Running to Mars:

Exercise & Environmental Physiology

of EVAs suits
Long long time ago…

12.4.1961 20.7.1969
4.10.1957
Long long time ago…
1971: Salyut, the first world space station;
1981: Space Shuttle Columbia;
1990: Space Telescope Hubble;
1997: Sojourner rover on Mars;
1998: ISS
Long long time ago…
Now…
Space Environment

Thirsk et al.,
CMAJ, 2009
Eva Suits
Russian «ORLAN» NASA «EMU»
 40 kPa  30 kPa
(300 mmHg) (225 mmHg)
100% O2 100% O2
 30’  60’ and 40’
denitrogenation preoxyge-
100% O2 nation
73 kPa
(547 mmHg)
MIR EVAs

Scheduled EVAs limited to 5.5 h

No DCS cases
MIR EVAs
MIR EVAs
MIR EVAs
Normalizing and Comparing
 v = speed; g; L = leg length

(Minetti A. E., Nature, 2001)

Normalizing and Comparing
If leg height unknown  L = subject height/1.85

If O2 expressed in W, it was multiplied by k

(W/mLO2)
RQ = 0.87;

 (J/m)

(J/m*kg)
Normalizing and Comparing
Normalizing and Comparing
Running (Fr > 1) is less efficient per unit time, but more
efficient per unit distance than walking or slow running (Fr
< 1) in space suits across g spectrum.

Increase in Specific Resistance with Froude number, as

observed in 1G below the run-walk transition, is not
observed in g < 3/8 G.

Bioenergetics of walking and running in space suits can be

explained through Froude number, surface grade, Earth-
relative gravity level and a derived pressure product factor.
Energetics

Qm, metabolic cost; Ww, external work; Wwc, counterforce work, Wwr, restore body and limb
position and orientation work; Wws, deforming space suit work; Qn, net heat loss; Qs, body
heat storage.
Energetics
Locomotion in reduced gravity, the metabolic cost of
walking at a given velocity declines;

Net oxygen consumption per unit weight carried was nearly

uniform when compared with 1-G controls
The reduction in C is obtained because of the reduce
transported weight; however, it has been observed a
reduction in mechanical efficiency (Wortz, 1968)

75% drop in in gravity produced a 72% drop in rate of energy

consumption during running ((Qm-Qb)/BM), and only 33%
decline during walking.
Energetics
Energetics
Energetics
Effects of EVAs on lung function
Effects of EVAs on lung function

Oxygen consumption remained increased of about 9%

in the 24 h after EVAs.
How to measure?
Walking at very slow speeds (< 3 km/h), metabolic
rate for suited lunar and martian environments were 17
and 28 mLO2/kg*min respectively (Nocross et al.,
2009).

About 10 mLO2/kg*min required for ambulation on a

lunar/martian-like surface (Norcross et al., 2008).

The current NASA standard requires astronauts O 2max

of 32.9 mLO2/kg*min.
How to measure?
GET (Gas Exchange Threshold):

Critical Speed:

S, treadmill speed; D’, finite distance that can be covered running above CS;
t, time to exhaustion; CS, critical speed

10 km Walkback

Field test: (i)ladder climb, (ii) agility cones, (iii) stair

climb, (iv) lateral climb, (v) box lift, (vi) step over task.
How to measure?
How to
measure?
Conclusions:
EVAs represent one of the most threatening and
difficult part of a spaceflight.

Increasing missions’ duration, EVAs will increase in

frequency and duration.

Maintaining homeostasis is fundamental to avoid

effects on health and operative functions.
Conclusions:
If microgravity seems to have positive effects on
energy cost of locomotion, spacesuits can increase the
metabolic requirements.

Quantifying and determining the metabolic need for

different tasks will be fundamental for next space
explorations.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION