Citation

Lalwala M, Devane KS, Koya B, Hsu FC, Yates KM, Newby NJ, Somers JT, Gayzik FS, Stitzel JD, Weaver AA. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2023; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10439-023-03143-y

PMID

36652027

Abstract

While astronauts may pilot future lunar landers in a standing posture, the response of the human body under lunar launch and landing-related dynamic loading conditions is not well understood. It is important to consider the effects of active muscles under these loading conditions as muscles stabilize posture while standing. In the present study, astronaut response for a piloted lunar mission in a standing posture was simulated using an active human body model (HBM) with a closed-loop joint-angle based proportional integral derivative controller muscle activation strategy and compared with a passive HBM to understand the effects of active muscles on astronaut body kinematics and injury risk. While head, neck, and lumbar spine injury risk were relatively unaffected by active muscles, the lower extremity injury risk and the head and arm kinematics were significantly changed. Active muscle prevented knee-buckling and spinal slouching and lowered tibia injury risk in the active vs. passive model (revised tibia index: 0.02-0.40 vs. 0.01-0.58; acceptable tolerance: 0.43). Head displacement was higher in the active vs. passive model (11.6 vs. 9.0 cm forward, 6.3 vs. 7.0 cm backward, 7.9 vs. 7.3 cm downward, 3.7 vs. 2.4 cm lateral). Lower arm movement was seen with the active vs. passive model (23 vs. 35 cm backward, 12 vs. 20 cm downward). Overall simulations suggest that the passive model may overpredict injury risk in astronauts for spaceflight loading conditions, which can be improved using the model with active musculature.

Keywords: Space transportation

Language: en

Keywords

Artemis; Biomechanics; Effect size; Finite element modeling; GHBMC; Human body model; Moon; Motion envelope; Spaceflight; Standing posture