Boots on the Moon: Incapacitated Crew Rescue (ICR) and Acute Injury
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Marlei Walton↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “incapacitated crew rescue”
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.
Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue
Extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface presents unique risks to crew with possibility for injury. Without appropriate assistance or rescue capability, inability to nominally ambulate and return to a lander, especially during early Artemis missions, could have catastrophic consequences. Mapping likelihood and consequence safety risk associated with identified injury scenarios establishes a baseline from which to assess potential mitigation solutions to ensure crew health and safety. Causes leading to the need for incapacitated crew rescue (ICR) during EVA on the lunar surface were previously identified and classified using an ICR/Acute Injury scenario spectrum. Severe scenarios are those when the affected astronaut requires either partial or full continuous assistance from the rescuer. Evaluation of these continual reliance conditions included calculating event probabilities (likelihoods) associated with an early Artemis mission and mapping them to established Exploration System Directorate (ESD) probability thresholds; safety consequences were analyzed and correlated to defined ESD personnel safety categories. These resulting likelihood and consequence values served as a baseline for assessing risk reduction of three mitigation capabilities: crew assistance (rescuer crew) only, walking assist devices, and a wheeled transport device. Of the twenty-five continual reliance conditions, ten were evaluated as “catastrophic” (Level 5, loss of life) during EVA on the lunar surface with probabilities ranging from moderate to very low during an early Artemis mission. Crew assistance only and walking assist devices showed similar potential for risk reduction, with four of the ten causes decreasing to Level 4. A wheeled transport device further increased risk reduction with six of the ten conditions decreasing to Level 4. Given the catastrophic consequence of several identified conditions, assessments should be performed to determine the feasibility of mitigation capabilities. It is currently unknown whether a rescuer astronaut could effectively provide continuous assistance to enable both crew to return safely to the lander from the standpoint of both suit geometry and human performance. Although resulting in an increase in resources, providing a wheeled transport provides the highest risk reduction potential, and walking assist devices may have prevention as well as mitigation benefits.
lunar surface↗
The Gandalf Staff: A Mobile Tool for Lunar Exploration (2nd year of development)
The Gandalf Staff is a mobile tool designed to be a flexible device supporting crewed and uncrewed operations on the lunar surface. The core of the device is a 24v battery with communications and data storage systems. Initial optional components supporting crewed Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) include a LiDAR and 360˚ camera. These provide 3D mapping of the traverse for documentation, and to aid future planning. The mapping also creates outreach opportunities for the public to “stand beside” the astronaut in Virtual Reality (VR). The staff provides external lighting for field site illumination in the south polar region low sun angle environment. Navigation instruments for crew position determination with Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) are also included. The staff itself can be used as a walking aid or as a splint for Incapacitated Crew Rescue (ICR). As a stand-alone device, the staff operates as a long duration untended science platform collecting environmental data and sending it to a lunar base station. The stand-alone mode requires connection to an auxiliary power source (e.g. solar array) and energy storage system (e.g. battery), so it could become an electrical recharging station. To make rapid progress in the 1st year, and also to demonstrate innovative project management techniques, NASA guided a private industry partner, T STAR, in leading Capstone Engineering student teams at Texas A&M University (TAMU) for proof-of-concept development and testing. These teams developed the power system and demonstrated successful integration of LiDAR, WiFi communications, and external lighting subsystems. Another industry team at Jacobs Technology prototyped a tripod to hold the staff upright. For the 2nd year (FY’22), NASA will again collaborate with partners to prototype enhanced power and lighting concepts. Year 2 will also add new capability for LunaSAR and geophysical science instrumentation using a heat probe. The heat probe is based upon Apollo heritage but modified to measure subsurface volatile ice regimes at the Artemis landing site. Components of the Gandalf Staff can be developed, tested, and deployed independently, or on the integrated staff, rovers, or utility trailers. The project supports crew safety, lunar sample curation, mission science, and public outreach goals of NASA. PLAIN TEST SUMMARY: Gandalf Staff is a 24v battery powered mobile tool for the lunar surface supporting crewed geologic field site exploration, or as a stand-alone science platform. As a tool assisting astronauts conducting field geology, the Gandalf Staff provides external lighting to illuminate shadowed regions on the surface. It also documents the process of collecting rocks and dust samples using a LiDAR (laser range instrument) and cameras. The staff provides a beacon for emergency location of astronauts and augments communications when the astronauts are blocked by large boulders. As a standalone science platform, the Gandalf Staff provides a power system for instruments and sensors to measure the lunar environment over long periods of time. The staff gathers data and sends the results to a lunar base station for analysis.
External Lighting↗
The Wizard Staff: A Mobile Tool Supporting Human Exploration on The Lunar Surface
The Wizard Staff is a rechargeable, battery powered mobile tool with multiple uses for lunar surface exploration. It supports human activity as a surface survey tool, provides external illumination to enhance safety, delivers networking, communications, and navigation features to remote sites, and assists crew rescue with an emergency beacon and rigid splint structure. As a survey tool, it assists crewed geologic field site exploration with external lights, cameras, and LiDAR to illuminate, map, and record the sample collection process. As a relay station, it provides a surface intranet communications and navigation node for extended exploration far from the lander or habitation module. A separately developed Search-and-Rescue (SAR) handheld device can broadcast a signal to the Gandalf Staff containing crew position and biometric data. The staff then formats the message and sends it orbiting satellite(s) for emergency response via the LunaNET on a dedicated frequency similar to terrestrial applications using an Emergency Position-Indicating Radiobeacon (EPIRB). The staff is designed with an upper and lower segment. Components in the upper segment are the LiDAR, external lighting arrays, cameras, communications equipment, intelligence devices, and user interface for crew operations. The lower segment is a set of FeLiPO4 battery cells packed into the 2” diameter carbon fiber tube. When the battery pack is discharged, a spring connector (designed for the dusty lunar environment) easily disconnects the two segments for replacement with another fully charged battery pack. The lower segment can be used for Incapacitated Crew Rescue (ICR) as a rigid splint. As a stand-alone science platform, the Wizard Staff provides infrastructure for instruments and sensors to record the lunar environment over long periods of time. After a crew installs the components on the lunar surface, the platform delivers data to the lunar lander or base station for analysis. The stand-alone mode requires an auxiliary power source (e.g. solar array) and energy storage system (e.g. battery), so it could also be used as an electrical recharging station. A working prototype of Wizard Staff has been developed with collaboration between NASA (JSC, MSFC, and GSFC), Texas Space Technology Applications and Research (T STAR), and Texas A&M University (TAMU) using $300k of innovation funding in FY’21 and FY’22. The functional staff weights 36# on Earth (6# on the Moon), stands 2.1m tall and delivers external lighting with an array of 40 LED bulbs generating 1460 Lux at 2m range (near field), or 2 Lux at 50m (far field).
Gandalf Staff↗
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↗
EVA Planning: Using Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) Training to Predict in-Flight Energy Expenditure
Metabolic rate (“met rate”) is the amount of energy expended over a period of time and is influenced by many factors including body composition, level of physical activity, resting metabolic rate, sex, age, and food intake. Met rate is measured during Extravehicular Activity (EVA) training at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during in-flight EVAs through indirect calorimetry, calculating energy expenditure from respiratory measurements of O 2 consumption and/or CO 2 production. During Extravehicular Activity (EVA) planning, metabolic cost is important to consider and is used to inform EVA duration based on spacesuit consumables associated with life support systems. Currently, NBL and previous ISS EVA met rate data for specified crewmembers are utilized to predict in-flight EVA metabolic costs based on a proposed EVA timeline. Timeline data collected during training is used to relate met rates to specific EVA activities, which are in turn assigned to more generalized EVA task categories, categorizing by both task type and restraint type. EVA task categories include EVA Setup/Cleanup, Worksite Setup/Cleanup, Cable Routing, Bolts, Fluid Connectors, Electrical Connectors, R&R Work, Miscellaneous Work, Incapacitated Crew Rescue (being rescued or performing), Assisted Crew Rescue (being assisted or performing), and Translation. Restraint types consist of Free-Float, Body Restraint Tether (BRT), Articulating Portable Foot Restraint (APFR), and Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS). From a crewmember’s historical data, individualized 10th, 50th and 90th percentile met rate estimates are generated for each task category and used to estimate the proposed EVA timeline metabolic cost. In-flight metabolic data (“As-Executed”) from recent ISS US EVAs 85-88 (totaling eight EVA crewmember met rates) was compared with their predicted metabolic cost (“As-Planned”) to evaluate the accuracy of the current met rate estimation method. Across the four EVAs, As-Executed Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 5893.78 BTU, SD = 816.60) was not significantly different compared to As-Planned Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost (M = 6106.60 BTU, SD = 826.62; t(7) = 0.751 , p = .477). Though not a significant difference, generally, As-Planned total estimates were slightly higher than As-Executed total metabolic cost. Relative Error for Cumulative EVA Total Metabolic Cost ranged from -33% to 14.7%, depending on the crewmember and EVA. When comparing As-Planned to A-Executed EVA task categories for Bolts, Electrical Connectors, EVA Cleanup, EVA Setup, Miscellaneous Work, Translation, Worksite Cleanup, and Worksite Setup during these EVAs, no significant differences were observed, however, there was a significant difference in As-Planned (M = 783.71 BTU, SD = 408.88) compared to As-Executed (M = 608.87 BTU, SD = 425.29) metabolic cost for the task category of Repair-and-Replace (R&R) Work (t(17) = 3.21 , p = .005). Looking closer within the R&R Work task category, As-Executed R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M = 706.17 BTU, SD = 352.18) was significantly less than As-Planned R&R Work with Free-Float restraint type (M= 887.96 BTU, SD = 381.42; t(12) = 2.59, p < .024). As-Executed R&R Work with SSRMS Restraint type (M = 355.89 BTU, SD = 534.65) was not significantly different from As-Planned values (M = 512.69 BTU, SD = 383.34; t(4) = 1.88, p = 0.132). These findings suggest that the energy expended performing R&R Work (Free-Float) is lower in flight than predicted. Accurate predictions of the metabolic cost of EVA are essential for planning and executing successful ISS EVAs. Overall, the current met rate prediction method is similar to actual in-flight values, slightly erring on the side of overestimation. Future work includes analysis of more historical in-flight EVA data to increase the power of the analysis, evaluating the NBL-ISS met rate conversion factor between NBL and ISS tasks, as well as exploring methods of substitution when crewmembers are missing prior task category data.
Lauren Cox↗
Identifying Cognitive Capabilities Required for Optimal Exploration EVA Performance: A Cognitive Task Analysis
BACKGROUND Extravehicular activity (EVA) is one of the most dangerous and cognitively demanding actions that astronauts can execute, and the cognitive demands associated with future exploration EVA on the Moon and Mars are expected to be higher compared to EVA currently conducted from the International Space Station (ISS). Decrements in cognitive performance present an important risk to crew safety during exploration mission class EVA. Yet there is currently insufficient characterization of the cognitive capabilities required prior to, during, and following EVA. Furthermore, it is unclear which cognitive domains are most important for conducting mission critical decisions with crew safety implications. To address this gap, we conducted a cognitive task analysis of exploration EVA to characterize the cognitive capabilities, critical safety decisions, and contributing factors (e.g., lunar communications delay) important to monitor for optimal performance in future exploration EVA. This cognitive task analysis was conducted through interviews with astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA research and operations. Interviews focused on exploration EVA and elicited feedback on the cognitive capabilities required for specific EVA tasks and subtasks. The information from this cognitive task analysis will help close the gap in our understanding of the key cognitive capabilities required for safe decision-making during exploration mission class EVA on the Moon and Mars. METHOD We used an applied cognitive task analysis method1 over the course of interviews with a total of 15 NASA astronauts and subject matter experts in EVA. Each interview was led by a scientist with expertise in cognitive neuroscience from the Behavioral Health & Performance (BHP) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center. Notes were taken by a research coordinator in the BHP Laboratory and interviews were recorded on Microsoft Teams to ensure the accuracy of notetaking. In the first interview protocol, participants were asked about the specific tasks and cognitive demands associated with EVA. This provided a high-level overview of the steps involved in the major tasks conducted during exploration EVA, as well as which of the steps require the most cognitive skill. Next, participants completed a knowledge audit, which employs a set of probes designed to describe types of domain knowledge of skill and elicit appropriate examples. In the second interview protocol, completed with a separate set of subject matter experts, interviewees were asked to complete a simulated incapacitated crew rescue (ICR) scenario2, which provided specific context that allowed probing around relevant issues such as situational awareness and potential errors. Experts were then asked to identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) underlying each EVA task and to provide ratings on the importance and cognitive demand of each KSA. Finally, participants also described the most likely and consequential critical safety incidents related to decrements in cognitive performance during exploration EVA and assessed the impact of lunar communication delay on cognitive performance. RESULTS & DISCUSSION Interviews for this cognitive task analysis are nearly complete and results will be presented in full at IWS 2025. Results will include a summary of all expert ratings of EVA tasks and subtasks, qualitative summaries of content from each interview part, and a discussion of future directions for products addressing cognitive performance monitoring and cognitive domain mapping in exploration EVA.
S R Anderson↗
Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue on the Lunar Surface
Extravehicular activity (EVA) on the lunar surface presents unique risks to crew with possibility for injury. Without appropriate assistance or rescue capability, inability to nominally ambulate and return to a lander, especially during early Artemis missions, could have catastrophic consequences. Mapping likelihood and consequence safety risk associated with identified injury scenarios establishes a baseline from which to assess potential mitigation solutions to ensure crew health and safety.
lunar surface↗
Potential roles for EVA and telerobotics in a unified worksite
Although telerobotics and extravehicular activity (EVA) are often portrayed as competitive approaches to space operations, ongoing research in the Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) has demonstrated the utility of cooperative roles in an integrated EVA/telerobotic work site. Working in the neutral buoyancy simulation environment, tests were performed on interactive roles or EVA subjects and telerobots in structural assembly and satellite servicing tasks. In the most elaborate of these tests to date, EVA subjects were assisted by the SSL's Beam Assembly Teleoperator (BAT) in several servicing tasks planned for Hubble Space Telescope, using the high-fidelity crew training article in the NASA Marshall Neutral Buoyancy Simulator. These tests revealed several shortcomings in the design of BAT for satellite servicing and demonstrated the utility of a free-flying or RMS-mounted telerobot for providing EVA crew assistance. This paper documents the past tests, including the use of free-flying telerobots to effect the rescue of a simulated incapacitated EVA subject, and details planned future efforts in this area, including the testing of a new telerobotic system optimized for the satellite servicing role, the development of dedicated telerobotic devices designed specifically for assisting EVA crew, and conceptual approaches to advanced EVA/telerobotic operations such as the Astronaut Operations Vehicle.
Akin, David↗
Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue
The lunar environment offers unique challenges for human health and safety over the course of performing Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) during early Artemis missions. Driver medical conditions leading to an injured EVA crewmember needing assistance or rescue were analyzed and correlated to established, defined consequence categories. Catastrophic Drivers were identified, and three mitigation strategies were analyzed to determine if there was a potential change in consequence with their application. Risk consequence across the mitigations were compared with each other and the original risk without mitigations. Mitigations were further evaluated in a broader context with prospective preventions to understand the design and risk trade space associated with an early Artemis EVA.
Risk↗
Extravehicular Activity on the Lunar Surface: Mapping Mitigation Risk Consequence for Crew Needing Assistance or Rescue
The lunar environment offers unique challenges for human health and safety over the course of performing Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) during early Artemis missions. Driver medical conditions leading to an injured EVA crewmember needing assistance or rescue were analyzed and correlated to established, defined consequence categories. Catastrophic Drivers were identified, and three mitigation strategies were analyzed to determine if there was a potential change in consequence with their application. Risk consequence across the mitigations were compared with each other and the original risk without mitigations. Mitigations were further evaluated in a broader context with prospective preventions to understand the design and risk trade space associated with an early Artemis EVA.
Risk↗
Assured crew return vehicle post landing configuration design and test
The 1991-1992 senior Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Design class continued work on the post landing configurations for the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) and the Emergency Egress Couch (EEC). The ACRV will be permanently docked to Space Station Freedom, fulfilling NASA's commitment of Assured Crew Return Capability in the event of an accident or illness aboard Space Station Freedom. The EEC provides medical support and a transportation surface for an incapacitated crew member. The objective of the projects was to give the ACRV Project Office data to feed into their feasibility studies. Four design teams were given the task of developing models with dynamically and geometrically scaled characteristics. Groups one and two combined effort to design a one-fifth scale model of the Apollo Command Module derivative, an on-board flotation system, and a lift attachment point system. This model was designed to test the feasibility of a rigid flotation and stabilization system and to determine the dynamics associated with lifting the vehicle during retrieval. However, due to priorities, it was not built. Group three designed a one-fifth scale model of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) benchmark configuration, the Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) with a lift attachment point system. This model helped to determine the flotation and lifting characteristics of the SCRAM configuration. Group four designed a full scale EEC with changeable geometric and dynamic characteristics. This model provided data on the geometric characteristics of the EEC and on the placement of the CG and moment of inertia. It also gave the helicopter rescue personnel direct input to the feasibility study.
Anderson, Loren A.↗
Assured crew return vehicle post landing configuration design and test
The 1991-1992 senior Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Design class continued work on the post landing configurations for the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) and the Emergency Egress Couch (EEC). The ACRV will be permanently docked to Space Station Freedom fulfilling NASA's commitment of Assured Crew Return Capability in the event of an accident or illness aboard Space Station Freedom. The EEC provides medical support and a transportation surface for an incapacitated crew member. The objective of the projects was to give the ACRV Project Office data to feed into their feasibility studies. Four design teams were given the task of developing models with dynamically and geometrically scaled characteristics. Groups one and two combined efforts to design a one-fifth scale model for the Apollo Command Module derivative, an on-board flotation system, and a lift attachment point system. This model was designed to test the feasibility of a rigid flotation and stabilization system and to determine the dynamics associated with lifting the vehicle during retrieval. However, due to priorities, it was not built. Group three designed a one-fifth scale model of the Johnson Space Center (JSC) benchmark configuration, the Station Crew Return Alternative Module (SCRAM) with a lift attachment point system. This model helped to determine the flotation and lifting characteristics of the SCRAM configuration. Group four designed a full scale EEC with changeable geometric and geometric and dynamic characteristics. This model provided data on the geometric characteristics of the EEC and on the placement of the CG and moment of inertia. It also gave the helicopter rescue personnel direct input to the feasibility study. Section 1 describes in detail the design of a one-fifth scale model of the Apollo Command Module Derivative (ACMD) ACRV. The objective of the ACMD Configuration Model Team was to use geometric and dynamic constraints to design a one-fifth scale working model of the Apollo Command Module Derivative (ACMD) configuration with a Lift Attachment Point (LAP) System. This model was required to incorporate a rigidly mounted flotation system and the egress system designed the previous academic year. The LAP system was to be used to determine the dynamic effects of locating the lifting points at different locations on the vehicle. The team was then to build and test the model; however, due to priorities, this did not occur. To better simulate the ACMD after a water landing, the nose cone section was removed and the deck area exposed. The areas researched during the design process were construction, center of gravity and moment of inertia, and lift attachment points.
Source record↗