Evaluating Human-EVA Suit Injury Using Wearable Sensors MASS by Ensign Sabrina Reyes, U.S. Navy B.S., Aerospace Engineering United States Naval Academy (2014) Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ACUS0 ILNSTITUTE )F TECHNOLOGY JUN 28 2016 IBRARIES ARCHIVES June 2016 @ Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2016. A uthor ............... Certified by.. All rights reserved. Signature redacted ;....... Department of Aeronauticand Astronautics V~ \ %, \ May 19, 2016 Signature redacted-- . ........... Jelfrey A. Hoffman, Ph.D. Professor of theractice, Aeronautics and Astronautics Siqnature redacted A ccepted by .................. I........ .............................. PauloI C Lozno7n PhDT Associate Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair, Graduate Program Committee am=
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Evaluating Human-EVA Suit Injury Using
Wearable SensorsMASS
by
Ensign Sabrina Reyes, U.S. Navy
B.S., Aerospace EngineeringUnited States Naval Academy (2014)
Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronauticsin partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ACUS0 ILNSTITUTE)F TECHNOLOGY
JUN 28 2016
IBRARIESARCHIVES
June 2016
@ Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2016.
A uthor ...............
Certified by..
All rights reserved.
Signature redacted;.......
Department of Aeronauticand Astronautics
V~ \ %, \May 19, 2016
Signature redacted--. ...........
Jelfrey A. Hoffman, Ph.D.Professor of theractice, Aeronautics and Astronautics
Siqnature redactedA ccepted by .................. I........ ..............................
PauloI C Lozno7n PhDT
Associate Professor of Aeronautics and AstronauticsChair, Graduate Program Committee
am=
2
Evaluating Human-EVA Suit Injury Using Wearable Sensors
by
Ensign Sabrina Reyes, U.S. Navy
Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronauticson May 19, 2016, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree ofMaster of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
Abstract
All the current flown spacesuits are gas pressurized and require astronauts to exert asubstantial amount of energy in order to move the suit into a desired position. Thepressurization of the suit therefore limits human mobility, causes discomfort, andleads to a variety of contact and strain injuries. While suit-related injuries have beenobserved for many years and some basic countermeasures have been implemented,there is still a lack of understanding of how humans move within the spacesuit. Therise of wearable technologies is changing the paradigm of biomechanics and allowinga continuous monitoring of motion performance in fields like athletics or medical re-habilitation. Similarly, pressure sensors allow a sensing capability to better locatethe areas and magnitudes of contact between the human and their interface and re-duce the risk of injuries. Coupled together these sensors allow a better understandingof the complex interactions between the astronaut and his suit, enhance astronautsperformance through a real time monitoring and reducing the risk of injury. Thefirst set of objectives of this research are: to gain a greater understanding of thishuman-spacesuit interaction and potential for injury by analyzing the suit-inducedpressures against the body, to determine the validity of the particular sensors usedwith suggested alternatives, and to extend the wearable technology application toother relatable fields such as soldier armor and protective gear. An experiment wasconducted in conjunction with David Clark Incorporated Company on the LaunchEntry Development spacesuit analyzing the human-spacesuit system behavior for iso-lated and functional upper body movement tasks: elbow flexion/extension, shoulderflexion/extension, shoulder abduction/adduction and cross body reach, which is acomplex succession of critical motions for astronaut and pilot task. The contact pres-sure between the person and the spacesuit was measured by three low-pressure sen-sors (the Polipo) over the arm, and one high-pressure sensor located on the shoulder(Novel). The same sensors were used in a separate experiment conducted in con-junction with Protect the Force Company on several different United States MarineCorps (USMC) protective gear configurations, which analyzed the human-gear in-teractions for: shoulder flexion/extension, horizontal shoulder abduction/adduction,vertical shoulder abduction/adduction, and the cross body reach. Findings suggest
3
that as suit pressurization increases, contact pressure across the top of the shoulderincreases for all motion types. While it proved to be a perfectly acceptable methodfor gathering shoulder data, improvements can be made on the particular sensorsused and the type of data collected and analyzed. In the future, human-suit interfacedata can be utilized to influence future gas-pressurized spacesuit design. Addition-ally, this thesis briefly explores the incompatibilities between Russian and U.S. EVAcapabilities in order to make a case for equipment standardization.
Thesis Supervisor: Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Ph.D.Title: Professor of the Practice, Aeronautics and Astronautics
4
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank the wonderful advisors I had at MIT, without
whom this thesis could have never happened. To Dr. Jeff Hoffman, thank you for
all your honest guidance during the thesis process and regarding my aspirations to
become an astronaut. To Dr. Dava Newman, thank you for introducing me to
the world of human spaceflight and reigniting my passion for aerospace. My MIT
experience would not have been the same without such a wonderful person in my life
to give me incredible opportunities like meeting Buzz Aldrin, skiing in Montana for
a conference, or working with spacesuits and other fantastic people for my research.
Thank you both for all the opportunities and the unwavering support.
To the EVA team, Pierre, Alexandra, and Allie, I cannot thank you enough for all
your help on this thesis. It seriously would not have happened without you. Thanks
for all the fun meetings, for being some of my first friends at MIT, and for being
incredibly patient and helpful with all my questions even after you had moved on to
bigger and better things!
To Tony, John, and Grant, thank you guys for being my Navy partners in crime.
You guys understand and tolerate my awful mood swings, humor, and personality
probably more than anybody else, and for that I am so grateful. I am happy I had you
all to provide advice and/or sounding boards for weird Navy situations like P-codes,
disappearing without leave, etc. Tony and Grant, I guess I'm sort of happy we will
all be in the same pipeline so I can see your ugly faces even after we leave MIT, and
John, I am going to miss you so much but I know that you'll kick butt in flight school!
To Hannah, thanks for being the sweetest roommate, officemate, classmate, etc.
dered as a replacement for the Polipo. which can be seen iii Figure 3-2. The AIOHR
two-stranded conductive tape was implemented in a new version of the Polipo by
CostnmeWorks in Somerville. MA. The original galinstan sensors, which are difficult
27
to manufacture, were used ilI the second version of the Polipo. however, due to seiisor
nmanufacturing issues leading to sensor failure. the second version of the Polipo was
not tested in the following experiments.
Figure 3-2: AT\(OHR two-stranded conductive tape used for second Polipo iteratioll.
3.1.2 Novel High-Pressure Shoulder Sensor
The Pliance sensing system developed by Novel GmbH. a German comnpaimny that
specializes in dynamic pressure distribution measurement technology, 'an be used
for an accurate mleasiuremlelnt of pressure 1(d load distribution on boti 1(ard and
soft surfaces. The Pliance system was connected to a range of flexible, elastic seil-
sors iade from capacitive transducers with high-tecb elastomers. These sensors are
calibrated through pre-determined loading sequences so as to create a baseline for
future measurements. guarantee accracv amd generate reproduciile data [8]. The
accompanying Pliance software gives the user the ability to acquire and store pres-
sure (istribuition data. view absolute pressure values in each sensor of the sensor ilat
network. playack mileasuremlelnts. and view maxiium1111 pressure. force 81(1 contact
area. The particular sensor used in our experiment and past experiments is a nodi-
fied S2073 sensor mat approximlaitely 22.4 cm x 11.2 cm with 128 individual senlsors
arranged in a grid of 1(6 by 8. Each sensor is 1.4 (111 ill length and width and can
measuire pressures between 20-600 kPa at a resolution of approximlately 1 kPa. The
Pliance systeill uses tell 1.2 V nickel metal hydride batteries with 2000 mAh. and
the sensor is rul at 330 mA. While the data collection rate can be adjusted. for the
purposes of our experiment, the data, was recorded once every 0.02 s (50 Hz). The
28
sensor imat was kept in place using the Polipo's base layer mentioned above, wvhich
was equipped with a rectaigular pocket interface that housed the Novel sensor mat.
Low-Pressure High-Pressure Novel APDNI Inertial
Polipo sensors sensor and hardware 'MeasurementUnit
A) B) C)
Figure 3-3: Experimental Sensor Systemis: A) Low-pressure Polipo sensors, B) High-
pressure Novel shoulder sensor C) APDM Opal inertial measurement unit. (Image
Source: Anderson. 2014)
Prior to any experinients. the Novel sensor is calibrated to ensure accurate data
collection during official mneasurenment trials. The calibration device used ws also
provided by Novel GmbH and was developed specifically for use with sensors devel-
oped by Novel and their Pliance sensing system. The calibration device consists of
an inflatable rubber bladder that is housed by secure rigid plates. The sensor be-
ing calibrated is placed on the calibration board and centered within the alpparatis.
Compressed air is then fed into the device, thereby exerting pressure on the sensor
nat. The Novel software provides caliiration steps to lhad the sensor mat at vain-
ous known pressures in order create calibration curves create( within the software.
Calibration files are stored for subsequent testing.
3.1.3 APDM Inertial Measurment Units
The APDM Opal Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) Sensing systeii (Portland. OR)
consists of three accelerometers, three gyroscopes, and three nagnetometers. A
Kalnan filter integrates these signals into an orientation quaterion for each IMU.
The IMUs were placed in-phine with one another to optimize the output for isolated
joint movements, but their relative orienitations allow the detection of off-axis rota-
tions [3]. Three sensors were mounted internally on the upper arm. lower arm. and
29
Low- Pressure Polipo --Sensor Network
High-pressure NovelSensor Mat
Body MountedOpal IMUs
Figure 3-4: Placeineit of the ill-suit sensor systems. (Image Source: Anderson. 2014)
chest. Three cxternally imounted sensors were correspondingly iouinted oil the up-
per and lower spacesuit ami and suit torso. Each sensor is 4.8 x 3.6 x 1.3 ciii and
weighs approxiinately 21 g. Tl he gyroscopes and imagnetonieters were recalibrated
before placed on each sul1ject to take into account the iagnetic environment and
inimilize the gyroscope drift over tiie. They are powered by a lithiuiI battery at 3.7
V nloiliniaI, nd the imiaximumiliii current through the sensor is approxiimately 56 mA.
IMU seisoi data was collected wirelessly and continuously synchronized in real time.
3.2 Spacesuit Testing Experimental Design
This experiment was performed using two subjects in the David Clark Launch and
Entry Development Suit. The suit was pressurized aid tested at venting pressimre
(0.25 psi). iiltermedliate pressure (2.5 psi). and full pressure (:3.5 psi). While the
EIU defines 4.3 psi as "full pressure . David Clark pressurizes their suits to 3.5 psi
ill order to iicrease mobility 1)it ,minitai a smaller safety mgin for oxygen partial
pressure requirements. They wvere asked to perforn a series of upper body notions
inside the spaceslit while lying iii the recumbent position. These series of upper-
body motions is niilmed at characterizing') the hunan-suit interactions. Three isolated
joint nmovenmenits vere evaluated: elbow flexion /extension. shoulder flexion/extension.
and shoulder abduction/adduction. i addition. one nmulti-joint functional task was
evalulated: the cross-body reach.
Elbow Flexil/Extenslo VThe subject stands away from the donning stand supported by theirown effort. Beginning with both arms relaxed at their side, palms k s Dofacing anterior, the subject bends the anis at the elbow through s 'their maximum range of motion. The subject then releases to therelaxed position. MO M
Shoulder Fexion/LxtensionThe subject stands away from the donuing stand supported by theirown effort. Beginning wsith both anns relaxed at their side, thesubject bends the arms at the shoulder through the sagittal plane.The subjects move through their maximun range of motion. Thesubject then releases to the relaxed position.
Shioulder Abduction/AdductionThe subject stands away from the donning stand supported by theirown effort. Beginning with both arns relaxed at their side, thesubject bends the anns at the shoulder through the coronal planeThe subject moves through his or her mAximumi rangP ot motion
The subject then releases to the relaxed position
Cross-Body ReachThe subject begins in a relaxed position and reaches across theirbody to touch their hip on the opposite side. The subject mos atheir ann up to chest level and sweeps in front of their body. Whenthe arm is extended in front of the shoulder, the subject touches thehelmet on the same side The niovement is then repeated with theopposite arm.
Figure 3-5: Descriptions of the four upper body motions performed during the space-
suit experiment: three isolated joint notions (elbow flexion/extelision. shoulder flex-
ion/extension. shoulder abduction/adduction) and one functional task (cross bodyreach). (Image Source: Anderson. 2014, Hilbert et al. 2014)
The test protocol consisted of 15 repetitions of the four different motions inside
the spacesuit. These repetitions were divided into three groups of five repetitions
to allow for assessment of fatigue or changes ill biomnechanical strategies.
XVere divided into movement groups such that the order was counterbalanced within
the groumlp [3]. Prior to the test. subjects were trained on each motion and allowed
to practice it until they were comfortable ill order to maximized mnotion coilsistency
duirilng the experiment. The subject performned each notion iii the prescribed order
of the movement group, with no less than a 5-minute break between each movement
group in order to (ollect subjective feedback and to allow the subject to rest. After
all three imovment groups were completed, there was an intermittent rest period
to increase the pressure iii the suit. The subject was first tested in the unsuited
condition, and then at the corresponding test pressulr('s in the suit. The pressure
profiles and joint angles were recorded throughout the experiment. A representative
experiment schemlati( is showii in Figure 3-6, and the full experimental test plan can
31
I
Motionls
Movement Group 1 Movement Group 2 Movement Group 3
H 11 12 13 14 13 I1 14 12 12 14 11 I3
11: Elbow Flexion/Extension12: Shoulder Flexion/Extension Si vvvr.13: Shoulder Abduction/Adduction14: Cross Body Reach S2 r
Figure 3-6: Experimental Design Test Protocol: Each imovenent group consists of a
counterbalanced ordering of the motions. The motions studied were: three isolated
joint iot ions (elbow flexion/extension. shoulder flexion/extension. and shoulder ab-
duction/adduction) and a fiictional task motion (cross body reach). In each move-
iment group. the specific nmotion was repeated 5 tinmes for a total of 15 repetitions per
mlotionl.
3.3 Marine Protective Gear Experimental Design
In an effort to expand the applicalbility of the sensor systems. two rounds of experi-
ments were performed in conjunction withIi Protect the Force. a strategic consulting
firm specializing in product development for the U.S. aried forces.
Infantry soldiers and officers are a central comnponent of ground forces in the Ma-
rine Corps anod other branches of the military. According to the Marines, infantrymen
are trained to locate, close with and destroy the enemyn 1y fire and umaneuver, or repel
the eiemv's assault by fire aiid close co1bat. Riflenem serve as the primary scouts.,
assault troops and close colmlbat forces within each infantry unit. Crucial to combat
iission effectiveiness is ensuring each Marine's safety. However. in order to provide
safety in the form of heavy armiiior, often physical mobility aid strength must be less-
ened or compromised to carry heavy loads of arimor in addition to the gear Marines
are required to carry. Iii an effort to provide lightweight but effective armmor to lesseii
32
he found inl Appendix A.
heavy loads and increase imobility while wearing armor. the Marine Corps System
Command has developed several prototypes of advanced larine protection gear as
alternatives to the current gear provided to Marines.
Both experiments were performimed with the same subject ill (lifferelt proteetion
gear configiiratioiis: 1) the interim capability, USMC Plate Carrier (PC) and neck
plates. 2) the current capability. USNIC Improved Modular Tactical Vest (IMTV), 3)
the newly designed Ballistic Base Layer (BBL) protective garment and 4) the future
capability, the plate carrier combined with the BBL protective garment. Different
configurations of the protection gear were tested for their mobility. the shoulder con-
tact pressure, aid the subjective evaluation for comfort. fatigue, and mobility. This
is critical in order to ensure the future capabilities being currenItly developed will
provide an improvement in the design and the use of the protection gear.
Figure 3-7: Different US\IC protection gear conifiguratiois used during testing
One subject was tested in the Man Vehicle Laboratory. at the Massachusetts Iii-
stitute of Technology (Cambridge, MA) oil two different occasions (December 2015
and Jaimuary 2016). The subject corresponded with the Narine infantrymen anthro-
polmetrics provided by Protect the Force as seen iln Table 3.1.
Similar to tlie spacesulit test experimental desigm. the experiment colmsisted of
15 repetitions divided into three groups of five repetitions of four different mo-
tions inside the spacesuit. Three isolated joint movements were evaluated: shol-
33
Table 3.1: Anthropometrics from typical Marine compared to anthropometrics of
Figure 4-13: Effect of subject on iean contact pressure for full pressurizationl.
11
51
d
from both the shoulder flexion/extension for both subjects. However, in Subject l's
case it is significantly higher than the other two motion types whereas Subject 2's
case demonstrates that it is significantly lower than the other two motion types. It
can be said that at intermediate pressure the contact pressures experienced are all
similar between motions types, and at full pressure the contact pressures experienced
are similar between the shoulder flexion/extension and the cross body reach but not
the shoulder abduction/adduction.
Finally, we will analyze the effect of subject variability on mean contact pressure.
Main effects for different subjects were found (p<0.0005). The results are presented in
Figures 4-12 and 4-13. At both intermediate and full pressurization, Subject 1 expe-
riences higher contact pressures than Subject 2 with every motion type. In the cross
body reach at intermediate pressurization and in the shoulder abduction/adduction
at full pressurization, this difference in contact pressure is statistically significant. For
reasons mentioned above, results at vent pressurization are not shown. Subject vari-
ability can be attributed to two major factors: 1) subject anthropometry, which can
determine how often they make contact and how high the contact pressures will be,
2) subject experience, which determines how experienced the subject is at mitigating
contact within the suit to maintain their comfort and increase the amount of time
they can tolerate spending in the suit.
52
4.2 Protect the Force Armor Gear Prototype Ex-
periments
The advanced Marine gear aims at distributing loads and pressures more evenly across
the shoulders as opposed to having concentrated areas of extreme pressure at the top
of the shoulders. The Novel pressure sensor was located at the top of the shoulder,
and the data will be displayed in an identical fashion to the shoulder data from the
David Clark spacesuit shoulder experiment.
The pressure distribution maps for the different configurations are shown in Fig-
ures 4-14 and 4-15. The figures show the pressure distributions as a color scale
representing the pressure in kPa. For each of the motions at each of the pressur-
ized conditions, the pressure distribution map represents the pressure distribution
at the peak of the movement, or the pressure distribution at the moment when the
highest pressure appeared. The movements that provide the most insight on changes
in pressure distributions across the shoulder are the vertical and horizontal shoulder
abduction/adduction movements.
Figure 4-14 shows the pressure profiles during moments of peak pressure for the
four separate suited configurations and four separate motions in kPa. The top two
configurations are the configurations without the BBL (the potential future capabil-
ity). When the Novel mat is used on top of the shoulder during motions of high
mobility, it causes the mat to bend, which is shown across all four conditions as a
diagonal increase in pressure across the mat. Configuration 2 (frog -shirt + IMTV)
show the highest overall pressures distributed across the top of the shoulder. The
more lightweight current capability, Configuration 1 (frog shirt + PC), also shows
heavy pressures across the top of shoulder as well as mat bending. The most signif-
icant comparison to make is between Configuration 1 and Configuration 4; both use
the PC but the BBL has also been incorporated into Configuration 4. The pressure
distribution across the shoulder is similar, however, the pressures in Configuration 4
are much lower overall across all sensors. This indicates the BBL has relieved the
wearer of some of the pressure/weight from the PC.
53
onCCt}
onICCC
(-7
rnor
ICCCU
on42C0
(-7
Sh. FI/Ext.
It'I I-T!
ShAbd/Add V. ShAbd/Add H. CrB Reach
fl pi~i~..m
J-t 71W-i'1-
A j.4. I
I
U
1009080
70
60
5040
3020
100 kPa
100
9080
7060
5040
3020
100 kPa
100
90
80
1060
5040
3020
100 kPa
100
908070
60
5010
3020
100 kPa
Figure 4-14: Pressure distributions of all motions for different US\JC arnior configu-
rati(1s.
During the horizontal aidiction/adhuetion. the weight of the arumor is plaeed
heavily (1 the shoulders. aid depell(ling on the widtll of the straps. either manifests
itself as an acute pressure point or more even distribution. In Configuration 1 anld
Configuration 2. the pressure distribution shows the iiat bendiig phenoiiienon. Ili
addition. the surrounding pressures are higher with the frog shirt and PC thian the frog
shirt and IMTV. While the IMTV is heavier., it is most likelv that the wider straps
of the INITV cause a wider (listributioli of pressure of the armor weight, thereby
relieving the subject of a concentrated pressure.
10090
8070
g 6050403020100 kPa
Figure 4-15: Pressure distributions for rifle carry motion for Configuration 1 (on left)
and Configuration 4 (on right).
Figure 4-15 shows the pressure distributions at the mnoment of peak pressure for ri-
fle movements between the two different PC configurations. The figure clearly delon-
strates that the BBL helps minimize pressure at the top of the shoulder when usiig
the PC. The frog shirt loes little to nmninze pressiures at the tops of the mnotionis.
Overall, it appears that the IMTV distriblites the weight of itself better than the PC
oii its owii does, eveni though the PC is 1mch lighter. However. the addition of the
BBL reduces the load of the PC ini some cases and is not helpful in others.
4.3 Conclusions and Future Work
These results yield no common conclusions across suit types or subjects. For the
David Clark Lauinch and Entry Development Suit. both subjects experieiice(d sig-
nificant contact pressures at the top of the shoulder and acromion. However, the
magnituides of contact pressures were significantly different between the two suilbjects
and furthermore, it was not clear whether certain imotions elicited more contact than
others. The effects of motion type oi contact pressure cannot be generalized across
subjects as they are likely affected by individual anthropomnetry, suit fit. and bionie-
chanics, but the information gathered for each subject can be used to decrease the risk
of astronaut injury when applied individually. The less experienced subject (Subject
1) experienced the highest pressures, but both subjects experienced discomfort on
the top of the shoulder over time.
The results yielded for the Protect the Force armored gear can draw some general
conclusions, but since only one subject was tested, further testing is necessary in order
to validate these conclusions. While heavier, the IMTV provides a better pressure
distribution than the PC due to its wider straps. When the BBL is incorporated,
it has the same effect as the IMTV (in terms of distribution) by distributing the
PC load across the shoulder. It also appears that this load exerts an overall lesser
force than the IMTV. The vertical abduction/adduction causes pressure across the
shoulder between all motions regardless of configuration. The IMTV and frog shirt
seem to provide an overall less pressure than the PC and frog shirt. During rifle carry
motions, the BBL significantly offloads pressure from the PC as compared to the frog
shirt.
The most important point to address is the validity of the results. While the
Novel sensor system proves to be state-of-the-art pressure sensing equipment, it may
not be the optimal equipment for the particular human shoulder application. When
placed at an interface with high mobility, the sensor is susceptible to false, artificial
readings caused by creases in the sensor. As a future alternative, it would be ideal
to incorporate a network of small, variably placed sensors across the joint and rest of
the body. A sensor such as the Novel S2012 shown in Figure 4-16, which is 2 cm in
diameter, if paired with many others, could get a general profile for pressure readings
across the shoulder while remaining small enough to gather data across a seemingly
flat surface.
Further studies should integrate the spacesuit pressure and joint angle data found
in other work with metabolic data in order to understand how fatigue and injury in-
fluence the metabolic work necessary for spacesuit operations. All of this information
would allow us to more accurately determine where injury is most probable, incorpo-
rate a quantitative measurement for fatigue, and ultimately influence air-pressurized
56
spacesuit design in the future.
Figure 4-16: Novel Single S2012 Sensor with 2 cin diaieter (Image Source: iiovel.(e)
57
Chapter 5
International EVA Capabilities
"The United States will seek to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful use of
outer space to extend the benefits of space, enhance space exploration, and to protect
and promote freedom around the world"-National Space Policy (2006)
5.1 A Case for EVA Standardization
Despite the fact that our collective EVA capabilities are advanced compared to other
capability requirements needed for a potential mission to Mars, there is a lack of
cooperation that causes difficulty when trying to develop facilities to accommodate
different suits. The most obvious interoperability requirement is hardware compati-
bility. The current NASA spacesuit, the EMU, has already been described in Chapter
2. The International Space Station (ISS) also uses the Russian Orlan suits for EVA
operations. While both NASA and Roscosmos are both currently developing newer
models than the ones mentioned, we will compare in-flight capabilities for simplicity.
Even though equipment and tools developed by NASA and Roscomos perform the
same functions in the same environemnt, differences in operations philosophies lead to
very different design solutions [10]. NASA's collection of EVA suits from B.F. Goorich
(Mark-IV IVA suit), David Clark (Gemini high altitude pressure suit), Hamilton Sus-
trand, and a handful of other companies indicates a very wealthy nation with many
designs to choose from, but it also indicates a non-linear EVA suit evolution [7]. On
58
the other hand. Russia has iever been a very wealthy nation. and the coinlbinati(oni
of linited funding. a single supplier (Zvezda). and organic national design philsophy
has served to create Russian EVA suits that are rugged. straight forward. and easy
to naintain ii-orbit [71.
Figure 5-1: R ear entry opening for Russian Orlaii-M spacsuit. (Image Source: NASA)
The spacesuit (.urr1enltly used by cosinionauts is the Russian Orlcan-MK imodel.
which is the fifth varint in the Orln series of scinli-rigid onle-piece space suit iod-
els designed and ianufactured by NPP Zvezda [15]. Unlike American EVA stilts.
Russian EVA stilts have had a direct evoluitionary path as they have all been built
by NPP Zvezda [7]. The Orln stilts were first used inl flight during Salytit-6 and
Salyut-7, anld variouis mnodels have beenl introduced for Mir and ISS operations. The
Orln spacesiuits are scinli-rigid: the enclosure incorporates a HUT. integrated with a
hehinet and miade of ahiiintinn alloyv, and soft stilt arins and 1lg enclosures [1]. They
inchidc a rear hatch entry through the backpack that allows it to be self-donned ill
approxiinately five miinutes. which is shown inl Figure 5-1. The Orlan suits comne inl a
59
"one size fits most" standard size that can be used by cosmonauts with various (but
limited) anthropometric characteristics. The Orlan suits also contain an integrated,
regenerative (closed-loop) life support system (LSS). The first three Orlan suits (Or-
lan, Orlan-D, and Orlan-DM) used a 20-m electric umbilical which served as a safety
tether and provided the power supply, radio communication, and telemetry. The
Orlan-DMA was the first suit that was fully self-sustaining, that is, it could be used
without the electrical umbilical because it was provided with a removable unit that
incorporated an electrical power source (battery), radio and telemetry system, and an
antenna-feeder device. The Orlan-DMA also introduced a second safety tether. The
Orlan-M, which was used on the ISS from 2001-2009, took into account the experience
of Orlan-DMA operations on Mir and the additional requirements imposed by opera-
tions on the ISS: 1) the suit's dimensions were enlarged, 2) an additional helmet-top
window and protective glass for the main window were introduced, 3) a calf bear-
ing and the third pressure bearing (elbow) on the suit arm were introduced, 4) one
of the safety tethers was given variable length, and 5) the carbon dioxide control
cartridge (CCC) capacity was increased. Power supply, radio comms, and telemetry
were available for both the self-contained mode and via the 25-m electrical umbilical
cord from the station. The service characteristics (mobility, donning/doffing, field of
view) and anthropometric ranges were improved from earlier models. The suit was
also provided with attachment points for Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue (SAFER).
The Orlan-MK model's main improvement is the installment of a mini-computer in
the Portable Life Support System (PLSS) backpack. The computer processes data
from the spacesuit's various systems, issues a warning in the event of a malfunction,
and outlines a contingency plan that is displayed on an LCD screen attached to the
right breast of the spacesuit [15]. The current Orlan spacesuit assembly weighs 238
lbs, operates at 5.8 psi with a 100% oxygen atmosphere, and has a maximum EVA
duration of 7 hours. It is designed for an on-orbit lifetime of 12 EVAs or 4 years
without return to Earth [11].
To compare, the current EMU spacesuit assembly was designed to accommodate
individuals ranging in size from the 5th percentile Asian female, to the 95th percentile
60
Caucasian male, which made a "one size fits all"design impossible [10]. While sizing
differences do not pose a problem for interoperability between suits, it does affect
which individuals can participate in the astronaut/cosmonaut programs. There are
significant hardware differences that make EVA cooperation difficult. While both
suits function perfectly well at vacuum, it is not physically possible for the EMU
and Orlan to go to vacuum simultaneously in the same airlock. First, the Shuttle
EMU is nearly four inches wider than the Orlan suit, which made it difficult for
the EMU to transit through the small Russian hatches [7]. The coolant loop and
sublimator water that the EMU and Orlan-M use in their respective life support
systems is also incompatible. While both suits use approximately 1 gallon for each
EVA, the Orlan uses distilled water for the sublimator function but adds silver ions
to the coolant water supply loop to extend its storage life [7]. In contrast, the EMU
uses iodized potable water for both the coolant and sublimator functions. If the
Russians must perform an EVA from the ISS airlock, they must empty the EVA
coolant loop supply of American water and substitute it with Russian water, then
purge and refill the supply with American water after the EVA [7]. Furthermore,
because of the unknown way in which the suits' respective coolant systems may
react over the long term to differing water supplies, it would be difficult to support
simultaneous EVAs. Another airlock discrepancy is in back-up oxygen supply tank
replenishment: the Orlan-M stored its back-up oxygen supply at 6,000 psi in reserve
tanks that can be easily detached and replaced on-orbit whereas the EMU's reserve
tank cannot be refilled with its 900 psi oxygen anwhere except on the ground due to
the inability to check for leakage while on-orbit [7]. In order to avoid decompression
sickness (DCS), decompression cycles also differ: the Orlan-M operates at 5.8 psi
which require a 30-45 minute nominal oxygen prebreathe time and the EMU operates
at 4.3 psi which requires a 4 hour oxygen prebreathe before it can go EVA from
the station's 14.7 psi sea level atmosphere. Thus, when designing for both the U.S.
and Russian EVA systems onboard the ISS, a new airlock was required. The Quest
Airlock, a joint airlock, attached to the ISS in 2001, and acts as a stowage area
for spacewalk hardware as well as a staging area for crew members preparing to
61
conduct a spacewalk [22]. Both suits also have their own airlocks on station [11].
With two spacesuits, three separate airlocks, plus hundreds of EVA hand tools in use,
the requirements on instructor, crew, and flight controller certification training are
enormous with several thousand hours of certification and proficiency work and need
to be condensed or simplified [10].
Another significant factor is the effect of non-hardware issues: non-native lan-
guages, training facilities on separate continents, and different task development
philosophies can present major problems when handling difficult or non-routine sit-
uations and can even create minor disagreements in everyday operations. There are
extensive challenges for interoperability during mission operations because during the
planning phase, personnel must integrate requirements from numerous foreign and do-
mestic sources [10]. For example, Russian and American crew members operate in
the EMU while performing EVA tasks on the Canadian-manufactured robotic arm;
this requires task/procedure integration, integration of the event into overall ISS op-
erations, establishment of flight rules, etc. [10]. The current solution to minimize this
complexity is EVA planning and integration responsibilities lie with the organization
whose suit is being used, however, this could be eliminated with one jointly-developed
suit for all operations on an international spacecraft or station. After planning, train-
ing the EVA tasks is also necessary, and in the previous example, while the task will
be trained by U.S. instructors, technical expertise for the task lies with the Canadians
[10].
At first glance, the Russian and EVA suit systems seem to share a resemblance
and they are very "functionally similar" in that they are both meant to carry out
the same functions [7]. However, while these two systems were designed to achieve
similar tasks, they are "the products of such disparate national outlooks, design
philosophies, operating parameters, and fabrication methods as to make them almost
incompatible" [7].
The concept of international cooperation with respect to EVA has not been com-
pletely neglected. After the ninth International Academy of Astronatuics (IAA) Man-
In-Space Symposium in Cologne, 1991, members of all national space agencies agreed
62
18012 9
Figure 5-2: The U.S. E\IU and Russian Orlan-M spaeesuit shown side by side. (Inage
Source: NASA)
to form an IAAA subgroup to exchange ideas on EVA interoperability and supply
reeoiinnleii(lations to solutions to EVA interoperability problems [7]. Iii 1992, the
U.S./Russia Agreement on Cooperation in Space Exploration was signed [1]. NASA
and Hamilton Standard (HS. now Hamilton Sundstrand) showed interest in Zvezda's
experience in the development and operation of orbit-based EVA suits. That year,
ESA and Roscosmos separately agreed to Initiate a requirements analysis and con-
(eptual design study to determine the feasibility of joint spacesuit developillent- the
EVA 2000 [1]. WThen the Space Station Freedom (SSF) became the ISS and was
expanded to include Roscosnos, ESA and Roscosnos pushed for U.S. support on a
joint development of a new spacesuit based o1 the EVA Suit 2000 to become the
one and only spacesuit system on the ISS [20]. Not only is it expensive to develop
and prototype a new EVA system. but to do so while incorporating the different
design philosophies and their contractors can seem insurmountable: it is clearly not
cost effective [7]. Moreover, the EMU was already too far along for them to consider
63
it. The EVA suit 2000 program eventually also faltered due to financial difficulties
[20]. There have been several other contracts between Roscosmos and NASX: com-
parative analysis of US and Russian EVA suits (Figure 5-2), feasibility of bringing
them together, provision for EVA in the Russian suit undertaken from the US air-
lock, development of means for unassisted rescue of ISS crew members during EVA
(SAFER), training U.S. specialists in Orlan operations, and training US astronauts in
wearing Russian EVA suits [1]. One of the only successful joint suit-system programs
between NASA and Roscosmos is the development of the Russian Simplified Aid for
EVA Rescue (SAFER). It was initially developed in the U.S. as an element of the
EMU so that should the primary crewmember-to-station restraint tether fail, there
would be a backup means of retrieving the crewmember since the ISS could not ma-
neuver for rescue [20]. Since 1997, astronauts and cosmonauts have used Russian and
U.S. made spacesuit systems interchangeably and with increasing frequency, however,
mission operations planning and training would become significantly easier with the
design of one single spacesuit for all future joint missions.
According to Harris, NASA and Roscosmos had (and still currently have) three
choices in interfacing their divergent spacesuit systems:
1. an expensive "clean sheet" approach, giving up the current agency specific de-
velopment (then the Shuttle EMU/Orlan) and building a whole new suit,
2. symbiosis by joining the two suit systems with as many interchangeable com-
ponents and operational methods as possible,
3. or, a level of interoperability that would cover efforts to find a minimal interface
while actually changing their respective systems little [7].
The third option has been somewhat accomplished since Harris published his book
in 2001 with the introduction of the ISS Quest Airlock. The second option seems
more reasonable than starting with a clean sheet and building a whole new spacesuit,
however, a cost analysis would be in order to determine whether option two would be
that much more cost efficient than option when merging major suit incompatibilities.
64
However, if we want to continue to expand beyond LEO, into planetary EVA, it is
imperative to build (or modify) a spacesuit as a collaboration between all relevant
agencies.
65
Chapter 6
Conclusions
Extravehicular activity is perhaps the most rewarding and complex aspect of human
spaceflight. Perhaps in the near future, EVA will be performed outside of low-Earth
orbit on the surface of Mars. There are still major EVA suit design challenges to
overcome, as well as challenges in standardization for streamlined international coop-
eration. Additionally, there are major physiological and technical challenges humans
will need to overcome in order to accomplish successful long-duration flight missions.
The contributions of this research are:
1. 'an increased understanding of the human-spacesuit interaction specifically at
the shoulder interface: while pressure magnitude can vary based on anthro-
pometric measurements, it can be confirmed that pressure magnitudes at the
top of the shoulder must be addressed with protective measures and in future
design.
2. While the Novel sensor system proves to be state-of-the-art pressure sensing
equipment, a network of smaller, variably placed sensors may be a preferred
means of analyzing the human shoulder interface for clearer data.
3. With the future pressure sensing design improvements mentioned above, this
method of measuring contact pressures can and should be expanded to protec-
tive wear and other applications.
66
4. There have been attempts to incorporate EVA capabilities among space agen-
cies, but a stronger push is necessary between U.S. and Russia for complete
equipment standardization.
With regard to the EVA human-shoulder interface experiment, further studies
should integrate the spacesuit pressure and joint angle data found in other work with
metabolic data in order to understand how fatigue and injury influence the metabolic
work necessary for space operations. With regard to policy and standardization in
EVA operations, NASA and Roscosmos should reevaluate current suit development
projects and attempt to consolidate projects to develop a joint spacesuit program
such as the EVA 2000 program. Each of the specific aims addressed in this thesis
provides a different suggestion for approaching the issues currently present in EVA. It
is imperative that these issues be overcome if we plan to continue toward the ultimate
goal of human planetary exploration.
67
Appendix A
Human-Suit Interface Pressure
Evaluation
68
Human-Suit Interface Pressure Evaluation
MIT Man Vehicle Lab & David Clark Company
Prepared by Pierre Bertrand, Alexandra Hilbert, Sabrina Reyes, MIT
1 IntroductionThe objective of this research is to develop an understanding of how the person interacts with the
space suit, and use that information to assess and mitigate injury. Our approach is to quantify and
evaluate human-space suit interaction with a pressure sensing tool, focusing on the arm and
shoulders under different loading regimes. Additionally, inertial measurement units (IMUs) will be
placed both internal and external to the space suit arm to assess biomechanics. This portion of the
study builds from previous collaboration between the MIT Man Vehicle Lab and the David Clark
Company. Informal objectives include evaluating the feasibility of a synchronized pressure sensing
as a platform used inside the space suit. MIT has developed a prototype platform, consisting of
custom and off-the-shelf sensors and an integrated data acquisition system, all incorporated into a
modified athletic garment, capable of sensing pressure at various locations along the arm and
shoulder. Establishing a precedent and proof of concept for this methodology will open the
doorway for future collaboration and technology development.
2 Test SummaryOne subject, two, time permitting, will be asked to perform the test protocol in the Boeing space
suit. Subjects will be selected based on availability from David Clark personnel who meet the
medical requirements for in-suit testing. These individuals have a great deal of experience working
inside the space suit so will not have to develop new, potentially confounding movement strategies.
The subjects will be wearing the pressure sensing and IMU systems while performing the tests, and
pressure profiles and angle histories will be recorded. The test protocol will consist of 20
repetitions of 4 motions inside the space suit. The selected movements use the upper body where
the sensors are placed. The 5 motions are 3 isolated joint movements (Elbow flexion/extension,
Shoulder flexion/extension, and Shoulder abduction/adduction) and 1 functional task (Cross Body
Reach). Prior to the test, subjects will be trained on each movement and allowed to repeat it as
many times as they desire. For each movement, the 20 repetitions will be further subdivided into 4
groups of 5 repetitions each. This is done to evaluate subject fatigue or potential change of
biomechanical strategies over the course of the test period. After each group of movements,
qualitative information on subject comfort and hot spots will be collected. The information will also
be collected after training. Each of these test conditions will be counterbalanced and randomized.
69
3 MIT HardwareThe human-suit interface is currently an unknown in space suit characterization. Pressuremeasurements would allow greater insight into how these interactions occur and help characterize
suit performance. Additionally it would allow us to prevent injury incurred by motion inside the
suit. There is currently no method by which to characterize this pressure. The two systems selectedto measure pressure are targeted at different pressure sensing regimes.
The pressure sensing system is integrated into one conformal athletic garment. Both pressure
sensor systems are mounted to the shirt as described below. Finally, a cover shirt slides easily overthe sensors to prevent catching and ensure proper sensor placement.
3.1 Novel Pressure Sensing SystemThe garment has a pocket interface over the shoulder to house the Novel pressure sensor, which is
used for the high-pressure sensing regime. The high pressure regime is at the interface between the
person's body and the hard upper torso of the suit. A Novel pressure sensing mat has been usedpreviously in a study by the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) on an Extravehicular
Mobility Unit hard upper torso.
e One commercially available Novel pressure mat, S2073 with 128 sensors
" Each sensor is 1.4cm in each dimension and pressure range between 20-600kPa
* Mat slips into pocket over shoulder
e On-board data collection with electronics mounted at the base of the back
* Similar system used inside the extravehicular mobility unit by the Anthropometry andBiomechanics Facility without modification for a shoulder load study
* Sensor runs at 330mA currente Battery is 10 1.2V nickel metal hydride
The system is certified to the European safety standard 93/42/EEC (Annex 1X).* Due to the construction of the battery it is unlikely that water or sweat will come into
contact with the electronics board of the battery pack. It is also unlikely that a smallamount of moisture would create an electrical shortcut.
* The pedar NiMH 2000mAh battery pack is internally secured with an overheating andan overcurrent protection (Polyswitch).
* Worst case scenario for puncture: On the transmitter side of the sensor mats a voltageof 7 V (effective) = equal to 20 Vpp is applied (pp = peak to peak). The maximumcurrent for a shortcut is 100 mA(pp) if one directly touches the transmitter. Fortechnical applications the resistance of the human body is typically considered to be 1 -2.4 kOhm. In that case the maximum current would be 8 - 20 mA(pp).
70
Figure 2: Novel Pressure sensing system. A) Sensor mat. B) Data acquisition and battery
3.2 Polipo Pressure Sensing SystemThis shirt is worn by the subject and has targets over which the low pressure sensors are mounted.
The Polipo, or octopus in Italian, is the system of 12 sensors which were developed as part of this
research effort for low-pressure sensing under the soft goods. These sensors are placed over the
arm in a way that targets anticipated hot spots, and secondarily for uniform coverage. The sensors
are detachable from the athletic garment, allowing independent pressure sensing system. It also
allows for shifting the sensors to concentrate them over a certain region of the body.
- 12 developmental sensors distributed over the arm
* Detachable system transferrable between subjects with velcro
e On-board data collection with electronics mounted at the base of the back
- Each sensor powered with constant current of.5mA
o Microcontroller shown; new board will be fabricated (not shown)
0 The entire board in nominal operation with 12 sensors is estimated to be around 100mA
- Battery selection is TBD but at the moment may be an off the shelf 9V battery. A typical 9V has
about 500mAh, so we are estimated to have 4 hours of use
- Shorting the sensor wires of one circuit will result in -. 5mA through the short
- A sensor short through the sink wire of another sensor will result in -1.1mA
- Worst case scenario would short the sink wire of all 12 circuits giving -6mA. This is highly
unlikely
71
Figure 2: Polipo pressure sensing system. A) Sensors mounted on sleeve. B) Microcontroller.
Arduino shield not shown
3.3 APDM IMU Sensing SystemAdditional information about the human-suit interface may be gathered using IMU data collected
inside the space suit. There is a joint angle difference between the person's movement and that of
the space suit. This is due to the resistance of a gas pressurized suit to movement, as well as (in
some instances) anatomically inaccurate rotation due to bearing movement. Calculating the joint
angles measured internal and external to the suit would help elucidate these differences. Previous
studies performed by the ABF and researchers at the University of Maryland have evaluated the use
of IMUs inside a gas pressurized space suit. This experiment uses similar methods, mirroring a
previous study performed by our research group inside a gas pressurized suit at David Clark
Company. This data will be used not only to determine biomechanical differences but also to help
find points of maximum and minimum movement to analyze the pressure profiles. It will be
matched with video data to improve the results. Sensors will be placed on the lower and upper arm
of the subject, not in contact with the pressure sensors. An additional chest mounted IMU will serve
as a reference for shoulder rotation data. Three sensors will be placed external to the suit, two on
the upper and lower arm and one on the suit upper torso.
* Commercially available APDM Opal inertial measurement unit (IMU)- 3 internally mounted sensors on the upper and lower arm and chest- 3 externally mounted sensors: Upper and lower spacesuit arm and suit torso- Each is 4.8x3.6x1.3 cm (lxwxh) and weighs less than 22ge Lithium Ion battery at 3.7V nominal- The capacity found online is 450mAh. Assuming that it can last minimum 8h (as said in the
documentation), the current is max 56 mA. It's maximum is1.6 hours of operation, so the currentwould be 28mA
- The worst case scenario is venting of the battery. Safety precautions include aluminum base toprotect the person, battery protection circuit, safe charging features. Probability estimated at.000001
72
The Opal movement monitor
Figure 4: Opal IMU sensor from APDM
4 Detailed Test PlanThis test will be performed by one subject or two if time permits. The following tasks will be
performed both suited (at pressures: 0.25 psi (venting), 2psi (intermediate pressure) and 3.5 psi
(full pressure)) and unsuited as described in the configurations above. The first time the task is
performed suited, each task will be repeated through 5 repetitions, whichever comes first. After
each of the 5 movements is performed, the subject will rest for 5 minutes and subjective data will
be collected. The subject will then repeat the movement sequence and rest period three additional
times.
Below are the tasks the subject will be performing in this test campaign.
Elbow Flexion/Extension
The subject stands away from the donning stand supported by their own effort. Beginning with
both arms relaxed at their side, palms facing anterior, the subject bends the arms at the elbow
through their maximum range of motion. The subject then releases to the relaxed position.
ShoulderFlexion/Extension
The subject stands away from the donning stand supported by their own effort. Beginning with
both arms relaxed at their side, the subject bends the arms at the shoulder through the sagittal
plane. The subject moves through their maximum range of motion. The subject then releases to the
relaxed position.
Shoulder Abduction/Adduction
The subject stands away from the donning stand supported by their own effort. Beginning with
both arms relaxed at their side, the subject bends the arms at the shoulder through the coronal
plane. The subject moves through his or her maximum range of motion. The subject then releases to
the relaxed position.
Cross Body Reach
73
The subject stands away from the donning stand supported by their own effort. Beginning with
both arms relaxed at their side, the subject will reach across their body in an attempt to touch their
hip on the opposite side. The subject will then move their arm up to chest level and sweep their arm
in front of their body in the horizontal plane. When the arm is extended straight in front of the
shoulder, the subject will then attempt to touch the helmet at the position of their ear on the same
side. The movement is then repeated with the opposite arm.
Table 1 shows a summary of all functional tasks each run will consist of, and a cumulative time for
the run as currently scheduled. Each subject will perform these tasks in the order specified.
DescriptionMinute
MinCCount
Elbow
Flexion/Extension
Shoulder
Flexion/Extension
Shoulder
Abduction/Adduction
Cross Body Reach
Rest
Isolated Stand free of donning stand and bend elbow
Isolated Stand free of donning stand and bend shoulder
Isolated Stand free of donning stand and bend shoulder
1.30 1.30
1.30 3
1.30 4.30
Stand free of donning stand and reach fromFunctional 2.30 7
overhead across the body, alternating arms
Rest mounted in donning stand. Qualitative
Information collected12
Table 1: Test variables matrix
Each of the subjects will perform this series of tasks identified in Table 1 four different ways:
1. Unsuited2.3.4.
Suited at 0.25 psi (venting pressure) in the Boeing suit
Suited at 2 psi (intermediate pressure) in the Boeing suit
Suited at 3.5 psi (full pressure) in the Boeing suit
The order of these tasks will vary between subjects, but the matched-pace unsuited run will always
be completed last. In addition, some familiarization time is built into the test plan for each suit to
allow the subject to become comfortable performing each task in the suit he or she has just donned.
Not only will this make the subject more comfortable and safe while performing the tasks, but it
will also reduce the possibility of familiarization of a task negatively affecting the outcome of the
test
This test may be terminated by the subject at any time for any reason, or by the test conductor, suit
technicians or suit engineer due to any safety or hardware concerns or concern for the suited
subject. Between movement groups, subjective data will be taken from the subject. This will be
74
Task Type
used as an indicator of subject fatigue and desire to terminate the test. An outline of the questions
to be asked is shown in Appendix A.
The test will also be terminated in the event of unrecoverable suit system failure. Standard David
Clark procedures will be followed regarding the failure of any suit system part, or any suit
emergency.
75
5 Procedures
5.1 Test-Specific Pre-Test Safety Briefing
1. Anyone can stop this test at any time for any reason
2. Test personnel: Manage video camera, extension cords and functional task props at all times.
3. Suited Subject: We will ask you how you're feeling between each task, absent any other reportsfrom you. After each series of 5 tasks, which will last approximately 2 minutes each for a total of10 minutes, you will rest for at least 5 minutes.
5.2 Detailed Test Procedure
1. Initial IMU calibration
2. Review summary of test with subject
3. Conduct test-specific pre-test safety briefing
4. -Synchronization process
a. Close Motion Studiob. Connect IMUs and Novel system through sync boxc. Turn on Novel and sync boxd. Open Motion Studio with appropriate settingse. Initiate MATLAB timer toolf. Trigger the synchronization and begin the timerg. Unplug synchronization cables
5. -Test personnel places IMUs on the subject and notes location on the body
6. Subject dons pressure sensing systems
7. Polipo is turned on
8. Cover shirt is donned
9. -Body marks are pressed (1-acromion, 2-clavicle, 3-shoulder blade)
Suited Full Pressure Calibration Data Collection Run
55. Subject performs 1st movement group
79
a. Allow subject to rest while prompting for subjective feedback
56. Subject performs 2nd movement group
a. Allow subject to rest while prompting for subjective feedback
57. -Subject performs 3rd movement group
a. Allow subject to rest while prompting for subjective feedback
58. Suit technicians assist subject in moving back to donning stand
Post-Test Procedures
59. External IMUs removed from suit
60. Depressurization of suit and suit doffed
61. Subject remains in LCVG with pressure sensors and IMUs in place
62. Body marks on the shoulder are recorded (1-acromion, 2-clavicle, 3-shoulder blade)
63. Subject debrief (any final subjective feedback)
80
Bibliography
[1] Isaac Abramov and Ingemar Skoog. Russian Spacesuits. Springer-Verlag London,2003.
[2] Allison P Anderson, Dava J Newman, and Roy E Welsch. Statistical Evaluationof Causal Factors Associated with Astronaut Shoulder Injury in Space Suits.Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance, 86(7), 2015.
[3] Allison Astnderson. Understanding Human-Spacesuit Interaction to Prevent In-jury During Extravehicular Activity. PhD thesis, 2014.
[4] Pierre J. Bertrand. Enhancing Astronaut Mobility Through Spacesuit Kinematicsand Interactive Space Outreatch. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, 2016.
[5] Ana Diaz and Dava Newman. Musculoskeletal human-spacesuit interactionmodel, 2014.
[6] Michael L Gernhardt, Jeffrey a Jones, Richard a Scheuring, Andrew F Aber-cromby, Jennifer a Tuxhorn, and Jason R Norcross. Risk of Compromised EVAPerformance and Crew Health Due to Inadequate EVA Suit Systems. HumanResearch Program, pages 333-358, 2009.
[7] Gary L. Harris. The Origins and Technology of the Advanced ExtravehicularSpace Suit. American Astronautical Society, aas history series, volume 24 edition,2001.
[8] Alexandra Hilbert. Human-Spacesuit Interaction Understanding AstronautShoulder Injury. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015.
[9] Brian J Johnson and David F Williams. Results from an investigation into extra-vehicular activity (EVA) training related shoulder injuries. Star, 45(7), 2007.
[10] Gerald E. Miller. Interoperability Trends in Extravehicular Activity (EVA) SpaceOperations for the 21st Century. mar 1999.
[11] Sandra Moore and Jose Marmolejo. Extravehicular Activity (EVA) Hardware &Operations Overview. jul 2014.
[12] NASA. The Space Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU), 1998.
81
[13] Dava Newman. Astronaut Bio-Suit System for Exploration Class Missions: Bi-monthly Report, Phase II, 2005.
[14] Dava J. Newman. Spacesuit Trauma Countermeasure System for Intravehicu-lar and Extravehicular Activities: Final NASA HRP Grant Report. Technicalreport, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2014.
[15] NPP Zvezda. Product Catalogue: The ORLAN type spacesuit, 2007.
[16] Roedolph a. Opperman and Dava J. Newman. Astronaut Extravehicular Activity- Saftey, Injury & Countermeasures & Orbital Collisions and Space Debris -Incidence, Impact & International Policy. Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronauticsat MIT, page 183, 2010.
[17] Richard a. Scheuring, Jeffrey a. Jones, Joseph D. Novak, James D. Polk, David B.Gillis, Josef Schmid, James M. Duncan, and Jeffrey R. Davis. The Apollo MedicalOperations Project: Recommendations to improve crew health and performancefor future exploration missions and lunar surface operations. Acta Astronautica,63(7-10):980-987, 2007.
[18] Richard a. Scheuring, Charles H. Mathers, Jeffrey a. Jones, and Mary L. Wear.Musculoskeletal injuries and minor trauma in space: Incidence and injurymechanisms in U.S. astronauts. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine,80(2):117-124, 2009.
[19] Samuel Strauss, Ralph L. Krog, and Alan H. Feiveson. Extravehicular mo-bility unit training and astronaut injuries. Aviation Space and EnvironmentalMedicine, 76(5):469-474, 2005.
[20] Kenneth S. Thomas and Harold J. McMann. U. S. Spacesuits. Springer NewYork, New York, NY, 2012.
[21] David R Williams, Saint Hubert, and Brian J Johnson. EMU Shoulder InjuryTiger Team Report. Technical Report September, 2003.
[22] Jerry Wright. International Space Station: Quest Airlock, 2013.