Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Human Performance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,693 records · Page 94
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Current State and Future of the Former Central Nervous System Risk Managed by Space Radiation Element Part of NASA’s Human Research Program

Historically, the Space Radiation Element, as part of the NASA Human Research Program, was responsible for the scientific strategy and funding of research focused on characterizing and mitigating the effects of space radiation exposure on the central nervous system (CNS). During the past few years, there have been two major changes that have affected the management of the science associated with the CNS risk. The first major change was the integration of several related risks: CNS (C), behavioral medicine (B), and sensorimotor (S) to be managed as an integrated effort called CBS. CBS was formed to accelerate research on combined spaceflight stressors, specifically space radiation, microgravity, isolation, and confinement. CBS was managed by Human Factors and Behavioral Performance (HFBP) with support and inputs from Space Radiation as well as Human Health Countermeasures. Secondly, and more recently, the CNS risk was absorbed by the behavioral medicine risk currently also held by HFPB. As a result, the gaps associated with CNS were removed and aspects of them are represented in the BMED gaps (link). However, due to recent changes in element leadership, budget, and timeline, extensive restructuring of CBS is in progress. In addition, in an effort to harmonize datasets to be used in modeling efforts, an Animal Standardization TIM was held in June 2021 to standardize the type of behavioral and cognitive tasks as well as experimental set-ups used in animal models of future funded research. This presentation is an effort to communicate with the radiation research community concerning the strategy, management, and future of the former central nervous system risk and the role of the Space Radiation Element.

Janice A Zawaski↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

What Has ExMC Systems Engineering Been Up To Since Last IWS?

Long duration Lunar and Martian missions will change the way NASA currently practices medicine. The missions will require more autonomous capability compared to current low Earth orbit operations. For the medical system, lack of consumable resupply, evacuation opportunities, and real-time ground support are key drivers toward greater autonomy. Recognition of the limited mission and vehicle resources available to carry out exploration missions motivates the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element’s approach to enabling the necessary autonomy. This element promotes human health and performance in space by advancing medical systems design and risk-informed decision-making for long-duration deep-space exploration missions (LDEMs). ExMC is using system engineering processes and Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) tools to identify the user needs and requirements of LDEM medical systems. The MBSE approach to medical system design offers a paradigm shift toward greater integration between the vehicle and the medical system, and directly supports the transition of Earth-reliant International Space Station operations to the Earth-independent operations envisioned for LDEMs. This talk will provide a high-level overview of what the ExMC SE team has accomplished since the last IWS, an introduction to upcoming SE talks, and the ongoing systems engineering work.

K. McGuire↗
NASA NTRS2023

Exploration Medical Capability Science and Research Overview and Update

The mission of the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element is to advance medical system design and risk-informed decision making for exploration beyond low Earth orbit to promote human health and performance in space. In order to accomplish this mission, the Element takes a progressively Earth-independent approach to three main areas: - Answering key clinical and science research questions that will help to address the challenges of providing medical care in the extreme environment of space - Applying systems engineering processes to medical system design with the goal of developing robust requirements that can be fully integrated into future space exploration vehicle designs - Developing and demonstrating novel medical technologies that will improve future medical capabilities in space This presentation will focus on selected scientific and technical conceptual drivers for the Element, the current and future research risks and gaps, and provide an overview of the Element’s progress in 2022. In particular, it will address the ongoing effort for the IMPACT trade space analysis tool suite, the closeout work on a clinical decision support prototype, potential requirements for a long-duration lunar orbit and lunar surface medical system, and an International Space Station technology demonstration of a point-of-care laboratory analysis capability.

Kris Lehnhardt↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Testing the Exploration Conops (Excon) Mockup Suit in Lunar Analog Environments in 2022

Understanding how to effectively train for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) for Artemis missions is critical. Developing high-fidelity simulation environments is important for Artemis mission preparation. Because the actual Lunar exploration environment cannot be fully replicated on Earth, it is paramount to determine where and how to properly train the Artemis team. Tasked by the new Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility Program(EHP), a team of stakeholders from engineering, flight operations, human health and performance, astromaterials and science, and the crew office worked together to perform EVAs in 3 simulated lunar environments. The overall focus for this test series was developing the capability to perform Artemis simulated EVAs in high-fidelity, full-scale environments. This test series was broken into 3 distinct tests titled after the EHP integrated test team: Joint EVA Test Team (JETT). The test locations are planned to serve as Artemis training sites and were selected because of their relevance to the expected Artemis Lunar terrain. JETT1was conducted near Kilbourne Holeby El Paso, Texas and focused on hardware development and checkout. JETT2 was conducted in the Icelandic Highlands and began the transition towards EVA concept operations(con-ops), risks and technology.JETT3 was conducted near SP Crater by Flagstaff Arizona and focused on simulating the Artemis III mission with a simulated Houston based Flight Control Team (FCT) and a Science Mission Directorate (SMD) science team. All three JETT tests utilized the Excon mockup space suit. The Excon mockup suit is a light-weight, unpressurized Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU)simulator. While it cannot replicate the feel of working within a pressurized suit, it does introduce similar volume constraints and some of the mobility programing to simulate the user experience in the xEMU. Overall, the JETT testing was able to create a simulated Lunar EVA and have two subjects perform full scale operations in line with Artemis III mission expectations. Future work is planned to continue to improve the simulation quality of Lunar EVA simulations.

spacesuit↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Impact of Simulated Galactic Cosmic Radiation and Hindlimb Unloading on the Mouse Adrenal Gland Morphology and Histology

Stress related impact of Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) combined with microgravity in space are concerns for astronauts going beyond the Van Allen belts on their way to the Moon and Mars. The adrenal gland is the central endocrine tissue involved in stress management, adrenal hormones regulate the immune system, cellular and tissue metabolism, and glucose and sodium balances. Adult (6 m old) female (n=18) and male (n=18) C57BL/6J mice were divided evenly into 6 treatment groups (control, hindlimb unloading (HU), irradiated (IR), HU+IR, group house control, and group house IR). Adrenals were dissected and fixed for 24 h in 4% paraformaldehyde, followed by transfer to 70% EtOH, and shipment to KUMC. Adrenals were then embedded in paraffin and serial sectioned and 4 central sections from each were stained with H&E, prior to imaging on a Nikon 80i microscope. Whole adrenal cross section area, medullary area, and cortex area were determined. General adrenal gland morphology and histology did not appear to be affected by hindlimb unloading or GCR exposure. Total cross-sectional area, medullary region, and cortex of the adrenal were not different across treatment groups. Male adrenal cross-sectional areas are half the size of the female adrenals, due to a difference in cortex area. In conclusion, simulated microgravity and GCR did not dramatically affect the adrenal gland histology or size. Support from Accelerate Cancer Education Internship Program (KUCC) and KINBRE Summer Scholars Program (KUMC) and NASA Human Research Program (HRP) Human Factors Behavioral Performance Element Grant 18 18FLAG 2 0028

radiation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Decision Support System for Extravehicular Operations Under Significant Communication Latency

Within the next few decades, humanity hopes to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the surface of Mars; however, several technical and operational challenges must first be overcome. Foremost among these challenges is managing a significant two-way communication latency between Earth and Mars. Current and historical paradigms of EVA operations have required near-real-time communication between the crewmember(s) performing an EVA and an Earth-based mission control. Next-generation operational paradigms for supporting deep space exploration will necessitate a distributed decision authority system, including delayed Earth-based mission control, the on-planet extravehicular crewmember(s), and intermediate mission support from intravehicular crewmember(s) within real-time communication range. This latter group is of particular interest: they must provide operations support without the plentiful resources available to mission control on Earth. For this purpose, NASA is developing the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support (PersEIDS) software platform. PersEIDS is designed to bolster operator situational awareness and offload operator workload by automating the tracking and projection of consumables usage over an EVA timeline, providing real-time probabilistic safety assessments of an EVA timeline given consumables constraints, and recommending alternative EVA timeline(s) when the active timeline is not expected to be completed under consumables limits. The PersEIDS concept of operations, use cases, and models will be presented. A limited version of PersEIDS was demonstrated during a three-day-long study where each day a roughly four-hour-long simulated Martian EVA was performed in virtual reality at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The first day was a control trial without PersEIDS support; the second and third days represented different levels of decision support provided by PersEIDS to the intravehicular crewmember acting as mission control. With PersEIDS support, the IV crewmember was able to manage the mission to completion faster and with more remaining consumables; however, additional testing is required to understand confounding factors, e.g. training bias.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone

The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study surrounding the use of an SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as the pressure vessel for a long-duration habitat intended for use in multiple gravity environments. The Common Habitat is used within this study as the primary habitation element in both Moon and Mars surface base camps. The Common Habitat Architecture offloads the Common Habitat from its lander and transports it to a Habitation Zone instead of leaving the habitat integrated with the lander. In this study, the Landing Zone is assumed to be approximately 3.5 kilometers from the Habitation Zone. Given the physical size and estimated 90-ton mass of the Common Habitat, a four-week trade study encompassing Moon and Mars lander identification, offloading, surface transport, and emplacement was conducted in February 2021 to assess whether there are any credible options for landing the Common Habitat on the Moon or Mars and deliver it to its intended point of use. Constrained to use only public data, the study applied subject matter expert opinion to each component of the study. The surface transportation component of the trade study assumes the habitat has been successfully offloaded from its lander and is at a point of handover to the surface transportation system. It is assumed that there are no crew present, and all human operations are performed remotely by Mission Control personnel. Three core cargo handling elements from prior NASA studies were used as the basis from which to derive surface transportation options – the Chariot, the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer, and the Lightweight Surface Manipulator System. Variations and hybrid combinations of these elements were used to develop transportation options for the Moon and Mars, given different habitat masses. Ultimately, several potentially feasible solutions were identified, and a solution was recommended that is common to both the Moon and Mars, with the potential to use a dissimilar system as a backup during lunar Common Habitat delivery. Next steps for sizing and additional development and analysis of the recommended surface transportation system are included as forward work.

Surface Mobility↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Decision Support System for Extravehicular Operations Under Significant Communication Latency

Humanity hopes to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the surface of Mars; however, several technical and operational challenges must first be overcome. Foremost among these challenges is managing a significant communication latency between Earth and Mars. Current and historical paradigms of EVA operations have required near-real-time communication between the crewmember(s) and Earth-based mission control. Nextgeneration operational paradigms for supporting deep space exploration will necessitate a distributed decision authority system, including delayed Earth-based mission control, the onplanet extravehicular crewmember(s), and intermediate mission support from intravehicular (IV) crewmember(s) within real-time communication range. This latter group is of particular interest: they must provide operations support without the plentiful resources available to mission control on Earth. Thus, NASA is developing the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support (PersEIDS) software platform. PersEIDS is designed to bolster operator situational awareness and offload operator workload by automatically tracking and projecting consumables usage over an EVA timeline, providing real-time probabilistic safety assessments and recommending alternative EVA timeline(s) when the active timeline is not expected to be completed under consumables limits. The PersEIDS concept of operations, use cases, and models will be presented. A limited version of PersEIDS was demonstrated during a three-day-long study where each day a roughly four-hour-long simulated Martian EVA was performed in virtual reality at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The first day was a control trial without PersEIDS support; the second and third days represented different levels of decision support provided by PersEIDS to the IV crewmember acting as mission control. With PersEIDS support, the IV crewmember was able to manage the mission to completion faster and with more remaining consumables; however, additional testing is required to understand confounding factors, e.g., training bias.

Mars↗
NASA NTRS2023

Exploring the Complexities of Drug Formulation Selection, Storage, and Shelf-Life for Exploration Spaceflight

Medications have been a part of space travel dating back as far as the Apollo missions. Currently, medical kits aboard the ISS contain medications and supplies to help crew members cope with a variety of possible medical events. NASA reported that 1,867 medical events occurred from 1981 to 1998 on space shuttle flights, STS-1 to STS-89; 498 out of the 508 crewmembers on those flights reported experiencing a medical event other than space motion sickness. In 2000, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened a committee of experts, Committee on Creating a Vision for Space Medicine during Travel beyond Earth Orbit, to examine the issues surrounding astronaut health and safety for long duration space missions. The primary theme of the committee’s final report is that there is not enough known about the risks to human health during long-duration missions beyond Earth’s orbit and ways to effectively mitigate those risks in an environment of deep space. In 2014, the IOM convened the Committee on Ethics Principles and Guidelines for Health Standards for Long Duration and Exploration Spaceflights and released a report emphasizing the importance of prevention, mitigation, and treatment of major risks to human health during exploration spaceflight. NASA’s Human Research Program has organized five distinct categories of spaceflight hazards summarized by the acronym “RIDGE” (Space Radiation, Isolation and Confinement, Distance from Earth, Gravity fields, and Hostile/Closed Environments) that astronauts may encounter during exploration spaceflight. From those hazards, NASA further derived 30 of the most critical human health and performance risks, including limits to medical care resulting from pharmaceutical degradation. As we prepare for more distant exploration missions to Mars and beyond, risk management planning for astronaut healthcare should include the assembly of a medication formulary that is comprehensive enough to prevent or treat anticipated medical events, remains safe and chemically stable, and retains sufficient potency to last for the duration of the mission. The present editorial will summarize the current state of knowledge regarding innovative formulary optimization strategies, pharmaceutical stability assessment techniques, and storage and packaging solutions that could enhance drug safety and efficacy for future exploration spaceflight missions.

drug degradation risk assessment↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

PersEIDS: A Biomedical Decision Support System for Extravehicular Operations Under Significant Communication Latency

Humanity hopes to perform extravehicular activities (EVAs) on the surface of Mars; however, several technical and operational challenges must first be overcome. Foremost among these challenges is managing a significant communication latency between Earth and Mars. Current and historical paradigms of EVA operations have required near-real-time communication between the crewmember(s) and Earth-based mission control. Nextgeneration operational paradigms for supporting deep space exploration will necessitate a distributed decision authority system, including delayed Earth-based mission control, the onplanet extravehicular crewmember(s), and intermediate mission support from intravehicular (IV) crewmember(s) within real-time communication range. This latter group is of particular interest: they must provide operations support without the plentiful resources available to mission control on Earth. Thus, NASA is developing the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support (PersEIDS) software platform. PersEIDS is designed to bolster operator situational awareness and offload operator workload by automatically tracking and projecting consumables usage over an EVA timeline, providing real-time probabilistic safety assessments and recommending alternative EVA timeline(s) when the active timeline is not expected to be completed under consumables limits. The PersEIDS concept of operations, use cases, and models will be presented. A limited version of PersEIDS was demonstrated during a three-day-long study where each day a roughly four-hour-long simulated Martian EVA was performed in virtual reality at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The first day was a control trial without PersEIDS support; the second and third days represented different levels of decision support provided by PersEIDS to the IV crewmember acting as mission control. With PersEIDS support, the IV crewmember was able to manage the mission to completion faster and with more remaining consumables; however, additional testing is required to understand confounding factors, e.g., training bias.

Mars↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Kinematic Sensors Evaluation for Spaceflight Exercise Data Collections

INTRODUCTION: On the International Space Station (ISS), exercise feedback from astronauts is very important to diagnose and mitigate any form-related injuries and ensure efficacious exercise prescriptions and systems. Going forward, exploration exercise efforts seek to gain further quantitative data of human and system performance. Currently, methods of collecting in-flight exercise data on the ISS are limited to marker-based motion capture (MoCap) where astronauts must wear reflective markers over their clothes and specialized cameras are used. The main objective of this work was to investigate the following alternative tracking options: markerless video-based MoCap and inertial measurement units (IMUs). These were compared against traditional marker-based MoCap to evaluate kinematic accuracy and inform feasible methods for future exercise data collections on the ISS, especially in support of future Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system development. METHODS: Three test subjects performed a variety of flight-like resistance and aerobic exercises using the Miniature Exercise Device (MED-2), Concept-2 rowing ergometer, barbell mockup, bench (e.g., for bench press, hip thruster, and cycling), and a custom structure for dips. These were intended also to represent exercises which could be performed on the multi-modality European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) [1]. The marker-based MoCap data, collected through a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system, was regarded as the gold standard to compare the data against. Passive markers were affixed to each subject according to a modified full body Plug-in Gait marker set [2] with 46 total markers. The markerless MoCap data was collected using two GoPro Hero7 cameras and one GoPro Hero11 camera. For the IMU data, a full body set of 17 Xsens DOTs were placed on the subject: 10 upper body and 7 lower body IMUs. Biomechanical modeling and evaluation was conducted through OpenSim [3] (MoCap), OpenSense [4] (IMU), OpenCap [5] (markerless), ENABLE [6] (markerless), and other modeling software. Secondary objectives included comparing the volume of equipment, reducing mass and crew set-up time. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While there were issues with initial processing for the IMUs and markerless MoCap, the results aided in the understanding of each sensor, developing end-to-end processes, and identifying future needs. Some observed concerns with the markerless MoCap approaches included being cognizant of a cluttered background, number of people in field of view, camera number and placement. Some challenges with the IMUs included possible sliding, early deactivation possibly due to exercise pose, and large quantity sensor synchronization. Overall, the markerless MoCap option may be the preferred method of data collection and processing as it provides a solution for certain IMU shortcomings and may be least in equipment volume, upmass, and crew setup time. CONCLUSIONS: While this work was mainly focused on ISS data collection, these sensor data along with continued evaluation and development efforts will help to establish best methods for exercise data collection on Gateway, for other Artemis missions, and beyond. Details on the latest end-to-end processing of the data and results will be presented, along with lessons learned and recommended sensor selection and methods.

S. Faragalla↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Architectural Framework for Conceptualizing Exploration Class Medical Operations

Currently, discrete projects within NASA’s Human Research Program (HRP) take aim at providing future exploration missions with the capabilities necessary to operate within a progressively Earth-independent operative environment. Realizing an entire ecosystem that can accomplish these goals requires a clear visualization on how each project contributes to the overall objectives of Human Health and Performance (HH&P) in that context. The Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element has developed an architectural framework for exploration class medical operations by utilizing a systems engineering approach using model-based systems engineering (MBSE). This model, a System of Systems Architecture (SoSA), captures a means of integrating various independent but related efforts into a comprehensive view associated with HRP’s goal of providing progressively Earth-Independent Medical Operations (EIMO). This level of visibility is realized by identifying interfaces between development efforts and existing programs that contribute to the overall mission of EIMO even if those extend past the traditional boundary of HRP. Potential interfaces that are considered important when constructing an architecture include program/project Needs, Goals, and Objectives (NGOs), capabilities, envisioned use cases/scenarios, and system/subsystem structure. This presentation will focus on the processes that were used to generate the SoSA along with a means to realize its utility amongst other MBSE products from ExMC. Evaluation of the best architecture moving forward can then be achieved that promotes cohesion between various functional areas of HH&P. Additionally, the SoSA is developed with a long-term vision for the dynamic integration of novel technological developments that may be implemented in the future. The SoSA is intended to enable Stakeholders the ability to view the broader interconnections that exist and begin to create avenues of communication between various efforts. The benefits of a SoSA provide an essential step towards addressing the unique challenges of attaining the goals of broader exploration class medical missions of the future.

Systems engineering↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Human Research Program Grant Lifecycle & Data Integration Schedule: Infographic

The Human Research Program (HRP) Grant Lifecycle process can be described using information from several government authoritative sources with overlapping generalizations. It is the responsibility of the HRP Program Planning & Control (PP&C) Office and the Data Management Integration Office (DMIO)to interpret this information into a cohesive process that can be communicated to the human research organization. PP&C and DMIO have been exploring training opportunities to facilitate understanding through the form of infographics. This communication tool combines eye-catching visuals and text making complex information and data more digestible and shareable. The infographic poster tells a short story about a federally awarded grant and is intended to help both the new and experienced HRP workforce understand the timeline for a research procurement and where their specific tasks fall within the 4 phases of the grant lifecycle. The Pre-Award, Award, Post-Award, and Closeout phases are overlayed with business swimlanes so HRP stakeholders can see where they fit into the timeline rather than working in an isolated part. This includes the Chief Scientist Office (CSO), PP&C, the Data Management Integration Office (DMIO), the Principal Investigator (PI), the Element stakeholders, the LSDA Archivists, and the Research & Operations Integration (ROI) team along with the stakeholders in the Human Health and Performance Directorate. Additionally, the poster introduces (1) the HRP Data Integration Schedule identified in the HRP Data Management Plan HRP-48047, Table 8-2 and (2) a Smartsheet Solution to automate the grants tracking business process. Emphasis is given to the Data Integration Schedule which is the basis for the milestone tasks that are to be completed during the Post-Award phase in the grant lifecycle. The poster is also an opportunity to present the Smartsheet Solution, a software collaboration and work management tool used to assign tasks and track project progress. This PP&C FY24 effort will facilitate an end-to-end solution to track grants and provide insight to the health of HRP grant research procurements using metrics, reports, and dashboards.

J Peace↗
NASA NTRS2023

Earth Independent Medical Operations (EIMO) Training Technical Interchange Meeting, 26th October 2023: Background and Summary of Discussion

On 26th October 2023, ExMC convened a panel of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) from NASA, broadly representing Headquarters, the Human Research Program, Medical Operations, the Human Health and Performance Directorate at JSC, the Health and Medical Technical Authority, the Flight Operations Directorate, and representation from other Centers including: Ames Research Center (ARC), and Glenn Research Center (GRC). Representatives from the Canadian Space Agency also participated in this TIM. In addition, SMEs from industry included representation from the following entities: Axiom Space, Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, Level Ex, Shiny Box Interactive. Additional SMEs from academia included: University of Houston, Touro University, Weill Cornell Medical College and the Translational Research Institute for Space Health at Baylor College of Medicine. This group of stakeholders discussed the training issues related to facilitating EIMO. Sub-topics for this discussion included the following: - Pre-launch medical curriculum development - Ground-based training on medical hardware - Dental health - Behavioral health - Telemedicine - Just-in-time training - Simulation-based training (extended reality)

CMO Training↗
NASA NTRS2024

Kinematic Sensors Evaluation for Spaceflight Exercise Data Collections

INTRODUCTION: On the International Space Station (ISS), exercise feedback from astronauts is very important to diagnose and mitigate any form-related injuries and ensure efficacious exercise prescriptions and systems. Going forward, exploration exercise efforts seek to gain further quantitative data of human and system performance. Currently, methods of collecting in-flight exercise data on the ISS are limited to marker-based motion capture (MoCap) where astronauts must wear reflective markers over their clothes and specialized cameras are used. The main objective of this work was to investigate the following alternative tracking options: markerless video-based MoCap and inertial measurement units (IMUs). These were compared against traditional marker-based MoCap to evaluate kinematic accuracy and inform feasible methods for future exercise data collections on the ISS, especially in support of future Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system development. METHODS: Three test subjects performed a variety of flight-like resistance and aerobic exercises using the Miniature Exercise Device (MED-2), Concept-2 rowing ergometer, barbell mockup, bench (e.g., for bench press, hip thruster, and cycling), and a custom structure for dips. These were intended also to represent exercises which could be performed on the multi-modality European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) [1]. The marker-based MoCap data, collected through a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system, was regarded as the gold standard to compare the data against. Passive markers were affixed to each subject according to a modified full body Plug-in Gait marker set [2] with 46 total markers. The markerless MoCap data was collected using two GoPro Hero7 cameras and one GoPro Hero11 camera. For the IMU data, a full body set of 17 Xsens DOTs were placed on the subject: 10 upper body and 7 lower body IMUs. Biomechanical modeling and evaluation was conducted through OpenSim [3] (MoCap), OpenSense [4] (IMU), OpenCap [5] (markerless), ENABLE [6] (markerless), and other modeling software. Secondary objectives included comparing the volume of equipment, reducing mass and crew set-up time. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While there were issues with initial processing for the IMUs and markerless MoCap, the results aided in the understanding of each sensor, developing end-to-end processes, and identifying future needs. Some observed concerns with the markerless MoCap approaches included being cognizant of a cluttered background, number of people in field of view, camera number and placement. Some challenges with the IMUs included possible sliding, early deactivation possibly due to exercise pose, and large quantity sensor synchronization. Overall, the markerless MoCap option may be the preferred method of data collection and processing as it provides a solution for certain IMU shortcomings and may be least in equipment volume, upmass, and crew setup time. CONCLUSIONS: While this work was mainly focused on ISS data collection, these sensor data along with continued evaluation and development efforts will help to establish best methods for exercise data collection on Gateway, for other Artemis missions, and beyond. Details on the latest end-to-end processing of the data and results will be presented, along with lessons learned and recommended sensor selection and methods.

S Faragalla↗