Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Andrew Abercromby

Publications and source records attributed to Andrew Abercromby.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

NASA’s Top Human System Research and Technology Needs for Mars

NASA is working with industry and international partners to return humans to the Moon and to eventually enable humans to explore Mars. Within NASA, several organizations work together to identify, prioritize, fund, execute, and operationalize the research and technology development (R&TD) that will be necessary to enable crew health and performance (CHP) during these future missions. These organizations include flight programs, the Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA), the Human Research Program, the Space Technology Mission Directorate, System Capability Leadership Teams, and other organizations, many of which existed for several years prior to the creation of the Moon-to-Mars (M2M) Program Office in 2023. A variety of constructs, vocabularies, and processes exist for managing risks and supporting strategic planning across these organizations. For example, M2M objectives, program risks, human system risks, human research gaps, capability gaps, and envisioned futures are all constructs currently used within NASA to identify and prioritize R&TD needs. These strategic planning constructs are evolving to allow M2M objectives and R&TD investments to be aligned and traced at a detailed level. A recognized need exists among stakeholder organizations to identify and communicate the highest CHP R&TD priorities in a unified and digestible way that addresses the perspectives of NASA’s CHP community. To achieve this, the HMTA arranged a series of discussions with representatives of NASA’s CHP community, during which the 8 highest priority CHP capabilities that will enable human missions to Mars, referred to as the “top human system capability needs for Mars”, were identified. The list includes Earth-independent human operations; Mars-duration food system; Mars-duration effects on human physiology; risk mitigations for vehicle atmospheres; computational injury and anthropometric models; exploration exercise countermeasures; individual variability in responses to spaceflight; and sensorimotor countermeasures. Existing tools and processes for strategic planning and risk management were evaluated, as well as the technical practicalities, cost, and schedule feasibility associated with potential R&TD investments in different capability need areas. This capability needs report is not owned by any one NASA organization and does not replace existing strategic or program planning processes; rather it aims to complement and inform them with a unified set of community generated priorities. These top capability needs will be re-evaluated periodically based on R&TD progress and the evolving M2M architecture.

technology gaps↗
NASA NTRS2023

Appetite and Food Intake During 11 Days of Mild Hypobaric Hypoxia

Introduction Reduced food consumption and loss of body mass and muscle mass have been observed during spaceflight. Hypoxic conditions that astronauts may encounter on exploration missions may further implicate satiety signals and dietary intake. Appetite, food intake, and satiety hormones were investigated under the conditions of mild hypoxia and high energy output during simulated extravehicular activity (EVA) to determine the adequacy of a mission relevant space food system to support energy balance and body composition. Methods Foods realistic to early Artemis missions was packed by meal for each subject for the 11-day test based on estimated energy requirements (EER) and estimated EVA caloric requirements. No hot water or food warmer was provided and only room temperature water was available to rehydrate food and beverages in-mission, mimicking plans for early Artemis missions. Measures included food records (pre-mission, in-mission); fasted body weight (pre-mission, in-mission); Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (pre-mission, post-mission); subjective ratings and feedback of food acceptability, mealtime and meal preparation sufficiency, appetite, and nausea (in-mission); and circulating ghrelin and leptin concentration in fasted blood samples (pre-mission, in-mission: pre-post EVA). Results All subjects consumed fewer calories in-mission than predicted. On average, subjects consumed 341 calories less on EVA days compared to non-EVA days in-mission (p=0.0511). The total weight loss estimate from daily weight measurements (-1.1 kg, p=0.0028) is consistent with underconsumption and supported by DXA measurements (-1.3 kg total body mass, p=0.0123 and -1.6 kg fat mass, p=0.0016). In general, most foods that were consumed were given acceptable scores, but subject comments indicated that the most acceptable foods were those not intended to be heated. Comments also indicated that subjects found their favorite foods early in the mission and avoided the foods that they did not like throughout the mission. Habitability scores indicated that overall aspects of the food system were considered borderline or unacceptable over the length of this mission. Foods that caused gas were avoided pre-EVA to prevent discomfort during pressure changes. Average fruit and vegetable intake decreased during the mission, dropping from 4.8 servings/d pre-mission to 3.4 servings/d on non-EVA days in-mission (p=0.0872) and 2.3 servings on EVA days (p=0.0020). Fasting ghrelin concentrations tended to be lower pre-EVA and on non-EVA days when exposed to mild hypoxia compared to normoxic conditions pre-mission and post-EVA (p=0.0136). Fasting levels of leptin did not change. Discussion Food intake was reduced in-mission, resulting in a caloric deficit and weight loss for most subjects. Crew food and appetite ratings and comments indicated this was due to a combination of food choices, lack of preference, lack of preparation capability, lack of time for meal preparation, consumption, and cleanup, and physiological challenges with the changing pressure. The regulation of appetite stimulating hormone ghrelin, but not the appetite suppressor leptin, appeared to be sensitive to hypoxic conditions. Conclusions Food preparation capabilities and time for meals are important for promoting adequate food intake. Reduced appetite and food intake during missions may further be aggravated under hypoxic conditions through the suppression of ghrelin. Lack of time for meals on EVA days, and avoidance of potential gas-causing foods (e.g., health promoting fruits and vegetables) prior to EVAs, demonstrate the importance of scheduling ample recovery time between EVA days.

Lichar Dillon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Instrumented Walking and Turning Test to Evaluate Suited Gait Dynamics and Performance in Extravehicular Activity Training Environments

Background and aims: Walking will be required for many exploration tasks on the Moon during the Artemis program. Walking in a straight line on the confined floorspace of a testing area, and repetitive treadmill walking that requires no change in direction may not adequately reflect the balance and coordination required during ambulation. Also, performance of turning maneuvers may be affected differently in different extravehicular activity (EVA) training facilities that simulate partial gravity. For example, the Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) simulates lunar gravity by adding weight to underwater subjects to alter buoyancy and achieve the equivalent ground reaction force of 1/6 of Earth’s gravity (1/6G), whereas the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) uses a computer controlled overhead suspension system programmed to continuously offload a percentage of a subject’s weight to simulate 1/6G. The degree to which dynamic movements such as turning are comparable across these EVA training facilities has not yet been evaluated. The instrumented gait test helps NASA scientists and engineers evaluate gait dynamics and performance in suited conditions, and this test demonstrates the unique characteristics and limitations of EVA training facilities. We developed an instrumented walking and turning test using inertial measurement units (IMUs) and conducted the test at NASA’s EVA training facilities. Results were used to compare suited walking and turning characteristics in the ARGOS and the NBL. Methods: Subjects donned the Mark III space suit during offloading with the ARGOS spreader bar gimbal and donned the Z2.5 space suit while underwater in the NBL with weights and floatation added to achieve realistic suit center of gravity. The test team securely attached three Opal (APDM, OR, USA) wireless IMUs on the space suit for each test run: one on the middle of the hard upper torso, and one on the left and on the right ankle bearings. During the NBL tests, the IMUs were encased in a waterproof housing (GoPro) with foam added to create a tighter fit. At both testing facilities, 6.3 m x 1.0 m (LxW) walking lines were marked, and a cone for turning or walking around was located at the end of the walking path with another line on the other side of the cone to indicate the stopping point after walking around the cone. Under simulated 1/6G, subjects began by standing at the marked line with their arms folded across the chest, they then walked at a preferred speed along the straight walking path until they reached the end, turned 180 degrees around the cone, and finally stopped at the marked stopping point. All IMU data recorded during testing were automatically saved to the internal memory. Then, raw IMU signals were processed using custom MATLAB (Mathworks, MA, USA) code to compare gait parameters during both the walking and the turning components of the task. These parameters included time (s), speed (m/s for walking and rad/s for turning), step number (n) and walk:turn time ratio (% time spent straight walking versus turning). Results: Less time, faster gait, fewer steps, and higher walk:turn ratio during both walking and turning components were exhibited during tests performed at the ARGOS versus those performed at the NBL. During the NBL tests, the slower walking speed continued at the same rate throughout a U-shape turn. During the ARGOS tests, the subjects performed shorter and tighter turns at 4 times the speed of the NBL turns because they walked 30% faster and the vertical offloading system gave them more support. Conclusion: Our data show that the differences in walking and turning parameters during the NBL tests may be due to the high viscosity in the water environment where the motion of the lower limbs was slow and did not reach full flexion and extension. These tests improve the current knowledge of testing environments in preparation for EVAs on the lunar surface.

Kyoung Jae Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of an Inertial Sensor-based Methodology for Spacesuited Geology Task Assessments during Simulated Lunar Extravehicular Activities

Lunar surface exploration during Artemis missions will require the specific skill set of geology sampling. Apollo astronauts had extensive training and used specialized tools to collect lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand, and dust. The inflexibility of the pressurized Apollo spacesuits forced sampling to be taken at a standstill posture. However, new exploration spacesuits are expected to incorporate advanced materials and joint bearings, allowing for greater mobility and a wider range of functional postures. Thus, science and exploration during Artemis missions will likely involve a variety of standing, squatting, and kneeling postures. In preparation for future lunar exploration missions, NASA provides geologic training to astronauts and other mission personnel. This professional training with a spacesuit in simulated lunar environments will enhance performance and reduce risk of injury to astronauts on the lunar surface. However, anecdotally, untrained or newly trained people wearing prototype planetary spacesuits have been observed to performing motions differently than a trained geologist would when conducting the same geology sampling tasks. Therefore, a tool for evaluating geology postures at extravehicular activity (EVA) training facilities becomes required. In this paper, we introduce a novel inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based method of geology task assessments in spacesuited conditions during simulated lunar EVAs. As a case study, two subjects (one geologist and one non-geologist) participated and donned the Mark III prototype planetary spacesuit during offloading with the spreader bar gimbal in NASA’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS). For automated geology task assessments, the spacesuit was instrumented with three wireless IMUs (APDM Opal, OR, USA): one on the chest and one each on the left and right ankle bearings. Then subjects performed geology tasks using various tools (rake, trench, hammer chisel, scoop, and drive tube) for 45 minutes each. The chest IMU measured the torso tilt angle in the sagittal plane. We used an ensemble learning method with the ankle IMUs to discriminate between standing and kneeling activities. IMU data were processed using custom MATLAB (Mathworks, MA, USA) software. In our case study, the developed method was able to discriminate differences in standing and kneeling activity levels between subjects who were all highly experienced with spacesuited testing. Our preliminary data showed one subject maintained the constant and lower range of the upper body tilt angle while both standing and kneeling, while the other subject showed more variation of the upper body tilt angle and preferred bending the upper body rather than changing from standing to kneeling posture and vice versa. While geology experience may be a factor, these results need further investigation as suit sizing and ARGOS offloading configurations have been proven to have a significant influence on suited ARGOS tasks. Also, more subjects will be needed to complete these tasks for validation. IMU-based geology task assessments can provide useful information for geology training programs. Additionally, our IMU-based posture analysis can provide new insights into how to evaluate spacesuited geology task characteristics of astronauts during simulated lunar EVAs.

Kyoung Jae Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Toward an IMU-based Space Suit Motion Capture System

Spacesuits are complex engineering systems that sustain human health and enable performance outside of Earth-like environments. These systems must support human mobility and physical workload demands while minimizing injury risk during extravehicular activity (EVA). Future EVA on the lunar surface during the Artemis program is expected to be more frequent and require higher physical workloads than previous EVAs during the ISS, Shuttle, or Apollo programs. Hence it is important to optimize future as well as current spacesuits to be efficient and comfortable for the success of space and planetary missions. To enable this, an efficient method is needed to test these spacesuits on the ground.When testing spacesuits in ground environments, it is often necessary to understand the kinematics of the suit to validate the design against relevant requirements or characterize the physical workload necessary to operate the suit. This is a challenging task for traditional optical motion capture (OMC) approaches: suit-mounted OMC markers are easily occluded by the subject or environment and may become detached during testing. Controlling lighting and reflectivity of objects in the motion capture volume is also difficult. Fixed-position OMC cameras also constrain testing to a small and contrived laboratory environment, disallowing kinematics capture in field environments.One promising alternative is the use of suit-mounted inertial measurement units (IMUs). These sensors are small, unobtrusive, and portable, but come at the cost of increased sensor noise and complexity of the software and mathematics to analyze the collected data. To this end, engineers at NASA are developing the Augmented Suit Inverse Kinematics (ASIK) system, a complete motion capture methodand inverse kinematics solver which relies solely on a network of wireless IMUs attached to the major kinematic segments of the spacesuit. The ASIK modeling language allows for the simple inclusion of probabilistic priors such as suit size and shape or IMU positions and rotations. Furthermore, to increase accuracy and reduce operational overhead to use this motion capture approach, the developed inverse kinematics solver exploits so-called self-calibratingalgorithmic techniques, which reduce the need for precise alignment of the sensors on the segments or scripted functional calibration procedures. The ASIK system was tested in a 7-subject pilot study. Each subject donned NASA’s new prototype exploration spacesuit in the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The subjects were outfitted with a set of 14 APDM (Portland, OR, USA) Opal IMUs, 12 of which were used in the ASIK model to estimate lower body and trunk kinematics. The subjects were also outfitted with a set of reflective OMC markers and traditional OMC data was collected and processed. Presented results will include characterization of ASIK-derived suit joint angles accuracy against an optical motion capture datum. Discussion of these results, as well as discussion of system calibration and nuances of mathematical observability, will be included.If successful, IMU-based motion capture will enable testing and validation of spacesuits more frequently, with less overhead, in more extreme environments. Future work will apply these techniques to common spacesuit testing tasks, such as gait, mobility, and balance assessment, physical workload characterization, and ergonomics evaluations.

Timothy Mcgrath↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Thermal Assessment of Traverse and Geology Task Iterations During Simulated Lunar Extravehicular Activity

Spacewalks or extravehicular activities (EVA) in microgravity are mentally and physically demanding. Current microgravity EVAs are predominantly focused on upper body tasks on engineered surfaces; however, the introduction of gravity means that crew members during future lunar EVAs will be required to perform tasks that generate full body workloads such as navigating natural lunar terrain while conducting geological sampling. To date, only 12 people have walked on the surface of the Moon resulting in limited knowledge of suited thermal regulation under lunar-relevant physical workloads. To address this gap, a study is underway to focus on spacesuit operations with simulated lunar EVA workloads. This study presents methodology for collecting standard thermal measures during suit testing. In this pilot study, two suited subjects underwent simulated lunar EVAs using the NASA Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) to simulate the effects of partial gravity. Each lunar EVA, lasting three to five hours, included various metabolically demanding EVA tasks. Subjects donned the NASA Mark III (MK III) space suit and were offloaded to 1/6th G (lunar gravity). A subset task circuit from one of these simulations replicated an EVA traverse to a lunar crater, taking a geological sample, and returning to base. The suited subject walked one 1500 m (0% grade) and three 500 m traverses at three different grades (10, 20, 30%). Between each traverse, subjects performed geology sampling tasks (0 and 10% grade). Thermal measurements included core and skin temperature, liquid cooling garment (LCG) inlet and outlet temperature, and spacesuit gas inlet and outlet temperature and humidity. Compared to baseline core temperature (S1 = 37.07±0.32 °C, S2 = 37.27±0.01 °C) and mean skin temperature (S1 = 32.38±0.34 °C, S2 = 33.62±0.03 °C), after a 1500 m traverse, each suited subject showed an increased core temperature (S1 = 37.23±0.12 °C, S2 = 37.41±0.11°C) and decreased mean skin temperature (S1 = 32.16±0.17 °C, S2 = 31.53±1.15 °C) at a delta LCG temperature (S1 = 1.86±0.24 °C, S2 = 2.20±0.76 °C) and delta suit humidity (S1 = 9.66±1.49 %, S2 = 11.50±1.58 %). Core temperature continued to increase from compounding traverse and geology tasks (S1 = 38.04±0.03 °C, S2 = 38.1±0.02 °C) accompanied by an increase in delta LCG temperature (S1 = 2.24±0.13 °C, S2 = 2.67±0.12 °C) and delta suit humidity (S1 = 28±2.42 %, S2 = 31±2.13 %). Conversely, as the circuit progressed, mean skin temperature continued to decrease due to sustained LCG heat rejection (S1 = 30.08±0.15 °C, S2 = 30.28±0.07 °C). During the simulated EVA circuit core temperature increased to elevated values and remained elevated as heat was retained while mean skin temperature decreased due to peripheral heat offloaded to the LCG. The thermal measures collected during this study provided critical heat loading dynamics during lunar EVA tasks. Including core and skin temperatures along with suited thermal measures provides a standard data collection scheme for human thermal metrics during EVA task management. Data collected in this configuration can be used to build future lunar EVA task circuits and human thermal predictions.

Bradley Hoffmann↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Preliminary Assessment of Physical Demand During Simulated Lunar Surface Extravehicular Activities

Future Artemis missions will require more advanced spacesuits to support exploration and science activities on the Lunar surface. Preparing for these missions requires an understanding of the physical and cognitive demand of performing common surface extravehicular activity (EVA) tasks in a suited partial-gravity environment. This study aims to characterize physical demand during exploration EVA tasks in the Artificial Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) as a function of the task and operational environment itself. Two subjects completed two days of EVA simulations at ARGOS in the Mark III spacesuit offloaded to Lunar gravity (1/6G). Metabolic rate (MR) and heart rate (HR) were continuously recorded while subjects completed an end-to-end EVA as well as standalone tasks. Understanding the physical demand to complete exploration EVA tasks will be instrumental to the future success of exploration spacesuit designs and missions. Further work in this study will be needed to characterize MR during exploration EVA tasks, including expanding the subject pool and testing new suit designs.

Taylor E Schlotman↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of an Inertial Sensor-Based Methodology for Spacesuited Lunar Geology Task Assessments

Inertial sensor-based task assessment while in a suited configuration can provide useful information for geology training programs and actual planetary Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). The purpose of this pilot study was to assess suited Lunar geology tasks from the postural perspective using inertial sensors and to gain a better understanding of the movements required during planetary EVAs and of the possible relationships with injury mechanisms. Professional geologist and non-geologist subjects participated in a suited geology task test, and preliminary analysis showed kinematic differences indicating a potential risk factor for lower back injury during future planetary EVAs.

Kyoung Jae Kim↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Toward an IMU-Based Space Suit Motion Capture System

Spacesuits are complex engineering systems that sustain human health and enable performance outside Earth-like environments. These systems must support human mobility and physical workload demands while minimizing injury risk during extravehicular activity (EVA). Future EVA operations on the Lunar surface are expected to be more frequent and require higher physical workloads than previously during the ISS, Shuttle, and Apollo programs. To characterize the workloads and ergonomics needs a suit must support, the kinematics of the space suit must be measured during operationally-relevant tasks in ground analog environments. Kinematics capture of the suit is challenging for traditional optical motion capture (OMC) approaches due to marker occlusion, harsh lighting or environmental conditions, and tests with suit surrogates in outdoor field environments. To this end, engineers at NASA are developing the Augmented Suit Inverse Kinematics (ASIK) system, a complete motion capture method and inverse kinematics solver which relies solely on a network of wireless inertial measurement units (IMUs) attached to the major kinematic segments of the spacesuit. The ASIK modeling language allows for the simple inclusion of probabilistic priors such as suit size and shape or IMU poses. The ASIK system was tested in a 7-subject pilot study. Each subject donned NASA’s new prototype exploration spacesuit in the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility at Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. The suits were outfitted with 12 IMUs to estimate lower body and trunk kinematics. The suits were also outfitted with a set of reflective OMC markers, and traditional OMC data was collected and processed. Characterization of the ASIK-derived suit joint angles’ accuracy against an optical motion capture datum will be presented. Discussion of these results, as well as discussion of system calibration and nuances of mathematical observability, will be included.

IMU↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Recommendations for Developing Space Suit Integrated Food Systems and Delivering Nutrition Before, During, and After Lunar EVA

INTRODUCTION Artemis missions will include a higher tempo and frequency of extravehicular activities (EVAs) than any previous space program. Because of the physical demands expected from the crew, future space suit designs are required to incorporate nutritional support to the astronauts during lunar surface EVAs lasting longer than 4 hours. The purpose of this project was to provide recommendations to aid the development of an in-suit system that can adequately, safely, and acceptably deliver nutrition to a crewmember while confined to a space suit during EVA. METHODS Physiological, logistical, and engineering aspects of potential in-suit nutrition approaches were assessed through literature reviews, assessments of commercial off the shelf (COTS) foods, suit volumetric modeling, and feedback from subject matter experts and crewmembers. Key driving factors in the development of in-suit nutrition requirements included how much and what type of nutrition should be included, what food formulations are appropriate and safe, what are inherent limitations of space suits, what are the potential risks to the crewmember in the suit, and what practices and preferences from astronauts should be considered. Design references were conceptualized and assessed for strengths and limitations as potential in-suit nutrition systems for surface EVA. RESULTS Acute exogenous energy demands vary greatly depending on activity intensity and duration, and partial energy replenishment (i.e., 60–80 kcal∙hr-1 of EVA, or 460–680 kcal for EVAs lasting up to 8 hours) during activities could improve performance, safety, and recovery. COTS foods capable of providing these energy requirements exist; however, no COTS foods have been identified that pass NASA flight standards for microbiological safety and stability. In-suit nutrition delivery design references that were considered included in-suit concepts for a prefilled drink bag, a hydratable drink bag, and a solid food stick. In addition, a helmet feed port concept was considered for use with drink bags external to the suit. Volumetric models of the in-suit drink bag concepts, based on xEMU dimensions, indicate challenges of fitting formulations > 200 ml (equating to approximately 200 kcal). Astronaut feedback on the four concepts indicated that despite some individual preferences for inclusion of solid foods and helmet port designs, the prefilled drink bag concept was the most preferred. A prefilled drink bag can only be used if food safety and stability can be ensured, possibly requiring advancements in food delivery hardware. CONCLUSION The ability to meet the increased need for nutrition during surface EVAs through provision of nutrients in the suited configuration would benefit overall crew health, performance, and morale, and thus increase the likelihood of mission success. It is recommended that in-suit nutrition capabilities provide at least 400–600 kcal within the suit during EVAs lasting > 4 hours and that suit designs include a dedicated volume for food grade nutrition systems. The developed food system should either allow for 1) installation of prefilled (sealed sterile) liquid nutrition in the suit and provide a mechanism to break the seal at the time that consumption is desired or 2) demonstrate that the unsealed food product shelf life allows for safe consumption after at least 12 hours of EVA.

space suit↗