Background & Purpose Development of astronaut
Description: Background Purpose Development of astronaut partial gravity fitness standards as part of the performance optimization for lunar extravehicular activities readiness polar study Jakob Allen1,2, Nicole Strock1,2, Dillon Frisco1,3, Alyssa
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Background & Purpose Development of astronaut" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Background & Purpose Development of astronaut partial gravity fitness standards as part of the performance optimization for lunar extravehicular activities readiness [polar] study Jakob Allen1,2, Nicole Strock1,2, Dillon Frisco1,3, Alyssa Varanoske1,2, Jonathan Hummel1,4, Brian Prejean1,2
1Exercise Physiology & Countermeasures Lab, NASA-Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA;
2KBR, Houston, TX, USA; 3JES Tech, Houston, TX, USA; 4University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA BACKGROUND:
Astronauts will need to be physically fit to complete Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) on future Lunar Missions
Increased frequency , physical demand, intensity, duration of EVAs Compared to previous Apollo missions
Current aerobic and muscular fitness standards for partial gravity EVAs require further research and validation to ensure crew are protected during Lunar surface missions 1. NATO STO Technical Report TR-HFM-269. 2019
2. NASA, EHP XEVA Systems Concept of Operations. 2024. EVA-EXP-0042
3. Coan, D., Exploration EVA System Concept of Operations Summary for Artemis Phase 1 Lunar Surface Mission. 2020. EVA-EXP-10006
4. xEVAS Mobility Matrix (Attachment J-01; RQMT-024)
5. Ade et al. 2014. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology. 203: 19-27
6. International Association of Fire Fighters, and International Association of Fire Chiefs. 2007. Candidate Physical Ability Test. 2nd ed. IAFF/IAFC. Methods (cont’d) Supported by the NASA Human Research Program References Methods Literature review: Databases included in literature search included PUBMED, NASA Technical Reports Server (NTSR) + hand search, in which literature search was completed in November 2023 (PUBMED) and December 2023 (NTSR, hand search). For inclusion in this review, published manuscripts, technical reports, conference proceedings, and abstracts needed to include fitness (aerobic or muscle) data in relations to EVA task performance and/ or EVA (or simulated EVA) intensity outcomes. Exclusion criteria included review papers and manuscripts that did not report any fitness (aerobic or muscle) in relation to EVA task performance and/or EVA (or simulated EVA) intensity outcomes. Rock (float, chip, and rake samples
Regolith (bulk scoop, core sample [single], core sample [double], surface collection, trench samples) Mating/demating connectors
Removing/installing fasteners
Removing/installing hardware
Cable management (burying, routing)
Dust mitigation Tool retrieval/stowage
Sample retrieval/stowage Transport payload (with cart; varied terrain and loads)
Transport payload (without cart; varied terrain and loads)
Deploy/retrieve payload Traverse (without cart; varied terrain and loads)
Traverse (without cart; long distance; varied terrain; limited loads) Prone/supine recovery
Descend/ascend ladder
Descend/ascend steps Temporary partial reliance
Continuous partial reliance
Continuous full reliance Don/Doff suit
Open/close hatch Space Suit Biomechanics Injury/Physiology
N=9 Exercise Physiology
N=4 Athletic Training
N=2 Suited EVA or Simulation Experience
N=1 EVA Operations
N=2 NASA – JSC Subject Matter Experts Surveyed 1. Majority Vote 2. Decision Tree 3. Feasibility Filter Used frequency of disagree/agree
Majority (>50%) needed to pass filter
Assessed for Criticality Converted Likert scale physicality ratings of subtasks to numeric scale (1-5)
Used Mean participant response of Likert score for classification model
Applied a decision tree classification model (derived from CPAT data) to sort EVA tasks for inclusion or exclusion in our task circuit [6]. Feasible in <20 min circuit Objective Methods Subjective Methods Physical Rating >3.04 No Physical Rating >3.855 Critical Rating > 4.005 Yes No Yes TASK SELECTION FILTERING Portable to allow for implementation in planned high-fidelity suited analog testing across multiple locations Developed 41 question survey using Likert scale and free response
Assess criticality and physical demand of 8 main EVA categories and 22 EVA subtasks
Surveyed NASA SMEs to determine the tasks to be prioritized in novel EVA task circuit development Review ConOps documents to develop compendium of potential Lunar tasks for inclusion in survey
EVA-EXP-0042 (rev B & C)
EVA-EXP-10006
xEVAS Mobility Matrix (attachment J-01; RQMT-024 Modified NATO framework adapted from [1] TASK SELECTION FRAMEWORK Specific Aim 1: Review literature relating physical fitness to simulated EVA task performance to identify fitness metrics most relevant to EVA task performance Specific Aim 2: Task analysis of relevant Artemis Concept of Operations (ConOps) and analog research to identify a compendium of potential Lunar operation tasks Specific Aim 3: Development and pilot testing of EVA task circuit derived from task analysis to determine the relationship between fitness metrics and EVA task performance for future use in exploration research investigations Task Analysis: Following a modified framework utilized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to develop employment standards, documentation for Exploration EVA Concept of Operations, previous Apollo EVAs, and analog research were used to create a compendium of potential Lunar operation tasks. Relevant subject matter experts (SMEs) across NASA medical, and human performance laboratories, were surveyed to rate EVA tasks in terms of physical difficulty or criticality to mission operations. Task selection was performed by applying 1) a majority vote, 2) decision tree and 3) feasibility filter to the survey results Development and pilot testing of EVA task circuit: Ongoing work to develop a 15-20 minute EVA task circuit to be pilot tested in n=8 subjects. PURPOSE:<br>
1Exercise Physiology & Countermeasures Lab, NASA-Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, USA;
2KBR, Houston, TX, USA; 3JES Tech, Houston, TX, USA; 4University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA BACKGROUND:
Astronauts will need to be physically fit to complete Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) on future Lunar Missions
Increased frequency , physical demand, intensity, duration of EVAs Compared to previous Apollo missions
Current aerobic and muscular fitness standards for partial gravity EVAs require further research and validation to ensure crew are protected during Lunar surface missions 1. NATO STO Technical Report TR-HFM-269. 2019
2. NASA, EHP XEVA Systems Concept of Operations. 2024. EVA-EXP-0042
3. Coan, D., Exploration EVA System Concept of Operations Summary for Artemis Phase 1 Lunar Surface Mission. 2020. EVA-EXP-10006
4. xEVAS Mobility Matrix (Attachment J-01; RQMT-024)
5. Ade et al. 2014. Respiratory Physiology & Neurobiology. 203: 19-27
6. International Association of Fire Fighters, and International Association of Fire Chiefs. 2007. Candidate Physical Ability Test. 2nd ed. IAFF/IAFC. Methods (cont’d) Supported by the NASA Human Research Program References Methods Literature review: Databases included in literature search included PUBMED, NASA Technical Reports Server (NTSR) + hand search, in which literature search was completed in November 2023 (PUBMED) and December 2023 (NTSR, hand search). For inclusion in this review, published manuscripts, technical reports, conference proceedings, and abstracts needed to include fitness (aerobic or muscle) data in relations to EVA task performance and/ or EVA (or simulated EVA) intensity outcomes. Exclusion criteria included review papers and manuscripts that did not report any fitness (aerobic or muscle) in relation to EVA task performance and/or EVA (or simulated EVA) intensity outcomes. Rock (float, chip, and rake samples
Regolith (bulk scoop, core sample [single], core sample [double], surface collection, trench samples) Mating/demating connectors
Removing/installing fasteners
Removing/installing hardware
Cable management (burying, routing)
Dust mitigation Tool retrieval/stowage
Sample retrieval/stowage Transport payload (with cart; varied terrain and loads)
Transport payload (without cart; varied terrain and loads)
Deploy/retrieve payload Traverse (without cart; varied terrain and loads)
Traverse (without cart; long distance; varied terrain; limited loads) Prone/supine recovery
Descend/ascend ladder
Descend/ascend steps Temporary partial reliance
Continuous partial reliance
Continuous full reliance Don/Doff suit
Open/close hatch Space Suit Biomechanics Injury/Physiology
N=9 Exercise Physiology
N=4 Athletic Training
N=2 Suited EVA or Simulation Experience
N=1 EVA Operations
N=2 NASA – JSC Subject Matter Experts Surveyed 1. Majority Vote 2. Decision Tree 3. Feasibility Filter Used frequency of disagree/agree
Majority (>50%) needed to pass filter
Assessed for Criticality Converted Likert scale physicality ratings of subtasks to numeric scale (1-5)
Used Mean participant response of Likert score for classification model
Applied a decision tree classification model (derived from CPAT data) to sort EVA tasks for inclusion or exclusion in our task circuit [6]. Feasible in <20 min circuit Objective Methods Subjective Methods Physical Rating >3.04 No Physical Rating >3.855 Critical Rating > 4.005 Yes No Yes TASK SELECTION FILTERING Portable to allow for implementation in planned high-fidelity suited analog testing across multiple locations Developed 41 question survey using Likert scale and free response
Assess criticality and physical demand of 8 main EVA categories and 22 EVA subtasks
Surveyed NASA SMEs to determine the tasks to be prioritized in novel EVA task circuit development Review ConOps documents to develop compendium of potential Lunar tasks for inclusion in survey
EVA-EXP-0042 (rev B & C)
EVA-EXP-10006
xEVAS Mobility Matrix (attachment J-01; RQMT-024 Modified NATO framework adapted from [1] TASK SELECTION FRAMEWORK Specific Aim 1: Review literature relating physical fitness to simulated EVA task performance to identify fitness metrics most relevant to EVA task performance Specific Aim 2: Task analysis of relevant Artemis Concept of Operations (ConOps) and analog research to identify a compendium of potential Lunar operation tasks Specific Aim 3: Development and pilot testing of EVA task circuit derived from task analysis to determine the relationship between fitness metrics and EVA task performance for future use in exploration research investigations Task Analysis: Following a modified framework utilized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to develop employment standards, documentation for Exploration EVA Concept of Operations, previous Apollo EVAs, and analog research were used to create a compendium of potential Lunar operation tasks. Relevant subject matter experts (SMEs) across NASA medical, and human performance laboratories, were surveyed to rate EVA tasks in terms of physical difficulty or criticality to mission operations. Task selection was performed by applying 1) a majority vote, 2) decision tree and 3) feasibility filter to the survey results Development and pilot testing of EVA task circuit: Ongoing work to develop a 15-20 minute EVA task circuit to be pilot tested in n=8 subjects. PURPOSE:<br>