SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Workload relocation”

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.

5 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Physical Workload Across Eva-Simulation Analog Environments: Hybrid Space Suit Simulator and Pressurized Suit Testing

NASA conducts research, testing, and training across a variety of analog environments to support characterization of human performance during Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). Time utilizing pressurized suits in an offloaded environment is both limited and expensive, making it challenging to carry out extensive research with these suits. The Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations (H-3PO) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center designed a Hybrid Space Suit Simulator (HS3) as a low-cost, workload approximator and easy access research tool to provide relevant physical and cognitive workloads during simulated EVAs. A pilot study was conducted in a 1g analog environment where six healthy subjects (3 male, 3 female) underwent simulated 5-hour EVAs in the HS3. This study used a COSMED K5 portable metabolic analyzer and a Polar H10 heart rate monitor to evaluate physical workload during the EVAs. For direct comparison, EVA tasks and timelines were modeled after a similar study conducted in pressurized suits (Mark-III spacesuit, n=3 male; small xPGS spacesuit, n=3 female) at NASA’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) offloaded to Lunar gravity (1/6 g). The 1g HS3 data demonstrated increased metabolic rate when compared to pressurized, Lunar-offloaded suited simulated EVAs for certain tasks including the kneeling scoop (HS3: 1194±199 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 860±170 BTU/hr, p < 0.05) and 20 lb object relocation (HS3: 1651±136 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1048±252.8 BTU/hr, p < 0.05), but it did not demonstrate any significant differences in heart rate (p > 0.05). Other simulated EVA tasks, such as a 500 m traverse (HS3: 1431±177 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1212±294 BTU/hr, p > 0.05), showed similar workload profiles with no significant workload differences between HS3 and ARGOS. The HS3 is a useful research tool for increasing workloads in EVA research without pressurized suits, though it may overestimate workload during certain EVA tasks when used in 1g environments.

Zachary Wusk↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Cognition and Fatigue During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: Artemis astronauts will be required to complete more rigorous Extravehicular Activity (EVA) schedules than during ever before. While new spacesuits are designed to sustain high physical workloads during exploration EVAs (xEVA), crewmembers must also sustain cognitive performance throughout xEVA timelines. It is therefore necessary to characterize the effects of surface xEVA tasks and timelines on cognition and fatigue. Methods: This study utilized NASA Johnson Space Center’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate lunar gravity and assess xEVA tasks and cognitive performance. Two subjects completed two ~5-hour EVAs in a pressurized Mark III spacesuit, completing simulated lander operations, cable routing, crew rescue, geology, payload relocation, and traverses. Subjects completed two cognitive assessments (Digit-Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT)) before the first and after the second simulated EVA to assess effects of xEVA tasks on processing speed and vigilant attention. Additionally, sleep (e.g., quality, duration, and efficiency) was monitored (Oura Ring) for ≥7 days prior to the simulated EVAs, as well as between each EVA, to account for possible effects of sleep decrements on cognitive metrics. Results: Cognitive performance changed minimally from pre to post EVA for both DSST (response time (RT): S1 Δ129.1ms, S2 Δ40.7ms; Accuracy: S1 preEVA = 1.0, S1 postEVA = 0.98, S2 preEVA = 1.0, S2 postEVA = 1.0) and PVT (S1 PVT RT Δ17.7 ms, S2 PVT RT Δ-2.7 ms). Subjects’ sleep duration immediately prior to EVA showed minimal deviation from baseline (Δhrs; S1 preEVA1= + 0.67, S1 preEVA2 = -.03, S2 preEVA1 = - 1.1, S2 preEVA2 = -1.39) and efficiency (Δ%; S1 preEVA1 = 0.09, S1 preEVA2 = 9.54, S2 preEVA1 = 0, S2 preEVA2= 12). Notably, sleep waketime shifted earlier for one subject by ~1 hr which may have impacted performance. Conclusion: Understanding the impacts of xEVA workloads on cognitive performance will be instrumental to future exploration mission planning and success. Future work will expand the subject pool and test new spacesuit designs to better characterize cognitive performance and impacts of sleep during simulated xEVA and inform modeling and prediction capabilities for future Artemis xEVA planning.

Taylor E. Schlotman↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Aerobic Capacity in Relation to Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

INTRODUCTION Astronauts will need to be physically prepared to successfully execute strenuous Extravehicular Activities (EVA)on the Lunar surface. Compared to Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives and potential contingency scenarios. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial gravity (g)surface EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity EVA analog data. This investigation aims to characterize metabolic demands from Lunar analog EVA simulations in relation to the current NASA standards for celestial partial-g aerobic fitness(aerobic capacity (VO2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min). METHODS To evaluate current Lunar EVA aerobic fitness requirements, a pilot study was performed to characterize metabolic ratesduring6 hour simulated EVAs. The EVAs were performed in pressurized MKIII (n=2male) and xEMU (n=3 female) spacesuits offloaded to 1/6 g in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System. VO2pk was assessed via graded exercise testing on acycle ergometer and physical workload was quantified as percent ofVO2pk. RESULTS Four out of five subjects did not meet the current NASA celestial surface EVA aerobic standard (3 xEMU, 1MKIII;35.1±0.9 ml/kg/min). During simulated EVAs, subjects (xEMU: 35±1ml/kg/min; MKIII: 44±10ml/kg/min) worked at an average 36%VO2pk(xEMU) and 31% VO2pk(MKIII). For xEMU subjects, the tasks with the greatest average metabolic rates were 2km treadmill traverse(0% grade: 47.2%VO2pk[max 69.1%]), object relocation (45.2%VO2pk[max 60.5%]), and 1.5km traverse (0% grade: 45%VO2pk[max 59.7%]). For MKIII subjects, the tasks with the greatest average metabolic rates were 0.5km treadmill traverse (30% grade: 35.4% VO2pk[max 45.5%]), object relocation(31% VO2pk[max 40.8%]), and treadmill traverse (0% grade: 29.9%VO2pk[max 45.9%]). CONCLUSIONS While average metabolic rates for simulated Lunar EVA fall within sustainable work ranges of30–40% VO2pkand life support system limitations, task-specific metabolic rates exceed this range and may indicate that greater fitness is necessary for more strenuous tasks expected to be performed on the Lunar surface. As few subjects met the standard, more data is needed to adequately evaluate the NASA 3001 standard.

N C Strock↗

NASA NTRS2024

Core Body Temperature Predictions Using Metabolic Energy Expenditure and Heart Rate During Simulated Extravehicular Activity

Long duration spaceflight missions will require crew to become more autonomous in conducting extravehicular activities (EVA) without direct communication with Mission Control for biomedical support. To enable such autonomy, we are developing a Crew State and Risk Model (CSRM) as a collection of key physiology domains that drive EVA crew capabilities and workloads. One model component of CSRM is human thermal regulation. In this paper, customized development of a baseline model to predict core body temperature is presented using physiology inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. The model development dataset included a baseline study where participants (n=6, equal male and female) performed a 5-hour EVA in a two-part session while wearing a hybrid space suit simulator (HS3). The first session included an end-to-end EVA traversing 1500 meters to a geology site and traversing back to a habitat conducting geology, payload relocation, and maintenance operations every 500 meters. The second session included standalone tasks of a 2000-meter traverse followed by geology tasks. Thermal measures of core body temperature, local skin temperature, liquid cooling garment temperature, heart rate, and metabolic rate were collected through the test duration. Multiple regression was used to build a linear equation to predict core body temperature from inputs of heart rate and metabolic rate. Heat storage was calculated via predicted core body temperature plus LCG and skin temperatures. The model was tested against a dataset from a pressurized suited test (n=6, equal male and female) in the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) conducting similar end-to-end EVA and standalone tasks. Predicted error of the model against the raw test cases was 0.2±0.15 °C. The baseline prediction of core body temperature using heart rates and metabolic rates allows for simple real-time tracking from data collected in-flight to monitor crew consumables and thermal flight limits during EVA.

Bradley Hoffmann↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluation of Aerobic Standards for Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Introduction: As NASA prepares to return to the Moon, astronauts will need to be physically primed to successfully execute Extravehicular Activities (EVA) on the Lunar surface. Compared to past Apollo missions, Artemis missions will include EVAs of increased physical demand, frequency, intensity, and duration, thus requiring adequate fitness to successfully and safely complete mission objectives. The physical demand associated with partial gravity (g) EVAs on the Moon is expected to be greater compared to microgravity EVAs based on initial workload estimation. Currently, aerobic fitness standards for partial g EVAs are not well supported by high-fidelity data and require further research for establishing standards to protect crew health and performance during Lunar surface missions. Therefore, the aim of this investigation is to characterize metabolic data from Lunar analog simulations and in-flight crew population aerobic capacity data to validate the current NASA 3001 standard for celestial partial g aerobic fitness (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min). Methods: In order to evaluate aerobic fitness requirements for Lunar EVAs, the following were performed: 1) preliminary analysis of long-duration (6 hr) EVA analog simulations in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to evaluate expected metabolic rates for 1/6 g EVAs (NBL: n=1 female; ARGOS: n=1 male) and 2) assessment of the current NASA 3001 celestial surface EVA aerobic standard (aerobic capacity (VO_2pk) ≥36.5ml/kg/min) with data from an ISS astronaut population (n=30 male + 13 female) captured before and during space flight (flight day 15). Preliminary Results: Average fractional aerobic capacity during simulated EVAs were 33%±7% VO_2pk and 23.3±7% VO_2pk in the NBL and ARGOS, respectively. This was within a previously predicted 30–40% sustainable work rate. Average metabolic rates for some tasks performed in the NBL, such as traverse (40.4% VO_2pk) and ingress (47.1% VO_2pk) were higher than the predicted sustainable work range. In ARGOS, the tasks with the greatest metabolic rates were object relocation (34.2% VO_2pk) and incapacitated crew rescue (27.0% VO_2pk). Characterization of ISS crewmember aerobic capacity determined that the average preflight VO_2pk was 42.1±5.4 ml/kg/min for females and 37.5±5.4 ml/kg/min for males. At preflight, 21.5% of crewmembers were below the 36.5 ml/kg/min in-mission aerobic standard for celestial surface EVA as outlined in NASA-STD-3001. In-flight, both female and male crewmembers experienced reductions in VO_2pk (11.7% and 10.9%, respectively), such that, during the mission, 62% of crewmembers were below the standard aerobic capacity level for celestial surface EVAs. Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggest that while average metabolic rates for simulated Lunar EVA fall within the 30–40% sustainable work range, task specific metabolic rates exceed this range and may indicate that greater fitness is necessary for more strenuous tasks expected to be performed on the Lunar surface. Additionally, deconditioning due to space flight results in most crewmembers falling below the current celestial partial g EVA standard, which may increase risk to crew health and performance and completing mission objectives for surface missions. Further research is necessary in Artemis-specific analog environments to validate the current NASA-3001 aerobic standard for celestial EVAs. Additionally, work is ongoing to validate the current NASA-3001 strength standard for celestial EVAs.

N.C. Strock↗