Biomedical Aspects of Life-Support Systems

THE STEVER COMMITTEE REPORT had recommended that, in the development of a manned satellite program, the various types of necessary research and development go forward concurrently. This was in fact the way the Mercury program began to take shape in the winter and spring of 1959. In the course of their training the astronauts were able to provide vitally needed information for the development of life-support systems. As this research and development advanced, it was possible to test the systems through animal flights prior to actual manned ballistic and orbital flights.

Preliminary specifications for a manned spacecraft were distributed to industry in early November 1958, and a contractor’s briefing was held by the Space Task Group at Langley Field, Va., for some 40 potential bidders. Detailed specifications were prepared, and on November 14, 1958, were distributed to about 20 manufacturers who had stated their intentions to bid. By mid-December, proposals for constricting the spacecraft had been received from 12 manufacturers or manufacturing teams, and in January 1959 the McDonnell Aircraft Corp. was selected as the contractor. Negotiations were completed on January 26, 1959, and the detailed contract was signed on February 6, 1959. [1]

The development of specifications and negotiation of the contract was the end result of NACA research and development which had been in progress since early 1952, with close cooperation between military and industrial specialists. In June of that year, a small working group had been established "to analyze available information on space flight and to arrive at a concept of a suitable manned test vehicle which could be constructed within two years."[2]

As a result of the recommendation by the NACA Committee on Aerodynamics that the problems of manned and unmanned flight at altitudes above 15 miles be considered, the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory began preliminary studies. Several problem areas were immediately identified, including those of aerodynamic heating and the achievement of stability and control at very high altitudes and speeds. For the next 4 years personnel at the NACA Langley and Ames Laboratories were engaged in research on aerodynamic characteristics of reentry configurations. They also contributed to the military missile program (which is not pertinent to the present discussion).

As a result of studies conducted the previous year, Maxime Faget, later the Assistant Director for Engineering and Development at the Manned Space-craft Center, and his associates at the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory prepared a ballistic shape in November 1957 for a manned satellite development project. In January 1958 he and Paul E. Purser, later Special Assistant to the Director, MSC, conceived a solid-fuel design for the launch vehicle to be used in the research and development phase of a manned satellite project. Designated "Little Joe," this launch vehicle was used extensively in the early testing stages of Project Mercury. A report entitled "Preliminary studies of Manned Satellites—Wingless Configuration, Non-Lifting," completed by Faget, Benjamine Garland, and James T. Buglia in March 1958, was later to become the working paper for the Project Mercury development program.[3]

In the various research projects preceding Project Mercury, considerable attention had been given to the problems of acceleration and reentry forces of manned space flight. Indeed, these may be said to have been the last remaining major obstacles to manned spaceflight.

Both the German Air Force prior to World War II and the U.S. Army Air Forces had considered various techniques such as traveling in a prone position.[4] As early as 1932, H. von Diringshofen pointed out that man’s "g" tolerance would be markedly enhanced if the force were directed perpendicular to the axis of the large (great) blood vessels, as in the prone or supine position. In 1936, L. Buhrlen, from considerations based upon centrifuge experiments on supine human subjects, recommended the use of a seat which at 4 to 5 g automatically tilted backward to the horizontal. H. Wiesehofer in 1939, presumably motivated by these earlier suggestions of a tilting seat, actually flight tested a g-actuated tilting seat in a Heinkel-50 two-seated airplane, in which five passengers withstood 7g for 15 seconds without visual symptoms. In this installation, however, no flight tests were made in which the pilot utilized the tilting seat. In the Compendium of Aviation Medicine, S. Ruff and H. Strughold (1939) alluded to the work of Wiesehofer and similar observations, declaring that the g-actuated tilting seat had been shown to be "entirely practical."

Several American investigators later considered and designed g-actuated tilting seats for pilots of highly maneuverable aircraft. F. P. Dillon in 1942 patented a hydraulic g-actuated seat, and J. J. Ryan and B. H. T. Lindquist in 1943 described a spring-controlled g-actuated seat, not unlike the one von Diringshofen had described a decade and a half earlier.

W. G. Clark, J. P. Henry, D. R. Drury, and P. O. Greeley at the University of Southern California, in the early 1940’s were able to relate the positioning of the body and limbs quantitatively about the g-vector to the change in human g-tolerance. In the same period, E. H. Wood, C. F. Code, and E. J. Baldes studied the Ryan-Lindquist seat in detail for g protection provided when the seat was oriented at 45 degree from the horizontal.

In 1948, H. T. E. Hertzberg of the USAF Aero Medical Laboratory, Ohio, fabricated and tested on the centrifuge a "prone position bed" on which the human subject was easily able to withstand 12g. As an outgrowth of this and the earlier work of others, in 1949 he constructed, and in early 1950 tested, a net seat in which the supporting material was nylon raschel net which in the unloaded condition hung slack on the frame. This "slack net" was tested and was found to be extremely comfortable. It also was believed to provide lateral support to the postero-lateral aspects of the trunk.

In the period 1957-1960, J. I. R. Bowring, RAF, on duty at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, also constructed a net seat, based largely on the work of Hertzberg. His design departed from that of Hertzberg mainly in that he used as a support a raschel net material stretched taut over the seat frame. This supine seat did not display the same degree of subjective comfort as the slack net seat. It was also demonstrated that the taut net seat was unable to attenuate certain vibrational resonances of interest to human occupants.(See picture of seat construction and seat installation)

Faget and his associates in April 1958 suggested the idea of using a contour couch to withstand the high g-loads in Mercury flights.[5] In May 1958, fabrication of test-model contour couches was started in Langley shops. The couch proved to be feasible on July 30 when a subject withstood a 20-g load on the Navy centrifuge at Johnsville, Pa.[6]

Except in this one area, however, engineers and bioastronautics experts had yet to define the life-support criteria for manned space flight. Insofar as possible they would draw upon Air Force and Navy experience in the development of hardware for high-speed, high-altitude flight.

Three major factors had to be considered in the planning for the human operation of a spacecraft: (1) the stresses the astronaut would encounter, (2) the functions he would perform, and (3) the phases of the mission in which these factors would be encountered.[7]

Four categories of stresses could be expected: (1) Those caused by motions or forces, or their absence; (2) those caused by the space environment itself; (3) those caused by the spacecraft environment; and (4) those caused by the mental and physical activities required of the astronaut. Stresses caused by motions or forces included acceleration, weightlessness, noise and vibration, and oscillatory motions. Those caused by the space environment itself included radiation, micrometeoroid impact, and illumination. Those caused by the spacecraft environment included the atmosphere of the spacecraft, isolation, nutrition and waste factors, and other comfort factors. Finally, those stresses caused by the mental and physical activities of the astronaut included orientation ability, task complexity, and psychological factors.

Normally these stresses did not occur simultaneously and they were critical only during specific phases of the mission. According to Charles W. Mathews, Chief, Spacecraft Research Division, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, in an address before the International Space Science Symposium: "We are interested not only in whether the astronaut can complete the mission without undue stress, but also whether he can perform certain critical functions at the same time."[8] During the flight mission, critical stresses would occur at different points in time as different phases of the mission were in progress including powered flight, free flight, space maneuvers, operations in atmosphere, terminal flight, and surface operations.

The Mercury program—which was an experiment to test the ability of a man and machine to perform in a controlled but not completely known environment—was to start with a series of design experiments for which there were few criteria. Design philosophy based upon experiments changed as the program progressed—for example, the shape of the spacecraft itself.[9]

Because man’s capabilities to perform in space were unknown, early design philosophy was based upon automatic systems to perform the critical functions, with man riding along as a passenger and observer. Later this philosophy changed as it was increasingly demonstrated that man could effectively operate the manual controls and thereby provide a redundancy in case the primary systems failed.[10]

Design of a life-support system for Project Mercury could be accomplished by engineering and technology, but, according to Christopher Kraft, Jr., of the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, "we cannot redesign the man who must perform in space."[11] Biomedical experiments would therefore have to answer one question: Could a man adapt to an environment which violates most of the laws under which his earth-oriented body normally operates?

Mercury objectives were to be in two areas: (1) scientific, and (2) engineering and technological. The scientific concern, involving all disciplines of the life sciences, was to determine man’s capabilities in a space environment and in those environments associated with entering and returning from space. The engineering and technological problem was to place a manned vehicle safely into flight and effect a safe recovery of both man and vehicle from orbit. This total scientific and engineering-technological mission would require a life-support system that could sustain the astronaut throughout his total mission time including launch, orbit, and recovery. Dr. Stanley C. White and his deputy, Richard S. Johnston, an engineer, were to provide the focal point within the STG Life Systems Division for integrating the biomedical aspects of the life-support system within the total configuration.

According to Johnston, "one of the most complex development problems, if not the most complex problem, to be resolved in manned space flight is the life support of man in space for prolonged periods."[12] Life-support requirements for manned space flight include food, water, and atmosphere at a satisfactory pressure and composition to maintain blood-oxygen levels. To maintain a livable environment, the metabolic products of carbon dioxide, heat, and water must be controlled. Systems must be provided to collect, store, and treat human body wastes. Adequate protective systems must be devised to enable the astronaut to withstand the flight stresses—stresses expected in routine operations and those imposed by complex emergency situations.

For all system development, including life systems, certain design requirements existed, the prime one being to provide the necessary equipment in the minimum volume with the minimum weight. System reliability had to be provided in terms of the total mission reliability factor. As mission time increased, the system required revision to permit crewmen to "troubleshoot" malfunctions and to make in-flight system repairs. The systems had to be designed to withstand both the natural and the induced environmental conditions including vacuum, acceleration, heat, and radiation. Finally, they had to be revised to integrate with other spacecraft systems to allow usage of common supplies and to serve dual purposes. [13]

These were the problems that faced design engineers in the fall and winter of 1958-59 as they began the development of the Mercury life-support systems.

The environmental control system developed in Project Mercury could be considered as two subsystems, the cabin system and the pressure-suit control system.

The primary function of the environmental control system was to provide a livable gaseous environment for the astronaut. A basic requirement was to provide a 28-hour flight capability based on an oxygen consumption of 500 cc/min at standard temperature and pressure (STP) and a maximum cabin leakage rate of 300 cc/min STP. Four pounds of oxygen were needed to meet this requirement, although actually the Mercury system was to be supplied with 8 pounds to provide for complete redundancy. The next requirement was a cabin pressurization level of 5 pounds per square inch absolute (psia) with pure oxygen atmosphere. This pressure level was chosen as the best compromise to provide (1) necessary oxygen partial pressure, (2) efficient use of supply for emergency modes of operation, (3) a pressure offering small differential change during cabin decompression emergencies, and (4) a level for which decompression sickness would be minimal.

A closed-type environment was selected to conserve oxygen and thus reduce the oxygen weight and volume required. The astronaut at all times would wear a full-pressure suit to provide emergency decompression protection. The cabin system controlled the pressure between 4.0 and 5.5 psia. The heat-exchanger system was designed for an astronaut metabolic heat production of 500 British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr).

The decision to use a 100-percent oxygen atmosphere at 5 psia was based upon both engineering and physiological considerations. From the engineering viewpoint, the system incorporated the factors of simplicity, minimal weight, and reliability. Physiological considerations involved the requirement to prevent bends in the event of emergency decompression, and maintenance of an adequate oxygen partial pressure. The pressure suits would operate at a pressure of 4.6 psia following cabin decompression.

Originally it was contemplated that the pressure-suit system would be maintained with pure oxygen and that the cabin would be enriched with oxygen at launch to provide a cabin atmosphere of approximately 66 percent oxygen and 33 percent nitrogen. This was to allow the visor of the pressure suit helmet to be opened in flight. One of the major reasons for selecting the oxygen-nitrogen mixture was the fire-prevention consideration. During the early ground tests of the system, however, it was found that nitrogen gas could concentrate in the pressure suit circuit since the flow of oxygen into the suit was initiated by a slight negative pressure on a demand regulator. Consequently, cabin atmosphere was changed to 100 percent oxygen and special emphasis was placed on material selection and quality control to eliminate the potential fire hazard.[14]

The pressure suit was a backup system to the cabin atmosphere. Oxygen was forced into the suit at a torso connection by a battery-powered electric blower. In the suit, body cooling took place and a mixture carbon dioxide, water vapor, and oxygen was produced. This gas mixture left the suit by a helmet connection and entered a physicochemical treatment cycle. Odors were removed by activated charcoal, carbon dioxide was removed by the chemical absorption of lithium hydroxide, and heat was removed by the water-evaporative heat exchanger. The water vapor condensed in the heat exchanger was removed by mechanical separation. Oxygen pressure was maintained in the pressure suit by a demand regulator which metered oxygen from a 7,500-psi oxygen supply. The operation time for the system would be dependent upon the system consumables: oxygen, coolant water, lithium hydroxide, and electrical power. The design was based on a carbon dioxide production rate of 400 cc/min. [15] (See astronaut's 5-psi suit picture)

A closed-type environmental control system meeting these requirements was developed by the AiResearch Manufacturing Division of the Garrett Corp. (under a McDonnell Aircraft Corp. subcontract). This system was located under the astronaut support couch, and the astronaut was clothed in a full-pressure suit to provide protection in the event of a cabin decompression. The cabin and pressure suit were maintained at 5 psi in normal flight with 100 percent oxygen atmosphere. Although the system was designed to control the environmental conditions automatically, manual controls were provided for use in the event of automatic-control malfunction.[16]

The manned development tests for the cabin system were conducted in December 1959 at the AiResearch Manufacturing laboratories. By that time the Mercury pressure suit and the environmental control suit functioned as a unit. In October 1960, a pressure-suit control system was installed in the Johnsville centrifuge, and tests were made under both manual and emergency conditions. At that time it became apparent that the system would support the astronaut in orbital flight.[17] This phase is discussed later in the chapter.

The pressure-suit circuit provided breathing oxygen, maintained suit pressurization, removed metabolic products, and, through positive ventilation, maintained gas temperatures. The single-piece pressure suit itself was developed by the U.S. Navy, NASA, and the B. F. Goodrich Co. The Navy Mark IV was chosen as the basic suit, with modifications as requirements were clarified.

By the spring of 1959 it had been apparent that as the design and construction of the manned spacecraft proceeded, considerable coordination of Space Task Group effort would be required to monitor the McDonnell contract adequately. A Capsule Coordination Office and Capsule Review Board were established by STG. These held frequent meetings at the management level.[18]

A mockup spacecraft had been completed by March 1959. The Mockup Board recommended no major changes except in the cockpit area, and it was further recommended that these changes await the selection and initial orientation of the Mercury astronauts.

Between May and August 1959, the astronauts gave considerable attention to the cockpit area, as did other NASA personnel. Among the factors considered were:

1. The operational procedures which the astronaut must follow during routine and emergency flight.

2. The anthropometric dimensions of the seven astronauts, which demonstrated several additional inadequacies in the    placement of switches and controls of the earlier layout.

3. Studies of the dimensions of the astronauts while wearing a full-pressure garment, in both the routine unpressurized state and the pressurized state. These factors provided the basis for the spatial and geographic layout within the spacecraft so the astronauts could reach any control under both routine and emergency conditions. This layout, when correlated with the visual fields of the astronauts, demonstrated additional limitations of the initial layout.[19] Several cockpit changes were made on the basis of this information, all of which would be effective for all the manned orbital flights and for all the manned ballistic flights except the first.

Other design studies which would directly affect the comfort and safety of the astronaut included egress studies that resulted in a quick-release side door for rapid access to the astronaut and for emergency exit.

Although many minor changes were made in spacecraft equipment, only a few major changes were necessary. For example, the originally specified extended-skirt main parachute for landing was found to be unsafe for operation at altitudes above 10,000 feet, and was replaced by a similar size "ring sail" parachute. In June 1959, considerations of parachute loads and deployment during large oscillations or tumbling of the parachute led to the elimination, and then reinstallation, of the drogue parachute. Finally, the initial concept of an impact bag was eliminated, only to be reinstated because of the hazards of wind-induced loads and the possibility of land impacts after early aborts.

In the fall of 1959 the astronauts spent a period of indoctrination at the Navy Air Crew Equipment laboratory, Philadelphia. Their activities included:

1. Initial dressing, fitting, and routine ground-level pressurization of the individual suits
2. Altitude-chamber runs consisting of 1 hour in unpressurized suit with chamber at 5 psia, pure oxygen, and 1 hour in chamber pressurized to 1 psia with suit at 4.75 psia

     3. Simulated reentry with temperature, pressure, and ventilation of normal Mercury reentry and landing

     4. Work-space orientation using Mercury console mockup (referred to in the previous section)

The principal difficulty thus far encountered in the indoctrination program appeared to be that of obtaining the proper suit fit for each astronaut. L. N. McMillion, of the Space Task Group, reported in November 1959 that four of the astronauts had thus far participated in the indoctrination. (See suit development picture)

Schirra and Carpenter have received acceptable suit fits; however, Glenn’s suit still does not fit even after two retailoring efforts, and Cooper’s suit, which fit well initially, seems to have stretched more than normal during the factory run heat pressure tests.[20]

He added, however, that "Goodrich intends to keep tailoring each suit until the wearer is content; they are actively investigating the problem of stretching during the heat pressure tests." This was done for each astronaut.

Throughout the Mercury project a continuing developmental program was conducted to utilize the latest technological advances compatible with the constraints imposed by the spacecraft configuration and mission. This included, for example, such features as glove lights to illuminate the instrument panel, a urine collection and transfer system, improved shoulder construction of the suits to provide increased upper torso mobility, and a mechanical visor seal.[21]

NASA was able to draw upon the resources of the Air Force, the Navy, industry, and academic and private research institutions to develop life-support systems to protect man against the stresses of launch, orbit, reentry, and impact. As has already been noted, in April 1958 Maxime A. Faget had suggested the idea of a contour couch to withstand the high g-loads imposed by acceleration and reentry forces of manned space flight, and such a couch was subsequently developed for the Mercury astronauts. It should, in addition, be emphasized that since World War II extensive research had been carried out for the Air Force and Navy by the services, by industry, and by academic and private research institutions.[22] Particular mention should also be made of the concurrent work by C. F. Gell, H. N. Hunter, P. W. Garland, and others at the Naval Research Laboratory, and by J. P. Stapp, S. Bondurant, N. P. Clarke, W. G. Blanchard, B. Miller, R. R. Hessberg, E. P. Hiatt, Eli Beeding, and others in the services.[23] The literature in the field was extensive and experimentation applicable to high-speed flight was going steadily forward, particularly with the X-15.[24] (See pictures of training simulator and dynamic control pictures)

In the fall of 1959, the seven astronauts began intensive testing of their life-support systems as well as intensive training and indoctrination in the use of life-support systems. Part of this testing and indoctrination was accomplished on the centrifuge at the AMAL in Johnsville. Three programs were carried out, one each in August 1959, April 1960, and October 1960. The program held October 3-14, 1960, is described in some detail because this was the period in which the Life Systems Division of STG not only evaluated the astronauts’ personal equipment such as harness, couch, and pressure suit, but, also evaluated the effectiveness of the bioinstrument sensors for monitoring of biomedical data during actual flights (discussed in the following chapter). The objectives of the program were "to train the astronauts for the Mercury-Redstone mission, and to obtain basic medical data to be used to monitor the astronauts’ well-being during flights."[25] This was 6 months before the Shepard flight.

The astronauts followed as closely as possible the procedures that would be used for the actual mission. To illustrate the kind of teamwork required, the detailed assignments of the STG group are described below. Dr. C. P. Laughlin would record, process, and analyze the physiological stress information about the astronauts including pre- and post-training physical examination; monitoring and tabulation of pulse, respiratory rate, body temperature, and electrocardiogram; pre- and post-training vital capacity; pre- and post-training nude weight; and pre- and post-training volume and specific gravity of urine. The major part of the physiological stress information would be gathered by personnel of the National Institutes of Health and Dr. T. P. Henry of STG. Fluid loss and vital capacity measurements would be under the direction of Dr. William S. Augerson. Insertion of the astronauts into the spacecraft would be done by one of two teams: Dr. William K. Douglas and Joe W. Schmitt, or Dr. C. B. Jackson and Harry D. Stewart. Drs. Douglas and Jackson would also evaluate the effectiveness of the biosensor performance. The pressure suit and urine bag would be evaluated by Lee N. McMillion. William H. Bush would be responsible for the electronic part of the biomedical recording, and Morton Schler would be responsible for procurement, installation, and monitoring of the environmental control system. The couch and restraint harness would be evaluated by Gerard J. Pesman.[26]

Most of the astronauts considered their couches "reasonably comfortable." As a result of earlier studies which indicated that the astronaut needed to be able to release his harness more quickly, minor modifications were made so that the harness could be released in four simple movements. (See life support system training picture)

The reliability of the components of the Mercury environmental control system (ECS) was "completely satisfactory."

The astronauts’ pressure suits, which had been delivered in September, received their first intensive use in this period. The leakage rates for the new suits ranged from 80 to 300 cc/min, small rates compared with those of previous suits. The bioinstrumentation connector was a modified Bendix plug attached on top of the right thigh of each suit. The new connector was reliable, and a definite improvement over the snap patch previously used. The latching device for securing the inside connector to the suit "operated with some difficulty," although it was believed the suit would be acceptable for operational use. Meanwhile, B. F. Goodrich Co. would continue to investigate improved latching methods.[27]

Still another concern for the Life Systems Division had been the establishment of procedures and timing for astronaut insertion into the spacecraft as well as for postflight debriefing. It was concluded that although insertion techniques presented no major problems, insertion procedures should be practiced and should be conducted with a properly itemized checklist.

The October 1960 program had as one of its objectives the obtaining of basic medical data to be used to monitor the astronaut’s well-being during flights. During the program simultaneous measurements were made of the emotional state, metabolism of adrenal medullary and cortical hormones, and control performance during the training program. Blood and urine samples were taken before and after repeated exposure to acceleration.

This program was directed by Dr. G. E. Ruff of the University of Pennsylvania (who, during his tour of duty with the Air Force, had participated in the astronaut-selection stress tests at WADC). Urine samples were analyzed at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and blood samples by Dr. Kristen Eik-Nes, University of Utah. Dr. Ruff also interviewed all the astronauts at least once. All the astronauts took simple pencil and paper tests for evaluation of their emotional state.[28]

Through the remaining months before the Shepard flight, the astronauts would continue their intensive training pace at Langley and at Cape Canaveral. Up to the last moment, advances in technology would be incorporated into the life-support systems to the degree possible under the constraints imposed.

[1] Paul E. Purser, Spec. Asst. to Dir., Project Mercury, Memo for Files, Subj.: Additional Background Material on Project Mercury, May 11, 1960. See also, "Agenda: Briefing NASA-Space Task Group, November 7, 1958." Participating in this briefing were: Robert Gilruth, "General Background of NASA Manned Satellite Program"; Maxime A. Faget, "Description of Development and Qualification Program and Discussion of Various Missions"; Alan B. Kehlet, "Configuration Requirements and Details"; Aleck C. Bond, "Present Status of Heat Protection—Heat Sink Versus Ablation"; Andre Meyer,"Structural Requirements"; Robert G. Chilton, "Stabilization Control Requirements"; Jack C. Heberlig, "Human Support System, Environmental Control System, Landing System, and Recovery System Requirements"; Howard P. Kyle, "Communications"; Clifford H. Nelson, "Instrumentation"; and Charles H. Zimmerman, "Bidding Information."

[2] Project Mercury, NASA Fact Sheet 195, Manned Spacecraft Center, July 1963, pp. 2-3.

[3] Ibid., p. 3.

[4] The literature in the field is extensive. See for example: (1) W. G. Clark, "Effect of Changes in the Position of the Body and Extremities on Seated Man’s Ability to Withstand Positive Acceleration," Unpublished National Research Council Monograph, 1946; (2) W. G. Clark, "Tolerance of Transverse Acceleration with Especial Reference to the Prone Position," Unpublished NRC Monograph, 1946; (3) Personal communication, Walter B. Sullivan, Jr., with H. T. E. Hertzberg, C. E. Clauser, and F. W. Berner, Aeromedical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; J. P. Henry, M.D., Dept. Physiology, USC; William G. Clark, Veterans Administration Hospital, Sepulvada, Calif.; E. J. Baldes, Ph.D., Department of Defense; Mr. Harvey Holder, Engineering Directorate of Defense and Transport System; Mr. Richard Peterson, Research and Technology Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, May 1965.

[5] Project Mercury, NASA Fact Sheet 195, Manned Spacecraft Center, July 1963, p. 3.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Charles E. Mathews, "United States Experience on the Utilization of Man’s Capabilities in a Space Environment," in R. B. Livingston, A. A. Imshenetsky, and G. A. Derbyshire, eds., Life Sciences and Space Research (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963).

[8] Ibid., p. 144.

[9] Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., "A Review of Knowledge Acquired From the First Manned Satellite Program," NASA Fact Sheet 206, Manned Spacecraft Center, circa Aug. 1963.

[10] Edward R. Jones, "Man’s Integration into the Mercury Capsule," presented at the 14^th Annual Meeting, American Rocket Soc., Washington, D.C., Nov. 16-19, 1959. See also Robert B. Voas, "Project Mercury: The Role of the Astronaut in Project Mercury Space Flights," presented at the VPI-NSF-NASA Conference on Physics of the Solar System and Reentry Dynamics, Blacksburg, Va., Aug. 10, 1961.

[11] Kraft, op. cit.

[12] R. S. Johnston and E. L. Michel, "Spacecraft Life Support Environment," NASA Fact Sheet 115, Manned Spacecraft Center, Dec. 1962. See also C. P. Gell, E. L. Hayes, and J. V. Correale, "Developmental History of the Aviator’s Full Pressure-suit in the U.S. Navy," J. Aviation Med., vol. 30, no. 4, Apr. 1959, pp. 241-250.

[13] Johnston, op. cit.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Johnston reported (ibid.) that these oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production rates originally established for Mercury had not been exceeded, and that flight data had been determined grossly at 360 cc/min.

[16] See, for example, Stanley C. White, Richard S. Johnston, and Gerard J. Pesman, "Reviews of the Biomedical Systems Prior to the MR-3 Ballistic Flight," an undated manuscript circa winter 1959-60. See also Richard S. Johnston, "Mercury Life Support Systems"; Anton A. Tamas, "Toxicological Aspects of Closed Atmospheric Systems"; William R. Turner, "Regenerative Atmosphere Systems for Space Flight"; and E. L. Hayes and Roland A. Bosee, "Development and Evaluation of Bio-Astronautic Life Support Systems," all in Life Support Systems for Space Vehicle, SMF Fund Paper No. FF-25, IAS, Jan. 1960.

[17] See also William S. Augerson, James P. Henry, et al., "Project Mercury, Life Systems Aspects of Third Mercury-Aviation Medical Acceleration Laboratory Centrifuge Program," NASA Project Mercury Working Paper No. 187, Apr. 20, 1961.

[18] This section is based on Purser, Memo for Files, op. cit.

[19] Ibid., p. 3.

[20] L. N. McMillion, Life Systems Br., Memo for Chief, Flight Systems Div., Subj.: Trip Report, Nov. 20, 1959.

[21] Richard Johnston, Edward L. Hayes, and Lawrence F. Dietlien, "Crew Systems Development In Support of Manned Space Flight," an undated manuscript circa summer 1963.

[22] The reader is referred particularly to the following references: Ralph L. Christy, "Effects of Radial and Angular Accelerations," including 33 footnote references; John Paul Stapp, "Effects of Linear Acceleration," with 10 footnote references; Paul Webb, "Temperature Stresses," with 26 footnote references; James B. Nuttall, "Escape, Survival and Rescue," with 54 footnote references; Lawrence E. Lamb, "Cardiovascular considerations," with 13 references; and Hubertus Strughold, "Space Medicine," all in Harry G. Armstrong, Aerospace Medicine (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1961). See also Human Acceleration Studies, Publication 913, NAS-NRC. This includes an excellent bibliography by George Bates, a proposed physiological acceleration terminology with a "Historical Review" by Carl C. Clark and Richard J.Crosbie, and a discussion by Rufus R. Hessburg, "Acceleration Environments Pertinent to Aerospace Medical Research." See also Carl C. Clark and Dennis Faubert, "A Chronological Bibliography on the Biological Effects of Impact," Martin Engineering Rep. 11953, Sept. 1961, and additions prepared by Dr. Clark as a result of the Symposium on Impact Acceleration Stress held under the auspices of the Man-in-Space Committee of the Space Science Board, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, at San Antonio, Tex., Nov. 27-29, 1961. See also Ashton Graybiel, "Significance of Vestibular Organs in Problems of Weightlessness"; R. Grandpierre and F.Violette, Contribution a l’Etude des Effets de l’Apesanteur sur le Systeme Nerveux Central du Rat"; U. V. Parin and O. G. Gazenko, "Soviet Experiments Aimed at Investigating the Influence of Space Flight Factors on the Physiology of Animals and Man"; all in Livingston et al., Life Sciences and Space Research, op. cit.

[23] See, for example, C. F. Gell and P. W. Gard, "Problem of Acceleration," NAVPERS 10839-A, Navy Dept., 1955. See also S. Bondurant, N. P. Clarke, et al., "Human Tolerance to Some of the Accelerations Anticipated in Space Flight," U.S. Armed Forces Med. J., vol. 9, no. 8, Aug. 1958, pp. 1093-1105.

[24] The principal human centrifuges throughout the world included those in the United States at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; the University of Southern California; the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla.; The Naval Air Development Center, Johnsville, Pa.; in Canada, the Canadian Air Force, Toronto; in England, the Royal Air Force, Farnborough; in France, the French Air Force, Brettigny Flight Test Base; in Germany, the Institute of Aviation Medicine, Bad Nauheim; in Sweden, the Swedish Air Force, Stockholm; and in Japan. Others were under construction.

[25] Augerson, Henry, et al., op. cit.

[26] Ibid., p. 21.

[27] Ibid., pp. 7-9.

[28] Ibid., p. 7

Previous Page	Next Page

	JSC Home Page   NASA Home Page
	What you need to know about NASA JSC Web Policy
	Curators: Afzal Ahmed  and Julie Oliveaux
	Responsible NASA Official: Judith L. Robinson, Ph.D.
	Several NASA centers participate in the Life Sciences Data Archive project: Judith L. Robinson, Ph.D., LSDA Project Manager Paul X. Callahan, Ph.D., Data Archive Project Manager at NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) Judith L. Robinson, Ph.D., Data Archive Project Manager at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Bridgit O'Hara Higginbotham, Data Archive Project Manager at Kennedy Space Center (KSC)
	Last Modified