Motion sickness susceptibility during rotation at 30 rpm in free-fall parabolic flight

Free fall per se whether in parabolic or orbital flight may be regarded as a “partial” motion environment with respect to eliciting motion sickness, requiring an additional component to render this environment “complete” or stressful. Parabolic flight in toto falls in the category of a “complete” motion environment in that some persons became motion sick with head fixed and eyes closed. In the present experiment we selected subjects who were symptom free or nearly symptom free in the KC-135 with head fixed. All tests were conducted with the subject rotating at 30 rpm in a rotating litter chair, and comparisons were made between head-fixed and head-moving conditions (right-left) in the free-fall phase of parabolic flight and under simulated free-fall phases in the laboratory. With head fixed most subjects were insusceptible; with head moving left-right susceptibility was slightly higher in the laboratory than aloft. An additional comparison was made correlating susceptibility in the free-fall phases of parabolic flight with susceptibility to experimental motion sickness in Skylab. In both situations cross-coupled angular accelerations were generated by executing head and body movements out of the plane of rotation. In parabolic flight 9 of 15 subjects reached an endpoint just short of frank motion sickness. In the Skylab workshop all eight of the astronauts tested were symptom free at the end of the test. The explanation for the difference in susceptibility rests in two factors: (1) Basic susceptibility in free fall is lower than on the ground, and (2) in Skylab the astronauts who needed to adapt had achieved this goal prior to the first test on Mission-Day 8.