Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Preston Greenhalgh

Publications and source records attributed to Preston Greenhalgh.

9 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Transient Accelerations White Paper

Recently, the United States announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 [8]. Lunar landing (and subsequent Mars landing) architecture was not considered when the current NASA standards and vehicle design requirements for crew injury risk were developed. Therefore a gap exists in protecting the crew in planetary landing scenarios. One of the interesting aspects of this design reference mission (DRM)is the consideration of having the crew stand during dynamic phases of flight. Although this approach was contemplated for the Apollo Lunar Module, current NASA standards do not address design solutions that allow the crew to stand. Currently, NASA uses several tools and associated limits to mitigate crew injury because of dynamic loads. Some of these tools are the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion (BDRC) model and Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) [10]; and these have several limitations for assessing spaceflight loading environments, as well as specific underlying assumptions that may not be applicable in planetary landing vehicles. The BDRC is a simple lumped mass parameter model developed by the U.S. military, and has been used primarily to evaluate injury risk associated with aircraft ejection systems. The model evaluates seat accelerations in each axis to determine injury risk. Because the model treats the human-seat-restraint system as a single system, it is contingent on a restraint system and seat with similar characteristics of the original test data underlying the model. In particular, the model requires a rigid seat with a minimum natural frequency of 15Hz, minimal seat pan padding, side supports, and multipoint harness. The BDRC model uses undamped natural frequency and damping coefficients based on these requirements and any deviations may render the model injury predictions void. In lunar landing, one expects that a minimal or even no seat with minimal restraints will be employed. In this case, the original model parameters are likely to not be applicable. For capsule-based spacecraft returning crew to Earth, the Hybrid III ATD in various sizes also is used to supplement the BDRC. This analytical tool was added to address limitations in the BDRC related to spacecraft landings while wearing a pressure garment and helmet. Although the Hybrid III ATD has additional measurement capability; head, neck,and lumbar spine responses were the only metrics included because of the limitations imposed by the model.Lunar landing acceleration limits must assume the crew is standing during landing, an orientation for which we have limited data.Although the Apollo missions did employ a standing orientation for the crew, much of the data is lost. Therefore data from othersources havebeen examined to inform lunar landing acceleration limits.

Jeffrey T Somers↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Reconstructions

Introduction: Recent data show a landing-attributed injury rate among Soyuz crew members to be higher than predicted in original certification analysis. New vehicles being developed for NASA are being certified using analytical tools to quantify injury risk. This assessment will provide data to allow the Agency to evaluate whether these tools are able to capture true injury risk and allow a comparison between Soyuz landings and upcoming vehicles. Methods: A finite element model (FEM) of the Soyuz descent module (DM) and its landing environment were developed to recreate Soyuz landing conditions. Occupant breakout models composed of the Soyuz seat and Sokol helmet were then developed to evaluate occupant response. These models included both anthropomorphic test device (ATD) and human body model (HBM) surrogates in three anthropometric sizes. A generalized distribution analysis of the Soyuz landing environment was performed using landing variable distributions from available literature. Results were used to identify trends in vehicle landing acceleration with landing conditions and to compare landing model injury risk predictions with those estimated in vehicle certification analysis. Next, historic Soyuz landings identified as inducing occupant injury during were reconstructed using the developed landing model and estimated landing conditions. Results and Discussion: This assessment demonstrated the capability of certification metrics, which include a combination of vehicle- and occupant-level injury risk analysis, to identify elevated injury risk landing conditions. However, the developed landing load predictions were limited by available vehicle and landing condition data. Additional data, particularly landing acceleration data specific to historic Soyuz landing conditions, would greatly enhance this assessment’s findings.

Preston Greenhalgh↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and human Volunteer Responses in Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to validate the safety of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded in human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa Reiber↗