4

4"

bY

Robert A. Nanz
Edward L. Michel
Paul A. Lachance

NASA Manned Spacecraft Center

Houston, Texas

/
I
w
-
0
K
(CODE)

n
0
n
(3

Prpsented t o t h e " .,
. .
I n s t i t u t e of ?ood -Technologists I
% %

. .

Washington, D.C. 4

--- -+ -
 . .
_" / ' b '

TKE EVOLUTION OF A SPACE FEEDING

CONCEPT FOR PROJECP GEMINI
by
Robert A. Nanz
Edward L. Michel
Paul A. Lachance

NASA, Msc
Crew Systems Division
Houston, Texas

Introduction

Since the inception of activity in space feeding, the Food Division

of the U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, formerly the Armed Forces Food and ,
Container Institute, has provided outstanding research and development
support to the NASA. The Food Division personnel have, within the past
year, given two presentations (1)and (2) now in press, describing the
development of m n y of the Project Mercury and Gemini menu items. The
NASA design criteria and philosophy which guided these developments in
space feeding were recently reported ( 3 ) . Underlying many of the devel-
opments are the research undertaken by the U.S. A r ~ l l ~for
y the U.S. Air
Force (4) and the recommendations (5) and evalue.tions (6)and (7) of early
workers in this field.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the evolution of the feeding

concepts utilized in Project Mercury missions and envisioned f o r Project
Gemini and early Apollo missions.

Project Mercury Concept ,

Although sustenance is an important part of the life support require-

ments in spacecraft systems, the short duration Project Mercury flights -
with the exception of Astronaut Cooper's MA-9 flight -did not mike food
mandatory. However, experience with the handling of food and food containers
and informtion on the physiological functioning of the gastro-intestinal
tract during periods of weightlessness were needed in anticipation of
missions of longer duration, Including MA-9, where sustenance would become
an important factor.

The foods used in the early orbital Project Mercury flights are
shown in figure 1. These foods consisted of pureed meat, vegetables, and
fruits, In collapsible metal tubes, and Ilalted milk tablets and bite-sized
cubes. A resume of all the foods eaten during the ProJect Mercury f l i g h t 6

J
 2
is given in figure 2. It should be noted that dehydrated foods were I

included in the MA-9 flight. The short duration of the Project Mercury
flights precluded the need for specific food storage areas and food was
principally carried in the astrona~t~s ditty bag.

Project Gemini Concept

The two-astronaut Project Gemini program includes flights of up to

14 days duration. To assure system integration in time for the actual
flights, specific criteria for food and its space, weight, and power re-
quirements were established (3).
Briefly, the Project Gemini food concept provides 2,500 kilocalories
per man per day, and, because of waste management problems, is of a l o w
residue nature. The present concept consists of a 4-day cycle of four meals
per day with a caloric distribution of 17 percent in protein, 32 percent in
fats, and 51 percent in carbohydrates. A typical Project Gemini 1-day menu
is shown in figure 3. Each man-day supply weighs approximtely 1.3 pounds
per m n per day and occupies approximately 110 cubic Inches of storage space.
The food and packaging are required to meet flight qualification require-
ments, most of which are shown in Table 1.

-
Table I. FOOD AND FOOD PACKAGING
EMrlRONMENTAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS

Temperature +20° F
+135' F
Pressure 19.7 psia (70' F)
(1100 F)
~ X I - O - ~psia

Relative Humidity 984& in air at 14.7 psia, 100°F

Atmosphere 100% oxygen
Acoustic Noise Overall of 135 db,
37.5 to 4800 cps
Acceleration (hunch) longitudinal spacecraft
axis: lg to 7.25g
Linearly with time
over 326 seconds.
The lightweight dehydrated foods and compressed energy-dense bite-
sized foods were found best suited to fulfilling the criteria and flight
qualification requirements. The inclusion of compressed bite-sized pieces
permits the menu energy balance to be more readily accomplished and de-
creases the number of meal items requiring rehydration, thus decreasing
 3
t h e time required f o r m e a l preparation. The weight and volume economies
that a r e realized by using ProJect Gemini type foods i n comparison with
the Project Mercury concept, expanded t o meet t h e c a l o r i c require-
ments specified f o r Gemini, a r e shown i n figure 4.

The Project Gemini feeding concept provides f u e l - c e l l water f o r

drinking and food rehydratiot. Water tegperature i n t h e spacecraft
reservoir w i l l be between 80 F. and 100 F. No power is a l l o t t e d f o r
low-temperature food storage o r for hot food preparation. The food
storage area, providing approximately 3,000 cubic inches, i s shown i n
figure 5. The shape of the container demonstrates t h e space l i m i t a t i o n s
associated with a compact spacecraft. The food storage area a l s o serves
f o r the storage of waste as the f l i g h t progresses and the food i s removed.

Packaging Developments

A number of f l e x i b l e f i l m s f o r packaging were evaluated i n 1960 f o r

p o t e n t i a l use under space-flight conditions (8) and other research was
undertaken f o r NASA by both t h e U.S. A m y Natick Iaboratoriee and t h e
Whirlpool Corporation i n order t o develop a suitable f l e x i b l e f i l m .
Presently a four-ply laminate i s being u t i l i z e d . It consists of a n inner
and outer layer of polyethylene and middle layers of nylon and aclar.
Theoretically, a laminate superior t o the aforementioned i s envisioned.
However, several technical d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with laminating need t o
be resolved and work i s continuing i n t h i s area.

Feeder and Dispenser Design and Interface

In essence, two d i s t i n c t feeder and dispenser designs were developed

almost simultaneously and then merged t o provide the b e s t of each concept.
Subsequent changes were mde t o meet interface problems as they arose.

Figure 6 shows t h e evolution of t h e feeder design. The principal

changes were affected by whether o r not t h e food w a s molded and by water
rehydration interface problems. Figure 7 shows an e a r l y concept, which
u t i l i z e d a s o l i d p l a s t i c ring-type o r i f i c e , as both a water nozzle i n t e r f a c e
as well as the feeding port. Upon evaluation, t h i s concept w a s eliminated.
Figure 8 shows a similar early concept having a dual-purpose, but nonrigid,
port. This type w a s evaluated during t h e l a s t Mercury f l i g h t . Leakage a t
t h e feeder-water dispenser interface occurred during t h e inflight evaluation
and t h i s has l e d t o t h e present feeder concept (fig. 9) with two ports. One
p o r t accepts a water probe f o r rehydration only, and a separate feeding p o r t
i s provided a t t h e opposite end which can be closed and opened as needed.
The feeding port a l s o serves as the opening through which a germicide t a b l e t '
i s inserted after t h e p i l o t s have eaten t o prevent putrefaction of t h e m-
used food.

' .
 4
The use of foods molded i n bars t o conform with the shape of the
feeders i s mndatory since it reduces the number of uneven surfaces which
can be subjected t o abrasion and consequent l o s s of vacuum and t r a n s f e r
of moisture. I n addition, the f l a t surfaces permit the assembly of t h e
food servings i n t o man-meals o r mn-day packages i n a minimum of space.

The evolution of t h e dispensers f o r b i t e - s i z e pieces i s shown i n

figure 10. The e a r l i e s t dispenser, which m s r i g i d and provided optimum
protection against crushing, was considered too heavy and bulky from a
packaging point of view. Subsequent dispensers of l i g h t e r w e i g h t and
containing pull-tapes t o f a c i l i t a t e removal of the pieces were used, but
such tapes and other attachments were found t o f l o a t around undesirably
and were d i f f i c u l t t o control i n zero g. The current‘concept requires
manipulating the individual b i t e - s i z e piece out of t h e dispenser after
it has been cut open along t h e side.

Concurrent w i t h these packaging changes, increased emphasis was

placed on food compression and edible coatings t o prevent the crumbling
which was a problem i n some of the &rcury flights.

The present feeder and dispenser concept i s scheduled t o be evalu-

a t e d during short periods of zero g as obtained by a i r c r a f t i n para-
b o l i c f l i g h t s . The results of these short duration t e s t s and t h e a s t r o -
naut evaluation of t h e complete feeding system during t h e early Project
Gemini f l i g h t s w i l l provide the operational data needed t o d e f i n i t i z e
a feeding system applicable not only t o Project Gemini f l i g h t s but l a t e r
missions of similar duration.

Summary

Progress leading t o a r e l i z a t i o n of a feeding-system f o r Project

Gemini has been described and represents an integration of selected food
and packaging developments t o meet t h e n u t r i t i o n a l requirements of the
astronaut as adequately as possible, and t o m i n t a i n t h e space, weight,
and power l i m i t a t i o n s d i r e c t l y related t o the nature of t h i s aerospace
vehicle and its mission. The Project Gemini feeding system i s designed
t o feed two men f o r a period of up t o 1 4 days. It consists of a 4-day
cycle menu of freeze dehydrated and otherwise dried food Items along with
b i t e - s i z e compressed foods, providing 2,500 kilocalories per man per day.
All dehydrated foods can be reconstituted with the cabin-temperature fuel-
c e l l water. A man-day of food requires 110 cubic inches of space and
weighs approximately 1.3 pounds. The packaging material of the b i t e - s i z e
dispenser and feeder i s a flexible f i l m laminate, The current feeder
design has, as a n i n t e g r a l part, a one-way rehydration port t o receive a
p i s t o l - l i k e water i n j e c t i n g probe and a separate feeding port a t the oppo-
s i t e end of t h e pouch.
I
.
 REmmcEs

.,
1. Jokay, L. and Hollender, H.H. : Development of Dehydrated Food f o r
Aerospace Feeding. I n s t i t u t e of Food Technologists, 23d Annual
Meeting, m y 26-29, 1963, Detroit, Mchigan, i n press. .

2. Klicka, M.V.: Development of Space Foods. To be published i n

Journal of The American Dietetic Association, 44(5) May 1964, ,
i n press.

3. Michel, E.L.: Preparation, Handling, and Storage of Foods f o r

Present Space Projects. Working Conference on Space Nutrition .
and Related Waste Problems, April 27-30, 1964, Tampa, Florida. '

4. Hollender, H.H.: Development of Food Items t o Meet A i r Force

Requirements f o r Space Flight. Military Interdepartmental ' 1

Purchase Request No. 33 (616)61-18, 6570 Aerospace Medical

Research Labs, Wright Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio.

5. Taylor, A.A., Finkelstein, B., and Hayes, R.E.: Food f o r Space

Travel. ARDC Technical Report No. 60-8, July 1960, Headquarters
A i r Research and Development Command, Andrew A i r Force Base,
Washington 23, D.C.

6. Welbourne, J.L. and Lachance, P.A.: S u i t a b i l i t y of Tubed Foods

f o r I n - f l i g h t Feeding. ASD-TR 61-456, September 1960, Aemnauti-
c a l Systems Division, Aerospace Medical Uboratory, Wright
Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio.

7. Finkelstein, B.: Nutrition Research f o r the Space Traveler. Journal

of The American Dietetic Association, 36(4): 313, 1960.

8. Crawford, D.C., Brown, D.L., and Yiitanen, V.K.: P l a s t i c Packaging

f o r Space Feeding of Heat Processed and Frozen Foods. M R T . , - T D R - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ,
May 1962, Aerospace Medical Division, 6570th Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratories, Wright Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio.
4
. 1

.. . , . ,, .

r ' i

c
 1 .

, .

Lu
Z
Lu
c uii
I 4
Lu
v
I 3
II n
0
I
!
0
LL

i
I
II Z v)
v
)
'
QL
II 0
I-
3
< OZ
i

I
w
3
= s
w e
0 o m
c QL cu
3 Lu
I
< w
n 5 B
j Z Z Lu
I 0
w
Q:
e
UJ
Z e
QL
i?
I
1

I
'I-
v)
4:
I
v)
UJ
4:
V
cy ' :i
cy
1f Lu
t
9
0.
c
d
9
OI
c
8 1
4: cy 0-
0
m
). c:
!
u1
t
L g -
c-
X
52
d
L L
 I
I

I .

e
5 m- v)
I- Lu
V v)
v)

0 Z
3
4 -
Lu

I- Lu
x
4 V
-
v)
Lu
2
e
50
c9
I
I

0: 6 I
2=
+
c
e V m

1 v)
t.
! 4
! n
j

:. i
v)
Lu
m
I 3
V
W
! 4
e
e
4
1
1

I
i
, ec
I
_I .

v)
n
. 0 . --"0
0
-
m _.
I .

.. n/
4
A
z v)
UJ
I
i .

0 V
Z
V v)
n
. -

Lu Z -
V
a
3
2 0
e
3
v
3 r) 0
' I I F
c c
0
, 1

>Z
-
n
v)
n
0
Z 0
'4 LL

n
Lu
w v)
PL n
3 z
e 3
v) 0
e
Lu
rp
3
c
n .. ..
0 .. c .Lu
z.
,

'v) I
0 n 3
d
LL Lu
0
L 3 >
0
. ,

0 - 0
 L

--*.------- _-
-

.-
i
I .
 .

!
:g
I --

i
d \
i

/ ‘
. .
.

..
-.