Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DECOMPRESSION”

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.

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

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2013

Evidence Report: Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS)

The Risk of Decompression Sickness (DCS) is identified by the NASA Human Research Program (HRP) as a recognized risk to human health and performance in space, as defined in the HRP Program Requirements Document (PRD). This Evidence Report provides a summary of the evidence that has been used to identify and characterize this risk. Given that tissue inert gas partial pressure is often greater than ambient pressure during phases of a mission, primarily during extravehicular activity (EVA), there is a possibility that decompression sickness may occur.

Conkin, Johnny↗
NASA NTRS2014

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the Research Plans for The Risk of Decompression Sickness and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations, as well as the Evidence Reports for both of these Risks. The SRP found that the NASA DCS/EVA team did an excellent job of presenting their research plans. The SRP considers it critical that NASA proceeds with the high priority tasks identified in this report (DCS1, DCS3, DCS5). The highest priority is to determine the acceptable DCS and hypoxia risk associated with the planned human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The risk of DCS is highly dependent upon the pressure within the exploration vehicle. If slightly more hypoxia is permitted then (even with the same percentage of oxygen) the pressure within the exploration vehicle can be lowered thus further mitigating the risk of DCS. The second highest priority is to test and validate the recommended 8.2psi/34% O2 atmosphere. Development of procedures and equipment for human exploration missions are very limited until the results of this testing are completed. The SRP also suggests that DCS7 be separated into two Gaps. Gap DCS7 should deal with DCS treatment while a new Gap should be created to deal with the long-term effects of DCS. The SRP also encourages NASA to increase collaboration with other organizations and pool resources where possible. The current NASA DCS/EVA team has the extensive expertise and a wealth of knowledge in this area. The SRP suggests that increased manpower for this team would be highly productive.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2015

2014 Decompression Sickness/Extravehicular Activity Risks Standing Review Panel

The 2014 Decompression Sickness (DCS)/Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Risks Standing Review Panel (from here on referred to as the SRP) met for a site visit in Houston, TX on November 4 - 5, 2014. The SRP reviewed the updated Evidence Reports for The Risk of Decompression Sickness (from here on referred to as the 2014 DCS Evidence Report) and the Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations (from here on referred to as the 2014 EVA Evidence Report), as well as the Research Plans for these Risks. The SRP appreciated the time and effort that the DCS and EVA disciplines put into their review documents and presentations. The SRP felt that the 2014 DCS Evidence Report and the 2014 EVA Evidence Reports were very thorough and addressed the majority of the known DCS and EVA issues. The researchers at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) have the knowledge base to deal with the DCS and EVA issues. Overall, the SRP thinks the DCS and EVA research teams have compiled excellent reports which address the majority of the literature and background information.

Steinberg, Susan↗
NASA NTRS2016

Decompression Sickness During Simulated Low Pressure Exposure is Increased with Mild Ambulation Exercise

Musculoskeletal activity accelerates inert gas elimination during oxygen breathing prior to decompression (prebreathe), but may also promote bubble formation (nucleation) and increase the risk of decompression sickness (DCS). The timing, pattern and intensity of musculoskeletal activity are likely critical to the net effect. The NASA Prebreathe Reduction Program (PRP) combined oxygen prebreathe and exercise preceding a 4.3 psia exposure in non-ambulatory subjects (a microgravity analog) to produce two protocols now used by astronauts preparing for extravehicular activity - one employing cycling and non-cycling exercise (CEVIS: 'cycle ergometer vibration isolation system') and one relying on non-cycling exercise only (ISLE: 'in-suit light exercise'). Current efforts investigate whether light exercise normal to 1 G environments increases the risk of DCS over microgravity simulation.

Pollock, N. W.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Suited Ground Vacuum Chamber Testing Decompression Sickness Tiger Team Report

Suited vacuum chamber testing is critical to flight crew training, sustaining engineering, and development engineering. Most suited vacuum chamber testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) involves crewmembers or human test subjects working at a hypobaric pressure of 4.3 psia, which requires that an oxygen prebreathe be performed prior to decompression to reduce the risk of decompression sickness (DCS). Since 1986, NASA’s policy has been to require a 4-hour resting prebreathe for hypobaric chamber exposures of 4.2 psia lasting greater than 30 minutes. There have been no reports of Type II (i.e., serious, potentially life-threatening) DCS at NASA while using this prebreathe protocol. Several chamber runs, believed to be approximately 5% of all runs, are believed to have been terminated due to Type I DCS symptoms that were performance impairing; however, detailed records of DCS symptoms during suited vacuum chamber runs are not available. The adequacy of the 4-hour prebreathe protocol, as well as the processes by which prebreathe protocols and policies are established, became the subject of significant discussion in April 2018 when medical planning was initiated for chamber runs that were scheduled to occur later in 2018 that would last 8 hours or more with high metabolic rates.

Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗