SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Sleep”

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 757 records · Page 42

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, And ISS: Behavioral Medicine Risk

The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures used to assess behavioral health and performance risks related to future exploration class space missions. The HFBP-EM addresses the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) campaigns 4 and 5, and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogs of spaceflight environments. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected in spaceflight as part of the HRP Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are the same across studies, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, and mission length) and implementation of the measures require that the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project was to develop a harmonized database of analyzable HFBP-EM data from spaceflight and analog settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance outcomes within and between mission settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of BMed related measures including depression, neurobehavioral function, mood, cognition, and operationally relevant individual performance over time and by campaign and mission.

S T Bell↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacological Treatment Through Precision Health and Pharmacogenomics

INTRODUCTION: Future spaceflight will require increased crew medical autonomy as exploration class missions expand in duration and distance from Earth, especially for Mars missions. As mission duration increases, it will be essential to have appropriate amounts of effective medication to ensure the maintenance of crew health and performance. Conversely, mass and volume constraints will become more severe as future spaceflight expands beyond low Earth orbit, where resupply is difficult or becomes impossible. These constraints thus convey an urgency to tailor medications for individual crewmembers and further examine appropriate dosing regimens. BACKGROUND: Precision Health is an exciting area of medicine focused on maintaining an individual’s health and performance through in-depth understanding of an individual’s unique clinical and environmental history, genetic makeup, and molecular profiles. This approach can be adapted to better predict, monitor, and address physiological responses to the spaceflight environment. A subset of this field is pharmacogenomics (PGX), the study of how the expressed genome impacts drug responses with the goal of prescribing the right dose of the right drug at the right time. Specifically, PGX testing provides valuable information on an individual’s precise allelic variations to guide physicians in making informed decisions on drug choice and dosing to avoid adverse events and maximize efficacy. The study goal was to identify which current space pharmacy drugs could be evaluated using PGX testing and to understand the potential impact on the health and wellness of the astronaut population. Additionally, we sought to evaluate clinically available FDA-approved PGX testing solutions to better understand its applicability. METHODS: A complete list of drugs on the ISS was analyzed for risk and likelihood of drug failure and PGX actionability. This analysis encompassed both astronauts’ personal medications, including supplements and over the counter drugs (n=151) contained in the ISS medical accessory kit (IMAK), and ISS MedKit formulary medications (n=95). Duplicate medications and different formulations were removed, which resulted in a total of 157 drugs used in the subsequent analysis. A 5x5 risk assessment table was produced by examining the likelihood of drug failure compared to the consequence of drug failure (LxC). Likelihood of individual drug failure was defined by whether existing processes are sufficient to prevent ineffective treatment or impactful side effect events, as ranked from 1 (very low, can easily be prevented) to 5 (very high, cannot be prevented) during a Mars mission. In contrast, the consequence of drug failure was defined by impact to safety, schedule, cost, or technical criteria and ranked from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). An assessment of PGX reference laboratories is currently underway to evaluate sample requirements, benefit analysis (cost vs. utility of allele variant analysis), relevance to inflight medication usage, quality of reporting in enabling clinical application, and ease of integration into electronic medical records. RESULTS: Risk assessments (LxC 5x5 table) indicated 128 medications were in the green zone where risk is acceptable, with the remaining 29 of the medications in the yellow or red zone driven predominantly due to drug failure or safety concerns. We found that current PGX testing results could impact 21% of the total medications in the ISS MedKit and IMAK; of these, 9 medications currently have direct clinically actionable guidance available. Results of the clinical PGX solution evaluations as related to these medications will be presented. CONCLUSION: PGX testing has demonstrated clear benefits in terrestrial medicine and clinical environments for the selection of proper medications, avoiding adverse drug reactions, and maximizing drug efficacy. We propose that similar benefits would be bestowed on the astronaut and commercial spaceflight passenger population by performing preemptive preflight PGX testing to reduce risk of mission failure due to ineffective or toxic medications, improve drug efficacy, and further open the door to countermeasure research. For example, PGX results could allow tailoring of specific medications at optimal doses more precisely to each individual astronaut, particularly in areas of space motion sickness, sleep aids, and analgesics. An additional benefit is that PGX results could provide information for better planning of the components of a space pharmacy for deep space missions to be more effective and efficient in the utilization of limited pharmaceutical resources. Finally, while PGX testing of the astronaut corps is not currently conducted, this approach could provide immediate impact in support of mission success by reducing risks, optimizing astronaut performance, and providing valuable insights into long-term astronaut health. Such advancements in clinical decision making are important next steps in building dynamic individual risk profiles for astronauts, increasing selection of the best treatment choice, and providing tailored countermeasures for individual crewmembers.

Pharmacogenomics↗

NASA NTRS2022

Moon to Mars (M2M) Habitation Considerations: A Snap Shot As of January 2022

The following NASA Technical Memorandum (TM) is intended to provide a snapshot in time of NASA’s current considerations (ground rules and assumptions, functional allocations, logistics) for habitation systems for the lunar surface (non-roving) and Mars transits. As NASA continues to refine the reference designs to meet the needs of an evolving architecture, it is expected that this information will also be updated as a result. Where appropriate, relevant publicly released documents will be referenced to provide further detail. NASA’s human lunar exploration plan under the Artemis program calls for achieving the goal of sending the first woman and first person of color to the surface of the Moon in the mid- 2020s and working toward sustainable exploration by the end of the decade. Working with both commercial and international partners, NASA will establish a permanent human presence on the Moon to uncover new scientific discoveries and lay the foundation for private companies to build a lunar economy. Longer duration missions on the lunar surface and in lunar orbit will also serve as a test bed for technologies to support future Mars exploration campaigns. The agency will use what we learn on the Moon to prepare for humanity's next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars. NASA intends to establish a sustained lunar presence with the development of the Artemis Base Camp to prove technologies and capabilities that will one day enable humans to live and work on Mars, beginning with core elements including the Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV), the Pressurized Rover (PR), the lunar Surface Habitat (SH), power systems, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) systems. For in space operations and eventual transport of humans to Mars, NASA will utilize a Mars Transit Habitat (TH). Following deployment, the TH will complete a series of longer duration missions and shakedown testing while docked at Gateway, leveraging Gateway’s habitation redundancy for safety measures. Proposed Gateway-TH missions will far exceed the longest duration cislunar human missions to date. They will be the first operational readiness tests of our long-duration deep space systems, and of the split crew (two crew on the surface, two crew in space) operations that are vital to the approach for the first human Mars mission. Both the SH and TH are major architectural elements of NASA’s Moon to Mars (M2M) approach, each with very different concepts of operation. The SH is intended for use on the lunar surface as a home for astronauts, surface operations base, science facility, hub for communications, extravehicular activity (EVA) equipment repair site, waste processing facility, and supply hub. It serves as an enabler for a sustained surface presence and preparation for partial gravity operations during Mars missions. The SH will be designed to be self-sufficient for operations on the lunar surface. The SH will independently provide several functions, including its own power generation, energy storage capability, sleep quarters, hygiene areas, work areas, and dining areas. It will be capable of communicating with surface assets, orbital assets, and directly with Earth ground stations. It is planned to operate with two crew in the habitat for ~28- day stays with crew swap-outs in which the PR crew of two trades places with the habitat crew. During the swap-out, the habitat will nominally support four crew for a short period of time. For contingency scenarios, the habitat must also be capable of supporting four crew for up to 7 days. The TH will be designed to be capable of up to ~1,200-day Mars missions with the ability to carry all food and supplies needed to support a crew of four for this duration. An assumed Mars mission profile for the TH is to carry crew and supplies for ~850-day roundtrips between Earth and Mars orbit that allows 30-day stays on the Martian surface. To test the systems for this long journey, the TH will be used to extend the duration of missions at Gateway, enabling the orbiting outpost to be used as a Mars analog. These analog missions will be accomplished by attaching the TH to Gateway and conducting lunar surface operations from the TH. The TH may also need to perform free-flying shakedown missions to test out all systems prior to leaving for Mars. The habitat provides many critical functions including: a contingency airlock, crew quarters, galley, hygiene areas, safe haven capability, and science equipment. It can receive docked items from either axial end or on a radial port.

Habitat↗

NASA NTRS2021

Ground-based Automated Scheduling for Operations of the Mars 2020 Rover Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Mars 2020 Rover, named Perseverance, landed on the surface of Mars in Jezero Crater on February 18, 2021. Since the landing, the rover’s activities have been planned with the aid of a ground-based automated scheduling system called Copilot. Automated scheduling is very rare for planetary rover missions. Historically humans have created a schedule manually and ensured that the schedule satisfied all constraints. Higher levels of automation in the system allows science planners to produce schedules for the rover more quickly. In addition to scheduling user-provided activities, Copilot generates and schedules two types of support activities: sleep activities and heating activities. Some activities require the CPU to be on as they execute, so Copilot schedules wakeups and shutdowns of the CPU at the appropriate times. Some activities require areas of the rover to be heated before they can execute, and that heating must be maintained throughout the duration of the activity. Copilot schedules the preheat and maintenance heating activities for the user-provided activities that require them. To facilitate Copilot usage, the Crosscheck tool shows the science planners how Copilot constructed a schedule. For activities that fail to be scheduled, Crosscheck gives information on the constraints that the activity would have violated. This gives the users insight into how to change the input activities and constraints in order to achieve a schedule that satisfies their goals.

Towey, Shannon↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Correlated Changes in Retinal Thickness and Visuomotor Function in Asymptomatic Plaquenil Toxicity Patients

We have previously shown that a 5-minute eye-movement test can capture a number of largely independent “oculometric” parameters of human visual/visuomotor function (Liston & Stone, 2014). This test has been successfully used to characterize mild neural impairment due to traumatic brain injury, sleep and circadian disruption, and alcohol consumption (Liston et al., 2017; Stone et al, 2019; Tyson et al, 2021). Here, we extend this approach to study patients at risk of progressive posterior-segment illness to see how oculometrics relate to standard clinical ophthalmological measures. Five female patients (<20:40 BCVA, 34-60 years old) undergoing hydroxychloroquine treatment (2-7mg/kg/day for 10-23 years for rheumatologic illness) have participated thus far. Under monocular viewing conditions in randomized order, they tracked a moving spot undergoing radial step-ramp motion in one of 90 randomized directions, at one of 5 randomized speeds, starting at random times (for details, see Stone et al, 2019). We computed nine independent oculometrics (latency, initial acceleration, steady-state gain, proportion smooth, saccadic rate, saccadic amplitude, direction noise, speed responsiveness, and speed noise). Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (Zeiss, Dublin, CA) was used to measure the average thickness of the nine Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study macular sectors from the internal limiting membrane to the retinal pigmented epithelium. We used Pearson’s correlation between retinal thickness and our oculometrics with t-statistics to test separate one-sided hypotheses across 10 retinae. Our preliminary analysis found significant changes in several different aspects of visuomotor performance. Most notably, latency increased, initial acceleration decreased, and steady-state pursuit gain decreased as retinal thickness decreased (r2 = 0.364, 0.579, and 0.692; one-tailed P = 0.032, 0.005, and 0.001, respectively). Speed responsiveness appeared to decrease, but this effect was marginal for our current sample (r2 = 0.253, P = 0.069). Lastly, direction discrimination and saccadic behavior appeared unchanged. We conclude that oculometrics may provide sensitive measures of changes in retinal thickness. More importantly, oculometrics have the potential to detect impairment before it becomes evident with standard clinical imaging tools, while also providing insight into the behavioral implications of any resulting deficits in visual/visuomotor function.

eye movements↗

NASA NTRS2022

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, and Psychosocial Adaptions within a Team

The Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team (the Team Risk) is primarily performance-focused, with a secondary emphasis on behavioral health outcomes resulting from team performance and interpersonal interactions. Monitoring tools, measures, and countermeasures are aimed at enhancing team processes and team composition configurations to optimize team performance and functioning. Long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will include major challenges that could affect team performance, including social isolation, physical confinement, a small and diverse crew, communication delays between crew and ground, limited or no crew rotation or evacuation options, limited or no resupply, and a high-consequence environment. Each of these conditions will affect the crew’s coordination, cooperation, psychological well-being, and performance. Although the International Space Station (ISS) remains important for studies that require spaceflight testing and validation, the current conditions on the ISS do not adequately mimic the exploration environment that is required for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teams research, and thus access to terrestrial or ground-based analogs of LDEM conditions is paramount. The emphasis on analogs for research is reflected in this updated evidence review of the Team Risk, and includes data from studies conducted at isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments (e.g., Antarctic stations), and from several mission simulation analogs such as the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) (HERA Experiment Information Package, 2014), also known as isolated, confined, controlled (ICC) environments. These studies have characterized many team factors regarding LDEMs, and the Team Risk has now matured from risk characterization to focusing more on countermeasure development. Because spaceflight evidence for team-level research is lacking, no reliable data is available to quantify the impact of team-level variables on individual and team-level outcomes during spaceflight missions. Until recently, no systematic attempt had been undertaken to measure the performance effects of team cohesion, team composition, team training, or team-related psychosocial adaptation during spaceflight. The Team Risk is a relatively young research area for NASA, with substantial growth only since the 2000s, and with limited access to spaceflight performance data. As a result, spaceflight evidence is lacking to identify specifically what team composition, level of training, amount of cohesion, or quality of psychosocial adaptation is necessary to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. However, astronaut journals and interviews and reports from spaceflight subject matter experts (SMEs) provide testimonies that team performance during spaceflight is important for mission success and to maintain crew health. Team spaceflight data is now being collected as part of the Spaceflight Standard Measures task (Clement, 2021)—a set of core measurements related to many human spaceflight risks that are collected from astronauts before, during, and after long-duration missions. The team-related standard measures focus on team cohesion, team performance, group living, team climate, and team processes. Collection of standard measures data is ongoing and published data is not yet available. Finally, although spaceflight evidence is lacking, evidence gleaned from ground studies and spaceflight analog studies will help close the gaps outlined in the Team Risk. Ground-based studies provide quantitative evidence for team functioning in ICE environments. Academic research on teams has produced dozens of meta-analyses that can be used to understand the general relationships among team inputs (e.g., team member characteristics and skills, job context), team processes, and emergent states (e.g., coordination, communication, cooperation, cohesion, trust, shared cognition), and team outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, errors, adaptation). Teams are complex, incorporating individual characteristics of team members, but also existing at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the Team Risk must be integrated with other individual-focused NASA Human Research Program (HRP) risks, including Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Sleep, and Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), and emerging research indicates more integration may needed between the Team Risk and the physiologically oriented risks. Much of this integration occurs through the Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB). A lack of team functioning may be a stressor in some circumstances, but the team often acts as a countermeasure. For example, support for team leaders and teammates can facilitate individual functioning and encourage psychological and physically healthy behaviors and attitudes. However, more research is needed regarding teams during LDEMs and the remaining gaps in the research are described in the current report.

Lauren Blackwell Landon↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Behavioral Medicine Risks and Mitigations in Isolated, Confined, and Extreme Environments

Human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit will present unique environmental challenges to astronauts’ operational performance and well-being. Crews will need to work and live in confined and hazardous environments for prolonged missions that involve variable workloads and limitations to privacy, food options, exercise capabilities, leisure outlets, and communication with ground support personnel and loved ones. Currently, behavioral and cognitive risks of spaceflight are mitigated by selecting exceptionally resilient crews and providing extensive individual and team skills training pre-mission, as well as in-mission crew support via a suite of countermeasures targeting sleep and performance optimization, stress management, family support, and team cohesion. However, current countermeasures are difficult or impossible to implement in long-distance exploration as they require real-time communication with Earth and routine resupply. New countermeasure approaches are needed to adapt and enhance the current complement for the new challenges ahead. NASA therefore conducts research at ground-based spaceflight analogs to aid in characterizing the behavioral and cognitive risks of living and working in isolated, confined, and extreme (ICE) operational environments. Antarctic research stations are among the few long-duration ICE analogs in existence and are therefore uniquely positioned to support behavioral medicine research to enable human exploration beyond Earth. In this review, we will discuss previous and ongoing efforts to better understand spaceflight behavioral medicine risks, as well as validate new countermeasure approaches for future missions to the moon and Mars.

Behavioral Health↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cardiovascular Disease Spaceflight Equivalent Stressor Risk Modeling Project

The risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be exacerbated by spaceflight hazards including radiation, isolation, distance from the Earth, gravity fields, and closed or confined environments. This project aims to use epidemiologic, scientific research evidence of surrogate spaceflight stressors on analog populations in terrestrial cohorts to model CVD risk for spaceflight conditions. To date, Dr. Butler and the multi-disciplinary CVD Spaceflight Equivalent Stressors (SES) team have conducted a formal systematic literature review on the risk of sleep loss as it relates to cardiovascular disease outcomes and are currently working on a meta-analysis for the data gathered from nearly 100 studies and their various CVD outcomes. The research will continue to examine other surrogate stressors in depth, such as altered gravity, radiation exposure, noise, etc. with cardiovascular outcomes to determine an overall combined spaceflight risk for long term future missions such as Artemis Lunar and Mars missions.

Jennifer Butler↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Early Assessments of Crew Timelines for the Lunar Surface Habitat

As NASA progresses towards sustained crewed space missions, crew timelines will become increasingly important to achieving mission goals. While it is desirable to spend as much time as possible during crewed space missions on science activities and experiments, there are a large number of activities that crew members must perform each day in order to maintain both crew and vehicle health and safety. The time available for science activities in space is highly dependent on mandatory tasks required for crew and vehicle health and safety. The different crewed activities need to be planned accordingly long before the start of a mission in order to optimize crew time for science. To begin assessing the potential crew time for available for science, an understanding of the requirements to maintain crew and vehicle health and safety is needed. These additional activities may include sleep, exercise, vehicle maintenance, logistics handling, crew personal time, as well as many other tasks. The remaining time outside of these required tasks, within a reasonable crew work schedule, can be dedicated to science operations. This paper will detail a collaborative effort to analyzing crew times for sustained spaceflight missions and how the results of that analysis are applied to the crew timeline for the proposed Lunar Surface Habitat (SH).To determine the crew time for all of these required activities, an analysis was conducted utilizing defined agency requirements and historical crewed mission data. Predicted crew activity times were integrated into a daily schedule in order to optimize the crew’s time during the mission. This methodology was utilized to produce expected crew timelines for NASA’s proposed Artemis Base Camp (ABC) missions. The current plans for the ABC contain two different sustained habitats, the Pressurized Rover (PR) and the Surface Habitat (SH). While the crew are separated between the two habitats, the timelines for each element are dependent on the other element’s operations, so the two element timelines are formed in conjunction with one another. The results described in this paper, however, will focus solely on the crew timeline in the SH. This paper will explain the methodology behind predicting the required crew time spent in the SH for each activity, and the process of incorporating these predicted crew times into a coherent schedule.

Crew Time↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Isolation Standard Measures: A Set of Validated and Feasible Measurements Ensuring Comparability Across Isolation and Confinement Studies

Isolation and confinement studies have been essential to the preparation of crewed long-duration space missions, acting as analogues that facilitate the study of psychological and physiological responses to isolation and confinement. They also serve as opportunities for the development, testing, and validation of countermeasures and coping methods to handle the challenges that arise in such scenarios. Due to the small sample sizes in combination with high inter-individual variability, single isolation campaigns are not always sufficient for obtaining statistically significant scientific findings. To address this issue and improve comparability between different studies, the need for standardized measures to be collected in all future isolation and confinement studies was identified. Additionally, these measures should also be shown to be generally valid, reliable, feasible and acceptable in analogue and spaceflight environments. Standard measures in isolation and confinement studies allow for more direct comparisons of results and synthesis of data across isolation and confinement studies as well as provide an important step toward standard measures in spaceflight. An international expert group with representatives from different space agencies worldwide was brought together to define a core set of standard measures for isolation and confinement studies. This paper provides an overview of the expert group’s recommendations for international standard measures for future isolation and confinement studies, along with subsequent updates coordinated by the International Countermeasures Working Group (ICMWG), which was established as a sub-Working Group under the International Space Life Sciences Working Group (ISLSWG). Additional experts were consulted by the ICMWG partner agencies as required. The collection of the described set of isolation standard measures will provide data on the following parameters: sleep, mood, psychological state, psychophysiology, cognitive performance, stress and the immune system, general health and well-being, team measures, nutritional measures, and environmental conditions. For each measure, recommendations were made about duration and frequency of administration, along with specific implementation recommendations in relation to the duration of the isolation study. The set of isolation standard measures will be reassessed every two years at a minimum to ensure they are up to date and reflect the current state-of-the-art.

Isolation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Medical Lessons Learned from the Exploration Atmospheres Study

Background: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Exploration Atmospheres study (EA) was done to evaluate alternative cabin atmospheres for future spacecraft designs and planetary surface exploration of the Moon, Mars and beyond. Deep space exploration involves creating habitats and environments safe for human occupancy and means to explore the outside environment (extravehicular activities, EVA). In order to validate alternative atmospheres and pre-spacewalk procedures, the EA study was conducted to evaluate factors such as hypoxia risks, denitrogenation protocols, food limitations, medications, and the impact of other factors on human performance. Overview: Space travel is constrained by mass, volume, power and the cost of vehicle development, which creates tradeoffs in various capabilities, including breathing gasses. Higher atmospheric pressure in a vehicle means more gas, and a stronger containment vessel/habitat; while lower pressure requires higher oxygen partial pressure, which may increase fire risk. NASA’s EA study evaluated a proposed alternative cabin environment (8.2 psia, 34% Oxygen), for future spacecraft habitat, and planetary EVAs. EA included both a 3-day and a 11-day trial. These trials included a depressurization and saturation to 8.2psi at 34% O2 with additional depresses to 4.3 psia at 85% O2 for simulated EVAs, (1 EVA during the 3-day and 5 during the 11-day trials). Discussion: Planning for and executing the medical monitoring and response plan for a trial of this scope was a huge undertaking with no prior practice to fall back on. Food obstacles, sleeping issues, medications, joint injury, equipment limitations, medical privacy, multiple cases of decompression sickness, and even a COVID outbreak among the support team proved challenging. Conclusion: Testing of this nature is an essential part NASA’s preparation for the upcoming Lunar Artemis missions. As spaceflight transitions beyond low earth orbit, to planetary, even more trials of this nature will be required to learn what are the optimal atmospheric and associated operational constraints to maintain the optimal health of the crew and achieve mission objectives.

R Sanders↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Habitability Assessments And Lessons-learned From 3-day And 11-day Enriched Oxygen Hypobaric Chamber Tests At NASA Johnson Space Center

INTRODUCTION: Decompression sickness (DCS) is a risk to the health and performance of astronauts and high-altitude aircrew. Tolerance to flammability, hypoxia, prebreathe duration, and DCS risk varies across different organizations, vehicles, suits, and destinations, necessitating a variety of DCS risk mitigation approaches. Existing models of altitude DCS risk are often insufficient to enable accurate risk-informed decisions during hardware development, mission planning, and flight operations. METHODS: NASA completed outfitting of a dedicated facility at Johnson Space Center to support testing of up to eight human subjects for multiple days in hypobaric and enriched oxygen atmospheres. The primary purpose of the testing capability is validation of DCS risk mitigation protocols for Artemis missions to the Moon; however, it will also support development and validation of a generalizable altitude DCS risk estimation tool. A 3-day and an 11-day prebreathe validation test were completed in 2022, each with 8 human subjects living at 56.5 kPa (8.2 psia), 34% O2, 66% N2, with 5 simulated EVAs performed on masks at 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi), 85% O2, 15% N2. Facility and organizational lessons-learned and process improvements were recorded during and following the tests, and subjective habitability ratings were recorded daily during the 11-day test. Hypoxia and DCS-related physiological and cognitive outcome measures were recorded during both tests and are reported in companion presentations. RESULTS & DISCUSSION: All subjects completed each of the tests. Primary habitability issues related to mask discomfort during simulated EVAs and poor sleep quality due to thin mattresses. Polybenzimidazole (PBI) clothing was worn by all subjects due to the increased fire risk and may be required for Artemis missions; clothing was found to be acceptable overall with the worst ratings being due to poor fit and inelasticity. Chamber O2 and CO2 sensor inconsistency was observed that did not result in test termination but required post-test follow-up. Forward plans include additional hypobaric testing and integration of existing and future physiological outcome data into an open-source Aerospace Estimation Tool for Hypobaric Exposure Risk (AETHER). NASA is also working to make the testing capability available to commercial companies.

Andrew F J Abercromby↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Abstract: Orion Lighting Workaround for Maintaining Crew Circadian Entrainment

Introduction. Light is the major environmental time cue of our endogenous circadian pacemaker. Suboptimal crew circadian entrainment (CCE) is common and associated with acute and chronic medical symptoms. Additionally, fatigue from suboptimal CCE promotes problematic use of sleep medications. The Orion Cabin Lighting System (OCLS) consists of monochromatic light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. However, light is a powerful suppressor of melatonin and it is a disruptor of CCE if used at incorrect times. A commercial off the shelf (COTS) dynamic lighting system (COTS-DLS) is a potential workaround for maintaining CCE.

Matthew Lindsey↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quiet Spacecraft Cabin Ventilation Fan Development: Motivation and Context

It is important to control acoustical noise aboard crewed space vehicles and space habitats to provide a satisfactory environment for voice communications, alarm audibility, and restful sleep, and to minimize the risk for hearing loss and annoyance. As with most noise control efforts, it is best to control the noise at the source, and for spaceflight vehicles these are typically the fans associated with the Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) system. These include air ventilation fans, such as the main air conditioning fan (the ‘cabin fan’), intermodule ventilation (IMV) fans, air revitalization fans (for removal of carbon dioxide and trace contaminates), and thermal cooling fans. Thermal cooling pumps that circulate cooling fluid are another significant noise source in spaceflight vehicles, but these are outside of the scope of this paper. Throughout the history of crewed spaceflight, there have been issues with noise from ECLS ventilation fans. In the Apollo Command Module (CM) the crew would turn off the CM cabin fan once in orbit and use the backup suit-loop fan for ventilation because noise from the cabin fan interfered with communications and was an annoyance. On the Space Shuttle the ventilation system underwent significant redesign, including the addition of ventilation system mufflers, with resulting noise levels that were still too-high for long-duration missions. In the early years of International Space Station (ISS) operations, acoustical noise was one of the top two habitability issues, resulting in significant noise controls (along with significant cost and crew-time impacts) being implemented on-orbit on many fans, with significant noise reductions realized only after replacing noisy fans with fans of a quieter design, funded by the ISS Program. And, with the spaceflight vehicles and habitats currently being developed, there are again concerns with noise levels from ventilation fans. In the Orion vehicle, additional duct mufflers needed to be added to address the cabin fan noise. The Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) module and low-Earth orbit (LEO) Freeflyer habitats are currently working to solve this problem. This will also be an issue for lunar and Mars spaceflight vehicles, space suits, and surface habitats. In an effort to address this problem, NASA is working to leverage the technology developed in its Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD), specifically at the Glenn Research Center (GRC), to design highly efficient and quiet fans for reducing community noise levels from civilian aircraft. This technology was created over decades of research and development, and was proven to be effective at reducing aircraft noise levels. The current collaboration across NASA Centers, including HQ, GRC, and the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in this area is the first effort at re-purposing these tools, i.e. design codes and techniques, developed for high Reynolds number fans to spaceflight vehicle and habitat, low Reynolds number, fans. This paper will discuss the need for transfer of aeronautics fan design technology to spaceflight use. This paper will also discuss the potential benefits from this, which are significant, including 1) volume and mass savings from noise controls that are no longer as large or needed at all, 2) reduced system pressure loss from mufflers and silencers (that don’t need to be as restrictive) for better ventilation, 3) reduced power draw because of the reduced system pressure loss and the highly efficient fan design, and 4) satisfying spaceflight vehicle acoustic requirements to provide a safe and habitable acoustic environment for astronaut crewmembers. All of these benefits will be crucial for the successful development and operations of future spaceflight vehicles, space suits, and habitats.

Christopher S. Allen↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Gateway at the Crossroads of Sustainable Lunar Exploration

The Gateway Program has made substantial design and development progress toward delivering a small, human-tended lunar space station purposefully designed to enable sustainable human exploration. The Program integrates partners and providers organizationally and physically as part of the spacecraft. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) with the European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications (ESPRIT) HALO Lunar Communications System (HLCS) have begun manufacturing the long lead components and will be launched first as a Co-Manifested Vehicle (CMV). The International Habitat (I-Hab) and ESPRIT Refueling Module (ERM) are passing life cycle milestones and include capabilities key for human crewmembers, such as windows, private sleeping quarters, and galley functions. The Logistics Module (LM) may provide a variety of services to Gateway depending on each mission. Requirements for the airlock have been developed, including requests that it support the integrated spacecraft with functions like augmenting heat rejection capabilities, and interfaces with new spacesuits will soon be developed in more detail. As a critical element of the architecture for solar system exploration, Gateway implements key tenets and features of international interoperability standards necessary to operate with multiple visiting vehicles and lunar assets, especially avionics, communications, and docking. Specific choices such as software architecture and standards, power standards, and robotics standards make it possible to utilize heritage or proprietary technology, yet still operate as one spacecraft. Engineering teams are evaluating many possible future missions to be executed at or utilizing the Gateway. The system architecture protects for an evolvable, extensible, and flexible capability. Designing systems robust enough to serve as a cornerstone of exploration activities for decades while remaining adaptable is not without its challenges. The detailed integration activities have revealed challenges and the need to mature key technologies. Refueling is a key component of achieving long life for Gateway, with unique operations to plan, safety concerns to mitigate, and risk reduction activities to conduct to better understand the system. The constraints and impacts of the design of visiting vehicles is also an important concern, with orientation constraints, control of attitude and orbit of the Gateway with docked visiting vehicles. Tradeoffs between robust maintainable systems and lightweight, compact systems must be balanced. Opportunities still exist for adding additional advanced capabilities to increase and extend Gateway’s benefits, such as intravehicular robotics, autonomous Guidance Navigation and Control (GN&C), and augmented control propulsion, heat rejection, or other services.

Molly S Anderson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Quiet Spacecraft Cabin Ventilation Fan Development: Motivation and Context

Christopher S. Allen↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Nasa Pilot Fatigue Research: Past, Present & Future

Pilot fatigue research at NASA Ames has a long history, initiated by a Congressional request to investigate the magnitude of fatigue, sleep loss and circadian disruption in flight operations, and how these factors impact crew performance. Research has been conducted in a broad range of aviation operations, including short-haul, long-haul, rotorcraft, overnight cargo, corporate/business, and regional airlines. Studies have been conducted in the field during actual flight operations, in simulated settings, focus group meetings, and with surveys. Other investigations have examined mitigation strategies including in-flight rest periods and lighting applications. Other activities have included education and training, publications, accident investigation support and the development of research methods and tools. Future research may include further lighting interventions, controlled rest strategies, use of automation, the effectiveness of modeling tools, and implementation of organizational fatigue management programs.

aviation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Habitability Assessments And Lessons-learned From 3-day And 11-day Enriched Oxygen Hypobaric Chamber Tests At NASA Johnson Space Center

Andrew Abercromby↗