OBJECTIVES:
Analysis of video from Apollo lunar surface extravehicular activities (EVAs) has demonstrated that astronauts experienced difficulty maintaining stability. This led to the hypothesis that spacesuit center-of-gravity (CG) is an important parameter affecting human performance. To specifically evaluate the role of CG, tests have been performed at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory (NBL) and during NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO). Initially, six configurations framed the boundaries of potential CG locations (high, low, aft, forward, ideal, and the Crew and Thermal Systems Division [CTSD]). These configurations were evaluated for their effect on ambulation and performance of exploration tasks. Based on crewmember gravity compensation and performance scale (GCPS) ratings, these studies demonstrated that ideal and forward CGs were acceptable. The other CGs required moderate to considerable operator compensation, with the high and aft CGs being the least favorable. Subsequent NEEMO tests evaluated four additional CG configurations located within the region expected to contain the lunar spacesuit system CG. Preliminary unpublished results indicated that these CG locations were acceptable based on crew GCPS ratings.
Although it provides an insightful first look at the effect of CG on human performance in lunar gravity, the underwater environment does not permit several critical data parameters such as metabolic rate and biomechanics to be collected. The purpose of this study was to expand on the preliminary CG research from the underwater environments and evaluate the effects of varying CG on human performance in lunar gravity using the Johnson Space Center (JSC) SVMF partial-gravity offload system (POGO) with unsuited subjects.
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how a change in a system's CG affects human performance metrics (eg, metabolic rate, biomechanics, subjective ratings, stability) in simulated lunar gravity during level-ground ambulation, inclined ambulation, exploration tasks, and postural testing. It should be noted that this objective was to be tested in both the unsuited and the suited condition, but was only tested in the unsuited condition. The POGO, in its current configuration, could not offload the additional weight required to complete the test in the suited condition.
++ -- View more
APPROACH:
The subjects tested were all male crewmembers recruited from a group of astronauts selected to support exploration EVA studies. At the time of subject selection, the suited portion of the test was expected to be completed; therefore, only those who had a known acceptable suit fit in the MKIII were considered for inclusion because of potential medical safety issues. At the time of testing, no available female astronauts properly fit in the MKIII suit.
Four different system CG locations were tested during IST-3. The perfect CG was chosen because it represents the ideal condition of adding significant mass to the subject in perfect proportion so that it does not alter the subject’s own CG. The Backback CG was chosen because it represented a potential option based on current suit and Portable Life Support System (PLSS) modeling. The CTSD CG was the CG of the suit. The POGO CG was determined to be the system CG as tested during previous suit tests, including the EWT, IST-1, and IST-2.
Three different offload profiles were used during this study. The first profile involved no offload, with the subjects performing all tasks in 1-g with no CG rig and unconnected to the POGO (1-g). The second profile had the subject don the CG rig at the Perfect CG, but with the weight of the CG rig offloaded so that the subject’s total gravity adjusted weight (TGAW) was the same as the first profile, his 1-g body weight (1-g [Perfect]). TGAW, which is defined as the weight remaining on the ground, is the product of the total system mass and the offload level. The third profile had the subject don the CG rig before the total system mass (combined mass of the subject, gimbal, and CG rig) was offloaded to represent lunar gravity (1/6-g) (Perfect, Backpack, CTSD, POGO).
RESULTS:
CG locations for the system CG in relation to the subject and the gimbal axes of rotation were modeled before the test to provide the configuration of the CG rig for each condition, but these locations were based on the standard subject model. To determine how much variation occurred because of varied subject anthropometry, further analysis was performed using each individual subject’s height and weight to modify the standard subject model on completion of the test sessions. Subjects were lined up in a consistent orientation to the gimbal support structure before the CG of the system and the relation of the system CG to the gimbal axes of rotation were recalculated. This recalculation proved valuable for another reason: Three of four CGs were well tolerated, but the CTSD CG was consistently the most difficult for all subjects to cope with. When performing tasks in this CG, many subjects described the feeling as similar to a “horse-collar” tackle in football, with subjects feeling as though they were being pulled down and backwards from the base of the neck. Because these subjects did not experience this with any of the other conditions, the investigative team believed there was an error in the initial model calculations.
Norcross JR, Clowers KG, Clark T, Cowley MS, Harvill L, Chappell SP, Stroud LC, Desantis L, Paloski WH, Morency RM, Vos JR, and Gernhardt ML. Effects of changing center of gravity on shirtsleeve human performance in reduced gravity. Houston TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center; 2010. NASA Technical Memorandum NASA/TM-2010-216127.
Norcross JR. Using analogs for performance testing of humans in spacesuits in simulated reduced gravity. Houston TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center. September 24, 2013. NASA Technical Publication NASA/TP-2013-20140002724.
[NTRS]
Chappell SP and Gernhardt ML. Extravehicular activity testing in analog environments: evaluating the effects of center of gravity and environment on human performance. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center; 2009.
[NTRS]
Crew health and performance is critical to successful human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
The Human Research Program (HRP) investigates and mitigates the highest risks to human health
and performance, providing essential countermeasures and technologies for human space exploration.
Risks include physiological and performance effects from hazards such as radiation, altered gravity,
and hostile environments, as well as unique challenges in medical support, human factors,
and behavioral health support. The HRP utilizes an Integrated Research Plan (IRP) to identify
the approach and research activities planned to address these risks, which are assigned to specific
Elements within the program. The Human Research Roadmap is the web-based tool for communicating the IRP content.
The Human Research Roadmap is located at:
https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/
+ Click here for information of how this experiment is contributing to the HRP's path for risk reduction.