Biomedical Planning for Launch, Tracking, and Recovery

WHILE THE ASTRONAUTS were in the midst of their training and indoctrination program in the summer of 1959, plans were underway to develop testing facilities for both manned and unmanned vehicles. NASA had turned for assistance to DOD, which controlled the Atlantic Missile Range, including the Cape Canaveral Missile Test Center, Cape Canaveral, Fla. Since 1951 this range had been used to test missiles.[1]

The Executive Agent for DOD was the USAF, with its Air Force Missile Test Center at Patrick Air Force Base, a few miles inland. Organizationally, the Test Center was a part of the Air Force Research and Development Command. Maj. Gen. D. N. Yates was Commander of AFMTC and Col. George M. Knauf, USAF (MC), was staff surgeon at AFMTC, Patrick AFB. These two officers were to play an increasingly important role in the development of NASA’s Project Mercury.

On August 10, 1959, the Secretary of Defense designated General Yates the Department of Defense Representative for Project Mercury Support Operations.[2] There would be a Naval deputy to assist in recovery operations for Project Mercury.[3] As DOD Representative for Project Mercury Support Operations, General Yates would be responsible for the preparation and submission for review and approval of top-level plans and requirements in support of Project Mercury, including appropriate recommendations for implementation. (During development, these plans would be coordinated as appropriate with the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, office of the Secretary of Defense. Completed plans would be forwarded by DDR&E to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who in turn would review them and provide comment and recommendation for final approval by the Secretary of Defense.) General Yates would direct and control DOD facilities, forces, and assets assigned for support of Project Mercury. DOD performance of specific missions assigned for support of Project Mercury was also his responsibility, although budget aspects of DOD participation would conform with policies and procedures of the Office of the Comptroller and Director of Public Affairs.

In the basic memorandum of August 10, the Deputy Secretary of Defense clarified policies and procedures:

For the next 11 months General Yates would serve both as Commander, AFMTC, and as DOD representative for support of Project Mercury. On July 9, 1960, he was succeeded by Maj. Gen. Leighton I Davis, USAF.[5] Meanwhile, on December 1, 1959, General Yates officially designated his staff surgeon, Colonel Knauf, as his Assistant for Bioastronautics.[6] He served in this capacity for the next 25 months.[7] (See chart on organization of Space Task Group) and DOD medical support picture)

MEDICAL MONITORS

As early as October 29, 1959, Dr. Stanley C. White, STG, had noted in a memorandum for the Project Director that as Mercury moved into actual manned operations, there would be "fairly considerable requirements for additional medical support in monitoring recovery, and postflight research and support."[8] (See medical tracking network picture)

A plan of action was offered which envisaged using medical personnel from the various Federal medical services, particularly the Department of Defense. Basic assumptions were that appropriately trained personnel from all branches of the service would be used; that Mercury was sufficiently important as a national effort to justify unusually extensive medical support; that most personnel would be obtained for training and duty on a temporary basis; that whenever possible, personnel would be assigned at or near their normal duty station; that although Space Task Group, NASA, would prefer to request certain persons by name, this was not always practical; that STG should reserve the right to review records and qualifications and to interview persons to be assigned in direct support of Mercury; that STG would supervise training, with the right to delegate much of the work; that monitoring personnel would be responsible to the Project Manager; and that wherever possible, Mercury would attempt to accomplish other national objectives as a byproduct of the mission.

The following day, October 30, a detailed plan for medical monitoring of Project Mercury was forwarded to the Project Director by Dr. Augerson, then on duty with the Life Systems Branch, of which Dr. White was Chief. The purpose of the medical monitors for Project Mercury would be to preserve the health of the pilot by providing remedial advice, during the flight, evaluating the current medical status of the pilot, and correlating spacecraft data and physiological data with the mission profile. The medical monitors also would provide medical advice to flight directors, station directors, and recovery commanders as appropriate; provide preventive medicine advice and medical care for personnel at remote sites; gather research information in space medicine; and train personnel for support of future space projects. A schedule was outlined for individual and team training.

By mid-November 1959 these preliminary discussions were in the process of being formalized. On the 13^th of that month the newly appointed Associate Director of Project Mercury (Operations), Walter C. Williams, who had been designated the single point of NASA-DOD operation contact, requested that General Yates assist in making the necessary arrangements for obtaining medical support for Project Mercury.[9]

Recognizing that it would not be feasible to detach medical personnel from their present duty station and assign them full time to Project Mercury, the Associate Director of Project Mercury suggested that they be assigned on temporary duty for training and actual operations.

Requirements for recovery medical personnel, it was noted, would have to await a more detailed analysis of the recovery system. It was contemplated, however, that the Department of Defense would be asked to deploy one or two field medical units or to augment certain existing facilities. Capt. Ashton Graybiel, USN (MC), Director of Medical Research for the Naval School of Aviation Medicine, was mentioned as being "eminently desirable" as head of the medical recovery and research program.

A summary of the monitor plan was enclosed in William’s letter to General Yates. (See app. B.) Certain questions, however, remained to be answered. For example, the Associate Director of Project Mercury asked if it would be feasible to train and deploy physicians on a temporary duty basis. How would medical support be controlled and administered? What additional personnel in excess of NASA requirements would be trained? What were the estimates of the cost? Could it be assumed that NASA would be required to pay only the travel and per diem allowances of assigned officers? Could some assignments be integrated with other Service medical plans and assignments? Would it be possible for NASA to express a particular interest in certain personnel by name? These and other details had yet to be worked out.

On December 11, 1959, a little more than a week after Dr. Knauf was officially designated the Assistant for Bioastronautics for DOD support of Project Mercury, the STG aeromedical team met with DOD representatives, including him, to brief them on the medical requirements for Project Mercury. Earlier concepts were clarified. The medical monitors, it was reiterated, would preserve the health of the pilot by giving remedial advice during the flight, evaluating the current medical status of the pilot, and relating spacecraft data on physiological data with the mission. They would provide medical advice to the flight director, station director, and recovery commander as appropriate. They would also provide preventative medical advice and medical care for personnel at remote sites, gather research information in space medicine, and train personnel for future space project support.[10]

Medical monitors obviously would require a detailed knowledge of the Project Mercury mission and spacecraft. They would also require personal knowledge of the astronauts and their physiological responses in stressful training. Further, they would need experience with Mercury monitoring equipment as well as experience in missile or other analogous monitoring. Finally, they must have the professional capability to correlate psychological, environmental, and physiological changes indicted by instrumentation. A list of qualified military medical personnel to be used was proposed by the Space Task Group. In addition, it was proposed that entire classes from the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Texas, assist in the monitoring operation so as to provide more depth for continuing space flight operations.

There would be two types of monitoring stations for Project Mercury: The purely monitoring stations which could make medical recommendations to the pilot or assist the control center in decisions, and the command stations which, together with certain launch and control central positions, were to be regarded as key sites. The monitors there should be the most familiar with Mercury operations. Assignments of the "key site" medical officers would be as follows:

These requirements were already clear, STG reported. Still to be determined were the medical requirements for the Bermuda station, the normal retrofire command station, and possibly the Canary Island station.

It was noted that, by the time manned operations were begun, five Air Force officers and one Army officer would have detailed knowledge of the astronauts and Project Mercury, and it was recommended that they be considered key Space Task Group Personnel. Already detailed to STG were three Air Force officers: Dr. White, now chief of Crew Systems Branch, STG; Dr. Douglas, Flight Surgeon, assigned to the astronauts; and Dr. Henry, on duty with Dr. White (as coordinator of the animal program). There was also Dr. Augerson, of the Army, who had been one of the original aeromedical consultants for Project Mercury. In addition, Dr. Knauf, the assistant for Bioastronautics, and Dr. Rufus Hessberg, an Air Force colonel assigned to Holloman AFB but working intimately with the Space Task Group in support of the animal program, should be considered part of STG at the time of launch. This was later to become fact.

It was suggested that three cardiologists serve as consultants: Dr. Larry Lamb, on duty in a civilian status at the School of Aviation Medicine; Dr. Per Lanjoen, cardiologist at the William Beaumont Army Hospital in California; and Dr. Samuel M. Sandifer, Chief of Cardiology, Tripler Army Hospital, Hawaii. Alternate personnel included Dr. Clyde Kratochvil, a USAF flight surgeon holding a doctorate in physiology, and Drs. Charles Berry and William R. Turner, both USAF flight surgeons and Board certified in Aviation Medicine. Finally, a tentative list of other proposed medical monitors was attached. (See app. B.)

Training and indoctrination for the medical monitors envisaged a 5-day tour of duty during which the monitors would become acquainted with the astronauts. Also, they would be briefed on such topics as the Mercury spacecraft mockup, environment, monitoring equipment, full-pressure suit, recorded reviews of simulated missions, systems, and research objectives. They would visit the Navy installations at Johnsville and at Philadelphia as well as Holloman AFB (where the Air Force was carrying out the Mercury animal program for NASA). Team training would follow individual training, and shortly before an actual mission there would be an extensive team drill at Cape Canaveral.

Following this briefing, DOD representatives and the NASA Space Task Group consolidated a suggested list of military personnel for submission to the Associate Director, Project Mercury. The individuals named—military and civilian—were those suggested by the three military service representatives[11] at the close of the Space Task Group briefing on the medical requirements for Project Mercury support.

During the next few days the Space Task Group considered these individuals in the light of the background material submitted by the Service representatives. Also, STG attempted to correlate, insofar as possible, the professional and technical skills of the individuals concerned with the type and magnitude of the medical responsibilities envisaged for each global range station at which it was planned to conduct aeromedical monitoring during Project Mercury flight operations.[12] By late December 1959, STG had completed its review of the list of recommended medical personnel.[13] It was planned that the proposed training program would get underway by March 1, 1960.

Since the medical monitors would be receiving telemetered information from the astronaut in flight, they bid to be indoctrinated in the techniques to be used. Special mention should be made of the four 3-day re-fresher courses that were subsequently given at the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine by Dr. Larry Lamb, who was to serve as a consultant to STG. Since a major portion of the medical monitoring would consist of the interpretation of telemetered information from the astronauts in orbital flight, NASA requested that he develop a course to train monitors in the electrocardiographic and cardiovascular aspects of space flight.

In September 1960, as a first step, he recorded important biological variables of the seven astronauts. Together with information gained through aeromedical evaluations of the Air Force flying population over a period of years, this information formed the basis for the courses given to medical monitors in December of that year.[14] Mention should also be made of the 59-page guidebook entitled "Medical Problems at Tracking Stations Supporting Project Mercury" prepared by Col. Harold V. Ellingson, USAF (MC), for use by monitors stationed at telemetry and tracking stations for Project Mercury. [15]

STG-DOD MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARD

In early April 1960, Dr. Douglas, the astronauts’ personal physician, initiated action through Dr. Knauf, the Assistant for Bioastronautics to the DOD representative, to organize and coordinate a joint STG-DOD Medical Advisory Board. The board, which would meet at the request of STG, would review medical operational plans to insure that all aspects of the astronauts’ preflight physical examination, in-flight medical monitoring, and postflight examination and debriefing had been adequately considered. The Board would operate on a continuing basis, studying all pertinent medical data from each successive flight with a view toward taking corrective action prior to the next flight.

At the first meeting, held at the Aviation Medical Acceleration Laboratory, WADC, Johnsville, Pa., on April 13, 1960, members were asked to determine in their own fields what types of biological measurements should be made on the astronaut and on the vehicle itself.[16] Both the Space Task Group representative, Dr. Douglas, and the DOD representative, Dr. Knauf, wanted to obtain the assistance of a select group of specialists from within the military services to review the proposed postflight medical support. Such a review would, it was believed, lead to a final medical support plan that would be adequate in the light of the national significance of Project Mercury, yet would not commit critically short medical resources unnecessarily. On May 2, therefore, the Assistant for Bioastronautics forwarded a letter to the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery and to the Office of the Surgeon General, USAF, stating that STG/NASA had requested him to provide a selected group of medical officers to assist in reviewing Project Mercury medical operational plans to insure that all objectives of the astronauts’ preflight physical examination, inflight medical monitoring, and postflight examination and debriefing had been adequately considered and provided for. Two Navy medical officers, Capt. Ashton Graybiel and Capt. Edward L. Beckman, and two Air Force medical officers, Lt. Col. David G. Simons and Capt. James Roman, were selected.

DOD MERCURY CONSULTANT PROGRAM

Meanwhile, it had become increasingly clear that the nature and scope of biomedical requirements would demand the detailed knowledge of physicians in the various specialties. The concept of a consultant service in addition to the STG-DOD Advisory Board was gradually taking shape. In a letter to the Surgeons General of the three services dated April 16, 1960, Dr. Knauf, the Assistant for Bioastronautics, requested that each Surgeon General nominate from his service the individual most eminently qualified to render consultant service in each of the following specialties: General surgery, orthopedic surgery, pathology, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, internal medicine, and anesthesiology.[17] From this total list it was proposed to select a committee made up of a single representative of each specialty as a principal member, with the remainder of the nominees acting as alternate committee members. Colonel Knauf and Captain Graybiel would act as cochairmen of the committee.

On June 1, 1960, all the nominees met with the cochairmen in Washington, D.C.[18] Following a briefing on the potential biomedical problems facing the Mercury astronauts, the chairmen requested that the medical officers in each specialty from each of the three services meet as a group and determine which of them would serve as principal consultant for Project Mercury. The other two would serve as alternate or backup members.[19]

The group defined their objectives as follows:[20]

With the organization of this Professional Advisory Committee, which had absorbed the members of the original STG-DOD Medical Advisory Board, planning could go steadily forward. In late June the committee gathered at Patrick Air Force Base, Fla., for a 2-day meeting. On June 28 the committee inspected various facilities at the 6550^th USAF Hospital at Patrick AFB, giving special attention to surgery, central supply, recovery room, clinical laboratory, and the X-ray department. The members proceeded to Cape Canaveral where they inspected facilities for possible use as a forward medical station. Time was growing short and problems had yet to be resolved.

At a roundtable discussion at Cape Canaveral, the committee directed its attention toward the possible integration of Patrick Air Force Base Hospital into the Mercury Medical Support System, and concluded that the hospital could be used to perform the support mission contemplated in connection with Project Mercury medical recovery operations. It was their opinion that the professional staff at Patrick AFB Hospital should include at the time of manned launches the following additional personnel: neurosurgeon, general surgeon (qualified in thoracic surgery), orthopedic surgeon, plastic surgeon (traumatologist), internist, anesthesiologist, pathologist, radiologist, urologist, nurse (qualified in neurosurgery), neurosurgical technician, orthopedic technician, urological technician, and an officer trained in clinical chemistry. In addition, the committee recommended that certain selected items of equipment be added.

Besides increasing the medical resources at Patrick AFB Hospital for recovery purposes, the committee strongly recommended that a forward medical facility be located on Cape Canaveral to render emergency care in the event of injury to an astronaut. This facility would be prepared to treat shock and to provide any other care that might be necessary to prepare the astronaut for transport to Patrick Air Force Base Hospital.

Although the STG staff had originally proposed that a team be organized to function as the first echelon of medical care—a mobile unit transported by helicopter—the committee now recommended that the forward medical station be designed to support these activities. Seeking a facility located in a permanent or semipermanent structure which would have electrical power, potable water supply, and air conditioning, the committee recommended that this forward medical station be housed in the Ground Air Transmitter Building or an equivalent building equally accessible to the skid strip. If such a building were not available, it was recommended that it be constructed. Trailers and tents would be the last resort. To staff this forward medical station, the following professional and subprofessional personnel were to be assigned: one traumatologist, two anesthesiologists, and two independent-duty technicians.

By the summer of 1960 plans were completed, and in late June 1960 the Professional Advisory Committee visited Grand Bahama Island and Grand Turk Island in an effort to develop a better understanding of the medical parameters of Project Mercury manned flight operations. As a result of this visit, the committee recommended that the medical facilities on Grand Bahama Island and Grand Turk Island include at least 1,200 square feet and be comparable to those at Patrick AFB. It was suggested that quonset huts equipped with one operating room be utilized. No additional space for debriefing would be needed, since this could be conducted in the medical facility. It was contemplated that the astronaut would ordinarily not be held on these islands for more than 48 hours, with 72 hours as a maximum. No convalescent period was foreseen.

The committee also considered other vital points of medical support.

Thus did the large-scale medical complex for support of Project Mercury manned flight begin to take shape. [21]

On July 6, 1960, following this meeting, the Associate Director of Project Mercury, Walter C. Williams, summed up the STG medical requirements for launch, flight, and recovery in a letter addressed to the DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations:

The level of acceptable medical care was to be in two categories: Emergency Surgical Care and Specialty Care. The Associate Director of Project Mercury described each:

With respect to Recovery Operations, it was noted that STG had requested a study by Captain Graybiel to determine the desirable medical services. This study now having been completed, STG desired to implement certain of its conclusions by a request for necessary aeromedical support of recovery operations.

PLANS FOR RECOVERY OPERATIONS

Because the Mercury concept included water landing of the spacecraft, the problems of search and recovery were to be given considerable attention. As early as the winter of 1958-59, the Space Task Group, with the assistance of the Launch Officer assigned to STG, had developed a basic recovery plan. In early spring of 1959, a joint NASA-DOD working group was established to develop these plans in more detail. This resulted in Navy responsibility for recovery being assigned to the Atlantic Fleet, and in turn to Destroyer Flotilla Four (DesFlotFour). When General Yates became the DOD representative for Project Mercury in August 1959, the earlier joint NASA-DOD working group was superseded; Capt. J. G. Franklin, USN, became Naval Deputy to General Yates, and recovery became the responsibility of the Project Mercury Support Planning Office. According to Paul E. Purser, Special Assistant to the Director of Project Mercury, "Because of the excellent progress already made and the excellent working relationships which had been established, DesFlotFour remained responsible for the details of the recovery operation."[23]

During the spring and summer of 1959, the Space Task Group furnished several boilerplate spacecraft which were used by DesFlotFour in developing detailed recovery techniques.

Following the appointment of General Yates, in August 1959, as the DOD Representative for Project Mercury Support operations and his designation of Dr. Knauf in December 1959 as his Assistant for Bioastronautics, plans for recovery of the astronaut had received new impetus. The earlier planning of Dr. Graybiel and his group (as requested by STG) was now reoriented to the DOD-STG effort at the Air Force Missile Test Center. Tentative plans began to develop for the medical care and maintenance of the astronaut following impact.[24]

On January 9, 1960, Dr. Knauf met with Dr. Graybiel and his group to exchange ideas about the course of this planning. Dr. Knauf noted that General Yates did not accept the premise that a medical officer should be involved in actual recovery operations, and that the position and function of the medical officer in primary operations areas was as yet unclear. It appeared that only major medical problems should be treated by the recovery teams, with no definitive care aboard the destroyer. Existing hospital facilities along the path of orbit should be alerted, and the astronaut should be taken to the nearest shore hospital with dispatch.[25]

Through the next 6 months, the Naval School of Aviation Medicine worked intensively to prepare a plan for the recovery of the astronauts at sea. The dimension of this planning is apparent in the fact that the primary eight planned impact areas had an average width of 33 miles and a combined length of 2,747 miles. When the first orbital flight was made, there were in fact 24 ships including 3 carriers deployed, with 13 Marine helicopters, 1 Navy aircraft, and 15,000 Navy personnel involved in recovery operations alone. (see recovery picture 1 and recovery picture 2)

In early 1960, however, the medical aspects of this program were as yet under study, and not until June 1960 was the final report submitted to NASA.[26] This plan, sent from the DOD Representative for Project Mercury Support to the Space Task Group, was eventually to become the NASA Recovery Plan.

Animal Recovery Plans

On July 7, 1960 STG forwarded the Animal Recovery Plan to General Davis, the DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations.[27] On the same day, Walter C. Williams, Associate Director of Project Mercury, informed him that if the proposed animal recovery plan were put into effect, it would be necessary for veterinary personnel to be assigned to duty both on vessels and at the Aeromedical Field Laboratory at Holloman Air Force Base to receive training in the routine and emergency handling of animals.[28] Initial requirements were as follows:

(Subsequently the requirements for Redstone 2 were doubled, and requirements for Atlas 5 were set at 12 veterinarians and 20 technicians.)[29] It was understood by STG that the Department of Defense could meet this requirement and that selection of personnel would be under the guidance of Maj. Walter E. Brewer, USAF (VC). Training schedules would be established by the Aeromedical Field Laboratory in consultation with Major Brewer. (See picture of monkey recovery)

Astronaut Recovery Plans

Although the Commander, AFMTC, was the DOD representative responsible for recovery, the responsibility for recovery of the Mercury astronaut and spacecraft in preplanned high-probability areas and contingency areas in the Atlantic Ocean was assigned to CINCLANT, who designated the Commander, Destroyer Flotilla Four, as his executive agent in this matter. This was outlined in NASA Project Mercury Working Paper No. 162, "Project Mercury Medical Recovery Operation." Task Force 140 was established in the Atlantic Fleet of the U.S. Navy and designated the Project Recovery Force for the Atlantic Command area. U.S. unified and specified commands were directed to support the Project Mercury operation "to the maximum consistent with primary responsibilities for national defenses."

The manned spacecraft would be inserted into orbit through use of the Atlas launch vehicle and its associated radio-inertial guidance system. The launch would be from AFMTC, Cape Canaveral, Fla., a site that would enable an eastward launch over water, to take advantage of the earth’s rotation. The launch azimuth would be slightly north of east to obtain an orbit inclination of approximately 32.5 degree; with this inclination, all orbits would cross the continental United States and would avoid unfriendly territory. Since the spacecraft landing was planned for a water area, every effort was to be made, in the event of an emergency, to land the spacecraft in water.

The planning of Air Rescue Service was to be guided by this premise, although it was recognized that land recovery must also be considered, particularly for the North American and African continents. It was, therefore, envisioned that Air Rescue Service forces, along with other forces of the unified and specified commands, would be deployed to preselected sites to permit location of the spacecraft within 18 hours after notification of the predicted landing point. The expected lifetime of spacecraft search aids was 24 hours, so they could not be depended upon after that elapsed time.

On March 7, 1961, the Assistant for Bioastronautics requested CINCUSAFE, ARS, CINCPAC, CINCLANT, and CINCEUR to examine the requirements placed upon them by NASA Project Mercury Working Paper No. 162, which dealt with "Project Mercury Medical Recovery Operation."[30] Each addressee was requested to derive an operational procedure for providing medical support as an annex to its "Contingency Area Operations Plan." Since the several search and rescue areas varied widely in geographical character and in availability of local resources, the medical annex was to be coordinated among the various agencies involved. In summary, the annex provided that search and rescue forces including an appropriate number of pararescue teams trained in Project Mercury spacecraft emergency procedures would be responsible for search, location, and retrieval of any Project Mercury spacecraft or astronaut that might land in any of the designated regions except the part of the Atlantic Ocean included in Project Mercury planned landing areas 1 through 9.

During Project Mercury manned flight operations each aeromedical monitor assigned to a tracking station on the Project Mercury global range would exercise emergency medical surveillance over the area for which he had been assigned responsibility. These areas of responsibility were as follows:

In the event of an emergency landing in his area, the aeromedical monitor concerned would assume full responsibility for the medical care of the astronaut. The theater surgeon concerned would, in coordination with the designated aeromedical monitor, assume medical administrative responsibility for the initial hospital care of the astronaut. The STG was to be prepared to air-lift to any point agreed upon by the theater surgeon concerned and the medical director of Project Mercury such professional medical specialty support as might be required to provide the desired medical care for the astronaut when a comparable level of medical competence was not available locally. The various areas of responsibility and the procedures involved were clearly defined.

The NASA Space Task Group on September 9, 1960, requested that the supply and resupply of equipment in support of Project Mercury recovery operations be the responsibility of the Assistant for Bioastronautics, Office of the Department of Defense Representative. Specifically the DOD Representative for Bioastronautics should take necessary steps to procure medical equipage as listed in the "Medical Annex, Medical Recovery Operations, Project Mercury," which had been revised on September 9, 1960, "and such other medical supplies and resupplies as deemed necessary." The use of this equipage and supplies would be on a no-cost basis to NASA for items returned to DOD. NASA would pay the cost of nonreturned items. Upon termination of the mission, control of medical resources would revert to the Assistant for Bioastronautics, Office of the DOD Representative, Patrick AFB. NASA would bear the cost of transportation of medical resources in the implementation of the medical recovery operation of Project Mercury.[31]

Meanwhile, as months had passed, the responsibility of DOD for support of Project Mercury in other areas had become clarified. For example, details of carrying out the astronaut preflight feeding program at Cape Canaveral came under study during early 1960. On February 18, 1960, Walter C. Williams, Associate Director for Project Mercury, requested that DOD personnel at Patrick AFB be responsible for the 3-day low-residue diets prior to each manned shot, as well as for feeding prior to practice countdown. Technical and operational advice would be provided by the Space Task Group.[32] Specifically it was suggested that Miss Beatrice Finkelstein, research nutritionist and dietitian in the Aerospace Medical Laboratory at Wright Air Development Center, supervise the program in the kitchen and dining facilities available near NASA Hangar S at Cape Canaveral. Colonel Knauf and Miss Finkelstein agreed with this suggestion, and on July 21, 1960, she submitted an organizational plan for the preflight feeding of astronauts participating in Project Mercury.[33]

In substance, the plan called for a high-protein, low-residue diet for 72 to 96 hours prior to takeoff so as to preclude defecation during flight. This precaution was taken because the protective clothing worn by the astronaut could not without danger be removed in flight, and performance of this physiological function would be difficult. The diet had to be prepared and served under rigidly controlled conditions. Because of the stringent demands placed upon the astronaut in his preflight activities, it was recommended that a small food-preparation facility be added to the readiness room. Building 5-1540, Area 39, at Cape Canaveral could be renovated at a minimum cost; food supplies could be obtained from the commissary at Patrick AFB or through local purchase, accounting of moneys spent for food could be made to the hospital food service; and staffing could be handled by two medically trained food-service individuals. Assistance in carrying out this program could be given by the research nutritionist assigned to the Wright Air Development Center.[34]

As the plan was finally worked out with respect to accounting of moneys spent for food, procedures for procurement on a NASA reimbursable basis were developed by the Office of the Assistant for Bioastronautics without including the hospital food service accounting.[35]

In another area, the Project Mercury blood program, plans were completed by the spring of 1961. On January 5 the DOD Assistant for Bioastronautics had forwarded the proposed program to STG for review, and on February 16 the Associate Director, Walter C. Williams, approved the program and requested that the Assistant for Bioastronautics proceed with implementation.[36]

The plan stipulated that blood would be drawn from personnel available locally should a transfusion for the astronauts become necessary. Group and type-specific blood, without cross-matching, would be employed, since all the astronauts had been previously tested to insure the safety of such a procedure. Medical personnel would be told at least 72 hours in advance of the blood group and Rh factor of the prospective recipient, and donors (preferably four) would be bled 24 hours in advance. Procedures for handling and administration were specified in detail.[37] (See routine medical preparations picture)

TESTING

From the operations point of view, by the spring of 1961 the equipment had been checked out and the basic guidelines followed. Existing technology and off-the-shelf equipment had been used where practicable; the simplest and most reliable approach to system design had been followed; an existing launch vehicle would be used to place the spacecraft in orbit and a progressive and logical test program had been conducted.[38] This had included test flights beginning as early as September 9, 1959, when a boilerplate spacecraft was successfully launched on an Atlas (Big Joe) from Cape Canaveral to test the validity of the Mercury concept.

In October and November of that year, Little Joe 1 and Little Joe 2, respectively, were fired from NASA’s Wallops Station, Va., to test other aspects of the program. On December 4, 1959, Little Joe 3 was also fired from Wallops Station to check high-altitude performance of the escape system, with rhesus monkey Sam used as a test subject. The next month, on January 21, 1960, Little Joe 4 was fired from Wallops Station to evaluate the escape system under high airloads with another rhesus monkey—Miss Sam—as a test subject. These were followed by a beach abort test on May 9, 1960, and by an unsuccessful shot of the Mercury-Atlas 1 on July 29, 1960. Little Joe 5, also unsuccessful, was fired from Wallops Station on November 8, 1960.

Mercury-Atlas 2 was launched on February 21, 1961 (discussed in detail in the following chapter), and Little Joe 5A on March 18, 1961. On April 25, 1961, Mercury-Atlas 3 was launched in an attempt to orbit a "mechanical" astronaut. Forty seconds after launching, the launch vehicle was destroyed, but the spacecraft was recovered. Little Joe 5B was fired on April 28, 1961, and represented the third attempt to check the escape system under the worst possible conditions. The shot was successful. Thus, by the spring of 1961, STG was prepared, from the engineering and operations point of view, for the projected Mercury-Redstone 3 flight scheduled for early May. It would carry the first American astronaut on a ballistic flight path. This would be prelude to the first U.S. manned orbital flight.[39]

Meanwhile, medical support plans for the launching, tracking, and recovery of the astronaut continued. The time and talent contributed by key medical personnel in the services as well as by the day-to-day working-level group is immeasurable. For example—to name only two—Brig. Gen. James W. Humphrys (MC), USAF, commander of the USAF Hospital at Lackland Base, and Brig. Gen. Don C. Wenger, then Deputy Director of Professional Services in the USAF Office of the Surgeon General, were to make themselves available at the shortest notice whenever professional problems arose in connection with planning. Later, as the actual flights were scheduled, they were there at the launch site during the long countdowns, postponements, flights, and recovery. This was part of the pattern carried out not only "in line of duty" but because every element of the military medical profession, no less than the civilian, shared in this most extensive peacetime effort of mobilization.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 7

[1] Cape Canaveral (later Cape Kennedy) had originally been chosen as a launch site by the DOD for four reasons: (1) The 15,000-acre tract was remote enough to be a safe place for launching test missiles, (2) it provided a vacant area (the Atlantic Ocean) over which the missiles could travel, (3) the climate was suitable for year-round operations, and (4) there was to the southeast a chain of islands on which tracking and telemetry stations could be built. In addition, there was an inactivated Navy base 18 miles south of the cape which would be reactivated (as Patrick AFB) to support AFMTC.

[2] Thomas S. Gates, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memo for Secretaries of the Military Depts., the Director of Defense Res. and Engineering, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Asst. Secretaries of Defense, the General Counsel, the Director, Advanced Res. Projects Agency, and the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Subj.: Assignment of Responsibility for DOD Support of Project Mercury, Aug. 10, 1959.

[3] See p. 89 for further discussion.

[4] Gates, op. cit. See also Thomas S. Gates, Memo for Maj. Gen. Donald N. Yates, USAF, Subj.: Responsibility for DOD Support of Project Mercury, Aug. 10, 1959.

[5] The Honorable James H. Douglas, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memo for Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, USAF, July 9, 1960.

[6] Maj. Gen. D. N. Yates, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations, Memo for Col. George M. Knauf, USAF (MC), Subj. : Designation of Assistant for Bioastronautics, Dec. 1, 1959.

[7] On Jan. 1, 1962, Colonel Knauf was transferred to Hq., NASA, to serve as Deputy Director of Aerospace Medicine, Office of Manned Space Flight (Special Orders AC-809, Hq. AFASC). He was succeeded by Col. Raymond A. Yerg, USAF (MC), who on Oct. 9, 1961, had been designated Deputy Assistant for Bioastronautics [Maj. Gen. L. I. Davis, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations, Memo for MTD (Col. Raymond A. Yerg), Subj.: Designation of Deputy Assistant for Bioastronautics, Oct. 9, 1961].

[8] Lt. Col. Stanley C. White, Head, Life Systems Br., Space Task Group, Memo for Project Dir., Subj.: Medical Support for Project Mercury, Oct. 29, 1959.

[9] Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir. of Project Mercury, Ltr to Maj. Gen. Donald N. Yates, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support, AFMTC, Pa-trick AFB, Fla., Subj.: Medical Personnel to Support Project Mercury Flight Operations, Nov. 13, 1959.

[10] NASA Space Task Group Briefing, "Medical Monitoring for Project Mercury," Dec. 11, 1959.

[11] The three Surgeons General had designated the following officers to serve as their representatives for Project Mercury: Army—Lt. Col. John A. Sheedy, USA (MC); Navy—Capt. Vance E. Senter, USN (MC); Air Force—Col. Karl Houghton, USAF (MC).

[12] As described in ltr from Col. George M. Knauf, USAF (MC), to Hq. USAF, Office of the Surgeon General, Attn.: Col. Karl H. Houghton, USAF (MC), Subj.: Medical Support of Project Mercury Flight Operations, Dec. 21, 1959.

[13] Robert R. Gilruth, Dir. of Project Mercury, Ltr to Maj. Gen. Donald N. Yates, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations, Hq. AF Missile Center, Patrick AFB, Dec. 18, 1959. See also ltr, Knauf to Houghton, cited above.

[14] Col. George M. Knauf, USAF (MC), Asst. for Bioastronautics, DOD Representative for Project Mercury Support, Ltr to Maj. Gen. Otis O. Ben-son, USAF (MC), Commandant, Aerospace Medical Center, Brooks AFB, Tex., Jan. 12, 1961. Further information obtained in interview with Dr. Lamb by the author in Oct. 1963.

[15] Also consultant to STG, Dr. Ellington was at that time Commander of the Gunter Branch of the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine. He later became Commandant of the School of Aerospace Medicine.

[16] Minutes of the meeting, Apr. 13, 1960, prepared by Lt. Col. W. K. Douglas, STG.

[17] Colonel Knauf, Ltr to the Surgeons General, Army, Navy, and Air Force, Apr. 16, 1960; interview with Colonel Knauf by the author, Aug. 21, 1962.

[18] Present as observers were representatives of the Asst. Secretary of Defense, the Lovelace Advisory Group, and the Space Task Group.

[19] Interview, Colonel Knauf by the author, Aug. 21, 1962.

[20] Walter C. Williams, Ltr to Hq., NASA, June 7, 1960.

[21] There were professional details that would be equally time consuming and require the painstaking attention of the committee as well. For example, when the members met again at Cape Canaveral on Nov. 29, 1960, details of medical supplies and equipment were discussed.

[22] Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir. of Project Mercury, Ltr to Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, USAF, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Recovery Operations, Subj.: Aeromedical Support for Project Mercury Recovery Operations, July 6, 1960.

[23] Paul E. Purser, Spec. Asst. to Dir., Project Mercury, Memo for Files, Subj.: Additional Background Material on Project Mercury, May 11, 1960.

[24] Ashton Graybiel, "Aerospace Medicine and Project Mercury—Navy Participation," Aerospace Med., vol. 33, no. 10, Oct. 1962, pp. 1193-1198.

[25] Informal notes of meeting with Dr. Knauf by Dr. Beischer, U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, July 9, 1960.

[26] A. Graybiel, D. E. Beischer, et at., "Project Mercury—Medical Aspects of the Recovery Program," SAM P-14, prepared for NASA at U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Pensacola, Fla., 1960.

[27] Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir. of Project Mercury, Ltr to Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations, Attn.: Col. Knauf, July 7, 1960.

[28] Col. Raymond A. Yerg, USAF (MC), Deputy for Bioastronautics, Ltr to M. M. Link, Sept. 27, 1963.

[29] Animal Recovery Plan, initialed "JPH, 6/30/60," attached as enclosure to ltr from Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir. of Project Mercury, to DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations, July 7, 1960.

[30] Asst. for Bioastronautics, Ltr to CINCUSAFE, ARS, CINCPAC, CIN-CLANT, and CINCEUR, Mar. 7, 1961.

[31] Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir. for Project Mercury, Memo for Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, DOD Representative, Project Mercury Support Operations, Attn.: Col. George M. Knauf, Sept. 20, 1960.

[32] Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir. for Project Mercury, Ltr to Maj. Gen. Donald N. Yates, DOD Representative for Project Mercury, Feb. 18, 1960.

[33] Beatrice Finkelstein, Chief, Food Technology Section, Life Support Systems Lab., Aerospace Medical Div., Ltr to Col. George Knauf, USAF (MC), Patrick AFB, Subj.: Organizational Plan, Project Mercury, July 2, 1960.

[34] Project Mercury, Organizational Plan for Pre-Space Flight Feeding, dated July 21, 1960.

[35] Col. Raymond A. Yerg, USAF (MC), Ltr to M. M. Link, Sept. 27, 1963.

[36] Walter C. Williams, Assoc. Dir., Project Mercury, Ltr to Commander, AFMTC, Attn.: Col. Knauf, Feb. 16, 1961.

[37] This program was based on ltr from Col. Frank M. Townsend, USAF (MC), Director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, to Staff Surgeon (Colonel Knauf), Subj.: Proposed Blood Program for Project Mercury, Dec. 13, 1960.

[38] Walter C. Williams, Kenneth S. Kleinknecht, William M. Bland, Jr., and James E. Bost, "Project Review," in Mercury Project Summary Including Results of the Fourth Manned Orbital Flight, May 15 and 16, 1963. NASA SP-45, 1963, p. 2.

[39] Manned Space Flight Program of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. Staff Report of the Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Sept. 4, 1962, pp. 52-53.

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