Positioning of Restrained, Seated Crewmembers in a Post Landing Stable 2 Orion Configuration

During the Orion landing and recovery subsystem design review, June 2009, it was noted that the human system and various vehicle systems, the environmental control and life support (ECLSS) and guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) systems for example, are negatively affected by Orion assuming a stable 2 (upside down; Figure A) configuration post landing. The stable 2 configuration is predicted to occur about 50% of the time based on Apollo landing data and modeling of the current capsule. The stable 2 configuration will be countered by an active up-righting system (crew module up-righting system; CMUS). Post landing balloons will deploy and inflate causing the vehicle to assume or maintain the stable 1 (up-right; Figure B) configuration. During the design review it was proposed that the up-righting system could be capable of righting the vehicle within 60 seconds. However, this time limit posed a series of constraints on the design which made it less robust than desired. The landing and recovery subsystem team requested an analysis of Orion vehicle systems as well as the human system with regard to the effect of stable 2 in order to determine if an up-righting response time greater than 60 seconds could be tolerated. The following report focuses on the assessment of the human system in the posture assumed when Orion is in the stable 2 configuration. Stable 2 will place suited, seated, and restrained crewmembers in a prone (facedown), head-up position for a period of time dependent on the functionality of the up-righting systems, ability of the crew to release themselves from the seat and restraints, and/or time to arrival of rescue forces. Given that the Orion seat and restraint system design is not complete and therefore, not available for evaluation, Space Medicine assessed how long a healthy but deconditioned crewmember could stay in this prone, restrained position and the physiological consequences of this posture by researching terrestrial analogs and considered the known physiological alterations and deconditioning experienced by long duration crewmembers.

Barr, Yael↗

NASA NTRS2011

Spacesuit and Space Vehicle Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation

With the advent of the latest manned spaceflight objectives, a series of prototype launch and reentry spacesuit architectures were evaluated for eventual down selection by NASA based on the performance of a set of designated tasks. A consolidated approach was taken to testing, concurrently collecting suit mobility data, seat-suit-vehicle interface clearances and movement strategies within the volume of a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle mockup. To achieve the objectives of the test, a requirement was set forth to maintain high mockup fidelity while using advanced motion capture technologies. These seemingly mutually exclusive goals were accommodated with the construction of an optically transparent and fully adjustable frame mockup. The mockup was constructed such that it could be dimensionally validated rapidly with the motion capture system. This paper will describe the method used to create a motion capture compatible space vehicle mockup, the consolidated approach for evaluating spacesuits in action, as well as the various methods for generating hardware requirements for an entire population from the resulting complex data set using a limited number of test subjects. Kinematics, hardware clearance, suited anthropometry, and subjective feedback data were recorded on fifteen unsuited and five suited subjects. Unsuited subjects were selected chiefly by anthropometry, in an attempt to find subjects who fell within predefined criteria for medium male, large male and small female subjects. The suited subjects were selected as a subset of the unsuited subjects and tested in both unpressurized and pressurized conditions. Since the prototype spacesuits were fabricated in a single size to accommodate an approximately average sized male, the findings from the suit testing were systematically extrapolated to the extremes of the population to anticipate likely problem areas. This extrapolation was achieved by first performing population analysis through a comparison of suited subjects performance to their unsuited performance and then applying the results to the entire range of population. The use of a transparent space vehicle mockup enabled the collection of large amounts of data during human-in-the-loop testing. Mobility data revealed that most of the tested spacesuits had sufficient ranges of motion for tasks to be performed successfully. A failed tasked by a suited subject most often stemmed from a combination of poor field of view while seated and poor dexterity of the gloves when pressurized or from suit/vehicle interface issues. Seat ingress/egress testing showed that problems with anthropometric accommodation does not exclusively occur with the largest or smallest subjects, but rather specific combinations of measurements that lead to narrower seat ingress/egress clearance.

England, Scott↗

NASA NTRS1998

An Evaluation of the Frequency and Severity of Motion Sickness Incidences in Personnel Within the Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)

The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency and severity of motion sickness in personnel during a field exercise in the Command and Control Vehicle (C2V). This vehicle contains four workstations where military personnel are expected to perform command decisions in the field during combat conditions. Eight active duty military men (U.S. Army) at the Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona participated in this study. All subjects were given baseline performance tests while their physiological responses were monitored on the first day. On the second day of their participation, subjects rode in the C2V while their physiological responses and performance measures were recorded. Self-reports of motion sickness were also recorded. Results showed that only one subject experienced two incidences of emesis. However, seven out of the eight subjects reported other motion sickness symptoms; most predominant was the report of drowsiness, which occurred a total of 19 times. Changes in physiological responses were observed relative to motion sickness symptoms reported and the different environmental conditions (i.e., level, hills, gravel) during the field exercise. Performance data showed an overall decrement during the C2V exercise. These findings suggest that malaise and severe drowsiness can potentially impact the operational efficiency of the C2V crew. It was concluded that conflicting sensory information from the subject's visual displays and movements of the vehicle during the field exercise significantly contributed to motion sickness symptoms. It was recommended that a second study be conducted to further evaluate the impact of seat position or orientation and C2V experience on motion sickness susceptibility. Further, it was recommended that an investigation be performed on behavioral methods for improving crew alertness, motivation, and performance and for reducing malaise.

Cowings, Patricia S.↗

NASA NTRS2016

Sensorimotor Results from the Joint NASA and Russian Pilot Field Test

Testing of crew responses following long-duration flights has not previously been possible until a minimum of 24 hours after landing. As a result, it has not been possible to estimate the nonlinear trend of the early (<24 hours) recovery process, nor has it been possible to accurately assess the full impact of the decrements associated with long-duration flight. To overcome these limitations, both the Russian and U.S. programs have implemented testing at the Soyuz landing site. This research effort has been identified as the Field Test (FT). For operational reasons the FT has been divided into two phases: the full FT and a preliminary pilot version (PFT) of the FT that is reduced in both length and scope. The PFT has now been completed with the landing of the crew of International Space Station Increment 42/43 (Soyuz expedition 41S). RESEARCH: The primary goal of this research was to determine functional abilities associated with long-duration space flight crews beginning as soon after landing as possible (< 2 hours) with an additional two follow-up measurement sessions within 24 hours after landing. This study goal has both sensorimotor and cardiovascular elements. The PFT represented a initial evaluation of the feasibility of testing in the field and was comprised of a jointly agreed upon subset of tests drawn from the full FT and relied heavily on Russia's Institute of Biomedical Problems Sensory-Motor and Countermeasures Department for content and implementation. Data from the PFT was collected following several ISS missions. Testing on the U.S. side has included: (1) a sit-to-stand test, (2) recovery from a fall stand test where the crewmember begins in the prone position on the ground and then stands for 3.5 minutes while cardiovascular performance and postural ataxia data are acquired, and (3) a tandem heel-to-toe walk test to determine changes in the central locomotor program. Video, cardiovascular parameters (heart rate and blood pressure), data from body-worn inertial sensors, and severity of postflight motion sickness were collected during each test session. In addition our Russian investigators have made measurements associated with: (a) obstacle avoidance, (b) muscle compliance, (c) postural adjustments to perturbations (pushes) applied to the subject's chest area and (d) center of mass measurements made across most test objectives with insoles inserted into the subjects' shoes. Data from 18 subjects have been obtained for a majority of the PFT objectives. SUMMARY: The increased level of functional deficit observed in the crewmembers tested with the PFT objectives has been typically greater than previously observed when measurements were collected after the 2 hr window. Significant improvement in crew performance was observed within 24 hours, but full recovery appears to require 6 to 16 days. Clearly measureable performance parameters such as ability to perform a seat egress, recovery from a fall or the ability to see clearly when walking, and related physiologic data (orthostatic responses) are required to provide an evidence base for characterizing programmatic risks and the variability among crewmembers for exploration missions where the crew will be unassisted after landing. Overall, these early functional and related physiologic measurements will allow the estimation of nonlinear sensorimotor and cardiovascular recovery trends that have not been previously captured.

Reschke, Millard↗

NASA NTRS2012

Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation of Spacesuit and Space Vehicle Design

With the advent of the latest human spaceflight objectives, a series of prototype architectures for a new launch and reentry spacesuit that would be suited to the new mission goals. Four prototype suits were evaluated to compare their performance and enable the selection of the preferred suit components and designs. A consolidated approach to testing was taken: concurrently collecting suit mobility data, seat-suit-vehicle interface clearances, and qualitative assessments of suit performance within the volume of a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle mockup. It was necessary to maintain high fidelity in a mockup and use advanced motion-capture technologies in order to achieve the objectives of the study. These seemingly mutually exclusive goals were accommodated with the construction of an optically transparent and fully adjustable frame mockup. The construction of the mockup was such that it could be dimensionally validated rapidly with the motioncapture system. This paper describes the method used to create a space vehicle mockup compatible with use of an optical motion-capture system, the consolidated approach for evaluating spacesuits in action, and a way to use the complex data set resulting from a limited number of test subjects to generate hardware requirements for an entire population. Kinematics, hardware clearance, anthropometry (suited and unsuited), and subjective feedback data were recorded on 15 unsuited and 5 suited subjects. Unsuited subjects were selected chiefly based on their anthropometry in an attempt to find subjects who fell within predefined criteria for medium male, large male, and small female subjects. The suited subjects were selected as a subset of the unsuited medium male subjects and were tested in both unpressurized and pressurized conditions. The prototype spacesuits were each fabricated in a single size to accommodate an approximately average-sized male, so select findings from the suit testing were systematically extrapolated to the extremes of the population to anticipate likely problem areas. This extrapolation was achieved by first comparing suited subjects performance with their unsuited performance, and then applying the results to the entire range of the population. The use of a transparent space vehicle mockup enabled the collection of large amounts of data during human-in-the-loop testing. Mobility data revealed that most of the tested spacesuits had sufficient ranges of motion for the selected tasks to be performed successfully. A suited subject's inability to perform a task most often stemmed from a combination of poor field of view in a seated position, poor dexterity of the pressurized gloves, or from suit/vehicle interface issues. Seat ingress and egress testing showed that problems with anthropometric accommodation did not exclusively occur with the largest or smallest subjects, but also with specific combinations of measurements that led to narrower seat ingress/egress clearance.

England, Scott↗

NASA NTRS1988

Light weight escape capsule for fighter aircraft

Emergency crew escape capabilities have been less than adequate for fighter aircraft since before WW II. From the over-the-side bailout of those days through the current ejection seat with a rocket catapult, escaping from a disabled aircraft has been risky at best. Current efforts are underway toward developing a high-tech, smart ejection seat that will give fighter pilots more room to live in the sky, but an escape capsule is needed to meet current and future fighter envelopes. Escape capsules have a bad reputation due to past examples of high weight, poor performance and great complexity. However, the advantages available demand that a capsule be developed. This capsule concept will minimize the inherent disavantages and incorporate the benefits while integrating all aspects of crew station design. The resulting design is appropriate for a crew station of the year 2010 and includes improved combat acceleration protection, chemical or biological combat capability, improved aircraft to escape system interaction, and the highest level of escape performance achievable. The capsule is compact, which can allow a reduced aircraft size and weighs only 1200 lb. The escape system weight penalty is only 120 lb higher than that for the next ejection seat and the capsule has a corresponding increase in performance.

Robert, James A.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Assessing the Risk of Crew Injury Due to Dynamic Loads During Spaceflight

Spaceflight requires tremendous amounts of energy to achieve Earth orbit and to attain escape velocity for interplanetary missions. Although the majority of the energy is managed in such a way as to limit the accelerations on the crew, several mission phases may result in crew exposure to dynamic loads. In the automotive industry, risk of serious injury can be tolerated because the probability of a crash is remote each time a person enters a vehicle, resulting in a low total risk of injury. For spaceflight, the level of acceptable injury risk must be lower to achieve a low total risk of injury because the dynamic loads are expected on each flight. To mitigate the risk of injury due to dynamic loads, the NASA Human Research Program has developed a research plan to inform the knowledge gaps and develop relevant tools for assessing injury risk. The risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be further subdivided into extrinsic and intrinsic risk factors. Extrinsic risk factors include the vehicle dynamic profile, seat and restraint design, and spacesuit design. Human tolerance to loads varies considerably depending on the direction, amplitude, and rise-time of acceleration therefore the orientation of the body to the dynamic vector is critical to determining crew risk of injury. Although a particular vehicle dynamic profile may be safe for a particular design, the seat, restraint, and suit designs can affect the risk of injury due to localized effects. In addition, characteristics intrinsic to the crewmember may also contribute to the risk of injury, such as crewmember sex, age, anthropometry, and deconditioning due to spaceflight, and each astronaut may have a different risk profile because of these factors. The purpose of the research plan is to address any knowledge gaps in the risk factors to mitigate injury risk. Methods for assessing injury risk have been well documented in other analogous industries and include human volunteer testing, human exposure to dynamic environments, post-mortem human subject (PMHS) testing, animal testing, anthropomorphic test devices (ATD), dynamic models of the human, numerical models of ATDs, and numerical models of the human. Each has inherent strengths and limitations. For example, human volunteer testing is advantageous because a population can be selected that is similar to the astronaut corps; however, because of the inherent ethical limitations, only sub-injurious conditions can be tested. PMHSs can be tested in a variety of conditions including injurious levels, but the responses are not completely analogous to living human subjects. In addition, it is exceedingly difficult to select a PMHS population that is similar to the astronaut corps. ATDs are currently widely used in the automotive industry and military because they are highly repeatable and durable. Unfortunately, because they are mechanical models of the human body, the biofidelity of the responses are limited to dynamic conditions used to validate the ATD. Numerical models of the ATD, in addition to the strengths and limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional limitations for ATDs, are easy to use for a variety of designs before a design is fabricated, but also have additional uncertainty. Dynamic models are simple and easy to use, but do not account for localized effects of the seat and suit. Finally, numerical models of the human have the potential to have the most advantages; however, the current models are not validated for the conditions expected during spaceflight. To properly assess spaceflight conditions with numerical human models, human data would be needed to optimize the model responses for those conditions. Using the appropriate assessment method with the knowledge gained for each risk factor, an appropriate approach for mitigating the risk of injury due to dynamic loads can be developed ensuring crew safety in future NASA vehicles.

Somers, J. T.↗

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↗