EVA Human Health and Performance Benchmarking Study Overview and Development of a Microgravity Protocol Jason Norcross, KBRwyle Sarah Jarvis, MEI Technologies Omar Bekdash, KBRwyle Scott Cupples, NASA JSC Andrew Abercromby, PhD, NASA JSC 1 Multi-Disciplinary Team HH&P Engineering •EVA Physiology •Spacesuit & Crew •Anthropometry & Survival Systems Biomechanics Facility •EVA Tools •Exercise Physiology & •ARGOS Countermeasures •Neurosciences •Behavioral Health & Human Factors •Biostatistics Operations •EVA Office •Medical Operations •Crew Health & Safety Program Other Partners •Astronaut Office •MIT’s Department of •EVA Operations Aero & Astronautics •AstromaterialsResearch & Exploration Science 2 Study Objective • The primary objective of this study is to develop a protocol to reliably characterize human health and performance metrics for individuals working inside various EVA suits under realistic spaceflight conditions. • Expected results and methodologies developed during this study will provide the baseline benchmarking data and protocols with which future EVA suits and suit configurations (eg, varied pressure, mass, center of gravity [CG]) and different test subject populations (eg, deconditioned crewmembers) may be reliably assessed and compared. • Results may also be used, in conjunction with subsequent testing, to inform fitness-for-duty standards, as well as design requirements and operations concepts for future EVA suits and other exploration systems. 3 HRP Risks and Gaps HRP Gap Relevance to Gap m EVA7: How do EVA suit system design parameters Expected results will provide data and methods with which future EVA suits and different n r g affect crew health and performance in exploration suit configurations (e.g. varied pressure, mass, CG) may be reliably compared in of is n e environments? subsequent tests. Results may also inform requirements and operations concepts for i d – y future EVA suits and other exploration systems. s d p u a t EVA8: What are the physiological inputs and Expected results will characterize metabolic and relevant consumable benchmark data G s y yr outputs associated with EVA operations in for a standard set of EVA tasks. Results may also inform design requirements and r a a m exploration environments and how can they be operations concepts for future EVA suits and other exploration systems. m ir irp modeled? P s EVA11: How do EVA operations in exploration This study will provide an opportunity to use the Crew Health and Safety suit exposure t c e environments increase the risk of crew injury and questionnaire in the planetary gravity environment and will provide benchmark data on p s n how can the risk be mitigated? the likelihood and consequence of symptoms and injuries associated with EVA operations a g la ise in different suits. tn d e y EVA6: What crew physiological & performance This study will provide health and human performance data for a comprehensive set of m d e u capabilities are required for EVA operations in exploration EVA tasks. Standardized data and methodologies will also enable comparison lpp ts m exploration environments? with different subject populations such as deconditioned crewmembers in subsequent u o tests, which may inform fitness-for-duty standards. s m rf ro tif M4: Establish muscle fitness standards for Strength, muscle performance, and aerobic fitness data from subject characterization fn en successful completion of mission tasks. may be used to predict EVA task performance. Standardized data and methodologies will i e – b A4: Establish aerobic fitness standards for also enable comparison with different subject populations such as (simulated and/or sp ro successful completion of mission tasks. actual) deconditioned crewmembers in subsequent tests. a y G d y u SM6.1: Determine if sensorimotor dysfunction rad ts f during and after long-duration spaceflight affects Results will provide baseline data on how being in an EVA suit affects sensorimotor n o ability to control spacecraft and associated systems. performance. Standardized data and methodologies will also enable comparison with o c different subject populations such as deconditioned crewmembers in subsequent tests. e S – BMed3: Identify and quantify the key threats to and Results will provide pilot data on how being in an EVA suit affects neurocognitive spaG yra & atad to ytilibisa paannroddm /pooertr lefoornsrg mo dfa imnstciaesns dicouenr ei rnxegpl elaovuratanottnio bonem mhoaiusvssio,i olronanls .hg edaultrha tion performance and if it can be measured reliably and accurately while suited. itre lip ef 4 T Specific Aims • Specific Aim 1: Define a set of standardized EVA benchmarking tasks • Specific Aim 2: Develop valid and reliable metrics and methodologies to accompany the benchmarking tasks Initial Mid End Contact Stanc Conta e ct • Specific Aim 3: Develop a methodology for quantifying suit fit SUITED • Specific Aim 4: Characterize the anthropometry and physiology of the subject population Task Identification and Downselect 6 ARGOS – Microgravity Conditions Versatile Neutral Capability Microgravity Protocol Layout Horizontal Interface (VNCHI) Unsuited EMU Mark III Z-2 Translation Circuit Quick Disconnect Translation Video Task Board Cable Routing 8 Microgravity Tasks Work Envelope Functional Bolts Task Board Strength Free Float Functional Task Free Float Foot Restraint Foot Restraint Reach Envelope Task Timeline Data Metrics Translation Circuit • Metabolic Familiarization – Metabolic rate Translation Circuit #1 – Metabolic cost/time to completion Bolt Task Board Familiarization – Heart rate Bolt Task Board #1 • Motion Capture Free Float Translation Circuit #2 – Isolated joint range of motion Bolt Task Board #2 – Path length Translation Circuit #3 – Body position Bolt Task Board #3 – Reach & work envelope Wide Reach Translation Strength Testing • Subjective Ratings Break – Change Gimbals – RPE Strength Testing – Discomfort Bolt Task Board – Task acceptability Foot Restraint Functional Work Envelope – Simulation quality Shoulder ROM – Muscle fatigue Reach Envelope • Force – Maximum isometric 10