Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Health and Performance”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Space Biology and Medicine: Health, Performance, and Safety of Space Crews - Volume 4

Volume IV is devoted to examining the medical and associated organizational measures used to maintain the health of space crews and to support their performance before, during, and after space flight. These measures, collectively known as the medical flight support system, are important contributors to the safety and success of space flight. The contributions of space hardware and the spacecraft environment to flight safety and mission success are covered in previous volumes of the Space Biology and Medicine series. In Volume IV, we address means of improving the reliability of people who are required to function in the unfamiliar environment of space flight as well as the importance of those who support the crew. Please note that the extensive collaboration between Russian and American teams for this volume of work resulted in a timeframe of publication longer than originally anticipated. Therefore, new research or insights may have emerged since the authors composed their chapters and references. This volume includes a list of authors' names and addresses should readers seek specifics on new information. At least three groups of factors act to perturb human physiological homeostasis during space flight. All have significant influence on health, psychological, and emotional status, tolerance, and work capacity. The first and most important of these factors is weightlessness, the most specific and radical change in the ambient environment; it causes a variety of functional and structural changes in human physiology. The second group of factors precludes the constraints associated with living in the sealed, confined environment of spacecraft. Although these factors are not unique to space flight, the limitations they entail in terms of an uncomfortable environment can diminish the well-being and performance of crewmembers in space. The third group of factors includes the occupational and social factors associated with the difficult, critical nature of the crewmembers' work: the risks involved in space flight, changes in circadian rhythms, and intragroup interactions. The physical and emotional stress and fatigue that develop under these conditions also can disturb human health and performance. In addition to these factors, the risk also exists that crewmembers will develop various illnesses during flight. The risk of illness is no less during space flight than on Earth, and may actually be greater for some classes of diseases.

Dietlein, Lawrence F.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Evidence Report: Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response

The Risk of Crew Adverse Health Event Due to Altered Immune Response is identified by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Human Research Program (HRP) as a recognized risk to human health and performance in space. The HRP Program Requirements Document (PRD) defines these risks. This Evidence Report provides a summary of the evidence that has been used to identify and characterize this risk. It is known that human immune function is altered in‐ and post‐flight, but it is unclear at present if such alterations lead to increased susceptibility to disease. Reactivation of latent viruses has been documented in crewmembers, although this reactivation has not been directly correlated with immune changes or with observed diseases. As described in this report, further research is required to better characterize the relationships between altered immune response and susceptibility to disease during and after spaceflight. This is particularly important for future deep‐space exploration missions.

Crucian, Brian↗
NASA NTRS2009

Humans on the International Space Station-How Research, Operations, and International Collaboration are Leading to New Understanding of Human Physiology and Performance in Microgravity

As the International Space Station (ISS) nears completion, and full international utilization is achieved, we are at a scientific crossroads. ISS is the premier location for research aimed at understanding the effects of microgravity on the human body. For applications to future human exploration, it is key for validation, quantification, and mitigation of a wide variety of spaceflight risks to health and human performance. Understanding and mitigating these risks is the focus of NASA s Human Research Program. However, NASA s approach to defining human research objectives is only one of many approaches within the ISS international partnership (including Roscosmos, the European Space Agency, the Canadian Space Agency, and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency). Each of these agencies selects and implements their own ISS research, with independent but related objectives for human and life sciences research. Because the science itself is also international and collaborative, investigations that are led by one ISS partner also often include cooperative scientists from around the world. The operation of the ISS generates significant additional data that is not directly linked to specific investigations. Such data comes from medical monitoring of crew members, life support and radiation monitoring, and from the systems that have been implemented to protect the health of the crew (such as exercise hardware). We provide examples of these international synergies in human research on ISS and highlight key early accomplishments that derive from these broad interfaces. Taken as a whole, the combination of diverse research objectives, operational data, international sharing of research resources on ISS, and scientific collaboration provide a robust research approach and capability that no one partner could achieve alone.

Ronbinson, Julie A.↗
NASA NTRS1992

The space life sciences strategy for the 21st century

In the 21st century, NASA's long-term strategy for the exploration of the solar system will combine the assurance of human health and performance for long periods in space with investigations aimed at searching for traces of life on other planets and acquiring fundamental scientific knowledge of life processes. Implementation of this strategy will involve a variety of disciplines including radiation health, life support, human factors, space physiology and countermeasures, medical care, environmental health, and exobiology. It will use both ground-based and flight research opportunities such as those found in current ongoing programs, on Spacelab and unmanned biosatellite flights, and during Space Station Freedom missions.

Nicogossian, Arnauld E.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Evidence Report: Risk of Hypobaric Hypoxia from the Exploration Atmosphere

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. Some elements of exploration may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but certain critical elements will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without causing undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA-intensive phases of missions. After re-evaluation in 2012, the 8/32 environment was altered to 8.2 psia and 34% O2 to reduce the hypoxic stress to a crewmember. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring the additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This report provides a review of the human health and performance risks associated with the use of the 8.2 psia / 34% O2 environment during spaceflight. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system (CNS), including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of transient acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasure protocols, effective food preparation at 8.2 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Norcross, Jason R.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Performance Measures to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and Crew Health and Performance Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap may be closed with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is very important. KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are hard to define but critical. Outside of technical considerations, the programmatic factors of the estimated time to develop the technology and how the technology validation objectives are matured are strong considerations in which technologies should be pursued and how they should leverage earlier mission elements. The Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLSS) and Crew Health and Performance (CHP) capability areas are decomposed to high level gaps. While KPPs should be technology agnostic, they can be used to both compare technologies and measure progress of technology development over time. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Proposed technology improvements to enhance a capability should balance improved KPPs and against investments in other capabilities that are not yet closed. A selection of gaps, KPPs, and validation objectives and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS2004

Physics in NASA Exploration

The primary focus of the workshop was NASA's new concentration on sending crewed missions to the Moon by 2020, and then on to Mars and beyond. Several speakers, including JPL s Fred O Callaghan and NASA's Mark Lee, broached the problem that there is now a serious reduction of capability to perform experiments in the ISS, or to fly significant mass in microgravity by other means. By 2010, the shuttle fleet will be discontinued and Russian craft will provide the only access to the ISS. O Callaghan stated that the Fundamental Physics budget is being reduced by 70%. LTMPF and LCAP are slated for termination. However, ground-based experiments are continuing to be funded at present, and it will be possible to compete for $80-90 million in new money from the Human Research Initiative (HRI). The new program thrust is for exploration, not fundamental physics. Fundamental, we were told by Lee, does not ring well in Washington these days. Investigators were advised to consider how their work can benefit missions to the Moon and Mars. Work such as that regarding atomic clocks is looked upon with favor, for example, because it is considered important to navigation and planetary GPS. Mark Lee stressed that physicists must convey to NASA senior management that they are able and willing to contribute to the new exploration research programs. The new mentality must be we deliver products, not do research. This program needs to be able to say that it is doing at least 50% exploration-related research. JPL s Ulf Israelsson discussed the implications to OBPR, which will deliver methods and technology to assure human health and performance in extraterrestrial settings. The enterprise will provide advanced life-support systems and technology that are reliable, capable, simpler, less massive, smaller, and energy-efficient, and it may offer other necessary expertise in areas such as low-gravity behavior. Like Dr. Lee, he stated that the focus must be on products, not research. While there is not yet a formal direction, he said, LTMPF and PARCS ISS flight projects are slated to terminate in October 2004. All flight investigations are being returned to ground programs and phased out by the end of FY07. Physics ground programs are intact for now, but to survive we must shift about 50% of research to supporting exploration. Basic research programs in other disciplines are being cancelled. Product lines will support human health, safety and life-support, including countermeasures against radiation and other hazards, as well as advances in time-keeping, navigation and communications technologies. Israelsson said that the new Fundamental Physics for Exploration Roadmap points to how fundamental physics research can and does support exploration. JPL will use the roadmap to argue for support for fundamental physics research under several codes. Nicholas Bigelow of the University of Rochester encouraged attendees not to become discouraged, but rather to embrace the opportunities presented by NASA's new direction.

O'Callaghan, Fred↗
NASA NTRS2013

An Assessment of Environmental Health Needs

Environmental health fundamentally addresses the physical, chemical, and biological risks external to the human body that can impact the health of a person by assessing and controlling these risks in order to generate and maintain a health-supportive environment. In manned spacecraft, environmental health risks are mitigated by a multi-disciplinary effort, employing several measures including active and passive controls, by establishing environmental standards (SMACs, SWEGs, microbial and acoustics limits), and through environmental monitoring. Human Health and Performance (HHP) scientists and Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) engineers consider environmental monitoring a vital component to an environmental health management strategy for maintaining a healthy crew and achieving mission success. ECLS engineers use environmental monitoring data to monitor and confirm the health of ECLS systems, whereas HHP scientists use the data to manage the health of the human system. Because risks can vary between missions and change over time, environmental monitoring is critical. Crew health risks associated with the environment were reviewed by agency experts with the goal of determining risk-based environmental monitoring needs for future NASA manned missions. Once determined, gaps in environmental health knowledge and technology, required to address those risks, were identified for various types of exploration missions. This agency-wide assessment of environmental health needs will help guide the activities/hardware development efforts to close those gaps and advance the knowledge required to meet NASA manned space exploration objectives. Details of the roadmap development and findings are presented in this paper.

Macatangay, Ariel V.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact Outputs for A Representative Extended Duration Artemis Mission

BACKGROUND: As NASA and private industry begin preparation for long-duration spaceflight, quantifying the impact that potential human health and performance capabilities have on crew health outcomes is imperative for medical risk mitigation. NASA’s Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces tool (IMPACT) applies Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) methodology to estimate these outcomes. OVERVIEW: As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, medical system planning has already begun for extended Artemis missions, which will see humans spending months at a time in cis-lunar space and on the surface of the Moon. The Long Duration Lunar Orbital and Lunar Surface (LDLOLS) design reference mission (DRM) lasts 9 months, including 3 months on the lunar surface, and involves 2 male and 2 female crewmembers. LDLOLS assumes no extravehicular activities (EVAs) in orbit, but, while on the lunar surface, involves 2-4 EVAs/month in a pressurized rover and 2-4 EVAs/month in an unpressurized rover or on foot. This DRM assumes a physician level Crew Medical Officer with commensurate knowledge, skills, and abilities. The IMPACT tool was utilized to estimate in-flight medical risk for this mission. More specifically, 100,000 simulations of this DRM were modeled, and overall estimates for loss of crew life (LOCL), need for evacuation (RTDC; return to definitive care), and crew task time lost (TTL; a measure of disability) were calculated. A recommended medical capability set, with appropriate mass and volume constraints, was also generated. DISCUSSION: This abstract reviews the IMPACT-derived risk for these mission outcomes with and without treatment, a macroscopic look at the total mass and volume necessary for full diagnostic and treatment capability, and how these change with input mission parameters.

J G Steller↗
NASA NTRS2013

Effects of the 8 psia / 32% O2 Atmosphere on the Human in the Spaceflight Environment

Extravehicular activity (EVA) is at the core of a manned space exploration program. There are elements of exploration that may be safely and effectively performed by robots, but there are critical elements of exploration that will require the trained, assertive, and reasoning mind of a human crewmember. To effectively use these skills, NASA needs a safe, effective, and efficient EVA component integrated into the human exploration program. The EVA preparation time should be minimized and the suit pressure should be low to accommodate EVA tasks without undue fatigue, physical discomfort, or suit-related trauma. Commissioned in 2005, the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) had the primary goal of recommending to NASA an internal environment that allowed efficient and repetitive EVAs for missions that were to be enabled by the former Constellation Program. At the conclusion of the EAWG meeting, the 8.0 psia and 32% oxygen (O2) environment were recommended for EVA intensive phases of missions. As a result of selecting this internal environment, NASA gains the capability for efficient EVA with low risk of decompression sickness (DCS), but not without incurring additional negative stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia to the already physiologically challenging spaceflight environment. This paper provides a literature review of the human health and performance risks associated with the 8 psia/32% O2 environment. Of most concern are the potential effects on the central nervous system including increased intracranial pressure, visual impairment, sensorimotor dysfunction, and oxidative damage. Other areas of focus include validation of the DCS mitigation strategy, incidence and treatment of acute mountain sickness (AMS), development of new exercise countermeasures protocols, effective food preparation at 8 psia, assurance of quality sleep, and prevention of suit-induced injury. As a first effort, the trade space originally considered in the EAWG was re-evaluated looking for ways to decrease the hypoxic dose by further enriching the O2% or increasing the pressure. After discussion with the NASA engineering and materials community, it was determined that the O2 could be enriched from 32% to 34% and the pressure increased from 8.0 to 8.2 psia without significant penalty. These two small changes increase alveolar O2 pressure by 11 mmHg, which is expected to significantly benefit crewmembers. The 8.2/34 environment (inspired O2 pressure = 128 mmHg) is also physiologically equivalent to the staged decompression atmosphere of 10.2 psia / 26.5% O2 (inspired O2 pressure = 127 mmHg) used on 34 different shuttle missions for approximately a week each flight. Once decided, the proposed internal environment, if different than current experience, should be evaluated through appropriately simulated research studies. In many cases, the human physiologic concerns can be investigated effectively through integrated multi-discipline ground-based studies. Although missions proposing to use an 8.2/34 environment are still years away, it is recommended that these studies begin early enough to ensure that the correct decisions pertaining to vehicle design, mission operational concepts, and human health countermeasures are appropriately informed.

Environmental control↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Strategy for Advancing Earth Independent Medical Operations

Exploration medical operations to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for providing in-mission medical care. The greater distance from Earth is the primary hazard that drives the need for a medical operations paradigm shift from low earth orbit mission. Increasingly complex long duration and long distance missions will have resource constraints (ex: mass, power, volume, data), a paucity of resupply or evacuation opportunities, and disruptions in real-time communications. In order to advance a more autonomous medical approach, a multi-faceted strategy will need to optimize all aspects of human health and performance in space. This strategy will include: increasing onboard medical autonomy through the development of novel crew health and performance systems; decision support capabilities to augment astronauts’ abilities in preventing, diagnosing, and treating medical conditions; creating new procedures and training tools for skill maintenance and just-in-time training; and enabling rapid crew access to data from all on-board systems, leading to better-informed, real-time, autonomous decisions. Collectively, this approach can be referred to as “Earth Independent Medical Operations” (EIMO). The Exploration Medical Capability Element of NASA’s Human Research Program has undertaken a longitudinal planning process to consensus around EIMO. Technical interchange meetings will occur with key constituents in late 2022 and again in early 2023 to define EIMO in practical terms and identify key elements of an EIMO system, with greater conceptual articulation and dissemination planned for the second half of 2023. We will share insights into the strategy for internal and external consensus building around EIMO, with a particular focus on the approach to partner stakeholders within NASA as well as commercial agencies.

Jay Lemery↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human System Risk Communication: Directed Acyclic Graphs

- The Human System Risk Board (HSRB) is responsible for the management of a portfolio of 30 human system risks that NASA tracks and configuration manages to mitigate for future crewed exploration missions. - The HSRB has been exploring the concept of causal diagrams (in the form of Directed Acyclic Graphs or DAGs) as an approach to creating knowledge graphs for each risk to enable shared mental models of causal flow from spaceflight hazards to mission outcomes among HSRB Stakeholders. - These diagrams are intended to improve insight and communication of risk across the myriad subject matter experts and management interested in human system risk reduction. This includes program managers, systems engineers, and operators in addition to the Human Health and Performance Directorate. - The DAG project was intended to create the foundation for composition of the 30 baselined DAGs into a single risk network and software is being developed in parallel to enable this forward work.

directed acrylic graph↗
NASA NTRS2012

Shocking Results on the Adverse Effects of CO2 Exposures

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is released in large quantities from humans while they live and work in spacecraft or work outside the spacecraft during extravehicular activity (EVA). Removal of this anthropogenic pollutant requires major resources, and these resources increase dramatically as the levels of CO2 set to protect human health and performance are reduced. The current Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration of CO2 aboard the ISS is 0.7% or 5.3 mmHg; however, according to Chits (mission action requests), NASA and its international partners have agreed to control CO2 levels to less than 4 mmHg. In the meantime, retrospective investigations attempting to associate crew symptoms with elevated CO2 levels over the life if the International Space Station (ISS) are underway to determine if this level is sufficient to protect against health and performance decrements. Anecdotal reports suggest that crewmembers are not able to perform complex tasks as readily in spaceflight as they were able during ground-based training. While physiological effects of CO2 have been studied for many decades, it is only recently that the effects of CO2 on higher reasoning capabilities have been studied. The initial results are shocking. For example, one study published in the respected journal Environmental Health Perspectives showed obvious adverse effects of CO2 exposures on higher reasoning at 1.9 mmHg. The implications and limitations of this study are paramount in determining future CO2 SMACs for human spaceflight, both aboard the ISS and in exploration-class missions. Key Words: carbon dioxide, spacecraft, air quality, toxic effects

James, John T.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Computational Modeling of Space Physiology

The Digital Astronaut Project (DAP), within NASAs Human Research Program, develops and implements computational modeling for use in the mitigation of human health and performance risks associated with long duration spaceflight. Over the past decade, DAP developed models to provide insights into space flight related changes to the central nervous system, cardiovascular system and the musculoskeletal system. Examples of the models and their applications include biomechanical models applied to advanced exercise device development, bone fracture risk quantification for mission planning, accident investigation, bone health standards development, and occupant protection. The International Space Station (ISS), in its role as a testing ground for long duration spaceflight, has been an important platform for obtaining human spaceflight data. DAP has used preflight, in-flight and post-flight data from short and long duration astronauts for computational model development and validation. Examples include preflight and post-flight bone mineral density data, muscle cross-sectional area, and muscle strength measurements. Results from computational modeling supplement space physiology research by informing experimental design. Using these computational models, DAP personnel can easily identify both important factors associated with a phenomenon and areas where data are lacking. This presentation will provide examples of DAP computational models, the data used in model development and validation, and applications of the model.

simulation↗
NASA NTRS2023

Developing a Hybrid Space Suit Simulator as a Research Tool for Assessing Extravehicular Activity Relevant Workload

Suited testing time is limited and hard to come by, expensive, and requires a whole team to operate and monitor the suit; however, pressurized spacesuits are not always necessary for initial developmental efforts or assessment of informatics. The Human Physiology, Performance, Protection & Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is developing a Hybrid Space Suit Simulator (HS3) to support characterization of human performance during planetary surface exploration analogs. The primary goal of HS3 is to create a low cost, modular, and unpressurized suit simulator for use as a research tool which provides relevant physical and cognitive workload approximations with EVA-like immersion during planetary extravehicular activity (EVA) simulations. HS3 consists of a soft suit, communication, thermal control, gloves, boots, helmet, and integrated bioinformatics/sensors. The modular design of HS3 allows it to be modified to support test objectives as needed. HS3 enables H-3PO and NASA to complete critical human health and performance testing to address open risks and knowledge gaps in a timely, repeatable, and controlled manner. Four engineering runs were completed with HS3 as a baseline for capability. General workload was assessed while traversing on a passive treadmill and conducting geology tasks. Liquid cooling temperature, suit temperature, and metabolic rates were collected during one extended three-hour engineering run. For the duration of the engineering run the suit temperature was 26.6 ± 1.58 °C while suit humidity was 53.7 ± 5.11 %. Helmet temperature was higher than suit temperature at 27.8 ± 1.58 °C. Helmet humidity was lower than average suit humidity at 50.12 ± 11.3 °C. The liquid cooling temperature remained stable at 22.4 ± 1.62 °C. Resting metabolic rate was 597 ± 88 BTU/hr while metabolic rate increased during traverse tasks at 1500 ± 319 BTU/hr and geology tasks at 921 ± 129 BTU/hr. Following the engineering runs, a characterization study will be conducted. The subjects will perform EVA-like scenarios in both a shirtsleeve only and donned HS3, consisting of EVA task circuit focused on traversing, geological rock sampling, and task board manipulation. The characterization study will provide data capability for implementing HS3 in analog EVA testing environments.

Monica Hew↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Analyzing the Impact of Lunar Dust on Astronaut Health – an Update to the Risk Modeling

INTRODUCTION Lunar dust exposure is an unavoidable hazard during lunar surface operations. Given the large number of surface EVAs expected to be performed during Artemis missions, it is critical that the incidence and extent of symptoms resulting from contact with lunar dust be fully understood in order to accurately predict the resources needed to treat Artemis astronauts. The purpose of this study will be to gather the latest data regarding the risk of and severity of symptoms associated with lunar dust exposure and refine the estimates of the impact of lunar dust on astronaut health for PRA models, both those in operational use and those currently being developed. METHODS The latest data on the pathophysiologic effects of lunar dust on humans will be gathered by querying the peer-reviewed literature as well as NASA technical documents. This data will be supplemented with discussions with hardware designers regarding methods used to mitigate exposure to lunar dust during lunar surface operations. Taken together, this data will be used to refine both the estimates for exposure to lunar dust for astronauts inside and outside lunar habitats, as well as provide evidence to guide estimates for the percentage of astronauts who are exposed to lunar dust who will be symptomatic. RESULTS Querying the peer-reviewed literature and NASA technical documents will begin in October of 2024, with the goal of codifying this information by the end of October. In parallel, discussions will begin with hardware engineering teams, also in October. Using the evidence found will help refine the estimate for resources needed to treat astronauts who exhibit symptoms from lunar dust exposure. DISCUSSION Lunar dust exposure is expected to be a major risk for upcoming exploration missions that include a lunar surface interval. Until recently, most of the information to inform the risk associated with lunar dust exposure has come from anecdotal evidence from Apollo astronauts about their symptoms while on the lunar surface; however, this evidence is sparse. Newer studies are now coming out, looking at the impact of lunar dust on human physiology, including studies on effects to the immune system. Additionally, there are new engineering efforts to attempt to mitigate the exposure to lunar dust from the space suits of astronauts returning to the lunar habitat after surface operations. Thus, developing an updated risk assessment, based on our current understanding of human physiology and our current resources for risk mitigation, is prudent to best estimate overall human health and performance risk for future Artemis missions. This project will lead to an updated and more accurate assessment of the risk of lunar dust exposure for exploration missions and will therefore allow mission planners to more accurately predict resources needed for these exploration-class missions.

D M Nusbaum↗
NASA NTRS2015

Overview of the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA)

In 2013, the Human Research Program at NASA began developing a new confinement analog specifically for conducting research to investigate the effects of confinement on the human system. The HERA (Human Exploration Research Analog) habitat has been used for both 7 and 14 day missions to date to examine and mitigate exploration risks to enable safe, reliable and productive human space exploration. This presentation will describe how the Flight Analogs Project developed the HERA facility and the infrastructure to suit investigator requirements for confinement research and in the process developed a new approach to analog utilization and a new state of the art analog facility. Details regarding HERA operations will be discussed including specifics on the mission simulation utilized for the current 14-day campaign, the specifics of the facility (total volume, overall size, hardware), and the capabilities available to researchers. The overall operational philosophy, mission fidelity including timeline, schedule pressures and cadence, and development and implementation of mission stressors will be presented. Research conducted to date in the HERA has addressed risks associated with behavioral health and performance, human physiology, as well as human factors. This presentation will conclude with a discussion of future research plans for the HERA, including infrastructure improvements and additional research capabilities planned for the upcoming 30-day missions in 2016.

Neigut, J.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Time Course of Effects of Carbon Dioxide Exposure on Physical and Cognitive Performance in a Simulated Surface Extravehicular Activity Contingency Scenario

INTRODUCTION Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is a metabolic byproduct produced by humans that must be scrubbed from the atmosphere by environmental control and life support systems in space vehicles and spacesuits to prevent buildup. Current nominal CO 2 limits are set by NASA Standard 3001, however, limits during contingency situations are not specified. The purpose of this study was to characterize and quantify the physiological, cognitive, and self-assessed symptom and performance metrics as a function of inspired CO 2 (P I CO 2 ) during a simulated 1-hour contingency lunar EVA scenario in virtual reality (VR). METHODS Fifteen healthy subjects completed 7 simulated EVA scenarios walking on a passive treadmill for one hour breathing dry, ambient air mixed with added CO 2 in a blind, counterbalanced manner (P I CO 2 : 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 mmHg) simulating a 2.0 km contingency EVA walkback to a habitat on the lunar surface in the event of a CO 2 scrubber malfunction. Subjects were immersed in a Lunar VR environment and asked to maintain their walking speed between 2.1 km/h and an upper limit individually calibrated to a fixed metabolic workload of 1.3 L/min of O 2 consumption, and performed periodic cognitive tasks and continuous cardiopulmonary measurements. Self-assessments of symptoms and task performance were measured via verbal Likert-scale survey at the onset of the walkback and at 10-minute intervals thereafter. RESULTS The time course of cardiopulmonary, cognitive, and self-reported responses at each level of P I CO 2 will be presented. All 15 subjects were able to complete the 1-hr walk back task at all CO 2 levels. Physiological responses were rapid, typically within 1 to 5 minutes. No effects of time were detected for cognitive measures. Symptomatic ratings of headache, shortness of breath, and fatigue demonstrated a time-course development, reaching asymptote after 40 minutes of CO 2 exposure. DISCUSSION These findings will inform the posture of risk associated with CO 2 exposure on human health and performance during microgravity and planetary surface operations, This will help inform decisions related to space suit and environmental life support hardware requirements and EVA operational limits for contingency extravehicular activity (EVA) scenarios.

carbon dioxide↗