Apollo Experience Report Food Systems

8/8/2019 Apollo Experience Report Food Systems

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/apollo-experience-report-food-systems 1/75



1. Report No.

NASA TN D-7720

APOLLOEXPERIENCEREPORTFOOD SYSTEMS

2. Government Accession No, 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

6. Performing Organization Code

4. Title and Subtitle

I

7. Author(s) Malcolm C. Smith, Jr . , JSC; Rita M. Rapp, JSC; 8. Performing Organization Repo rt No.

5. Report Date

Clayton S. Huber, Technology, Inc. ; Paul C. Rambaut, JSC;and Norman D. Heidelbaugh, JSC

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Lvndon B. Johnson Space Center

JSC S-390

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages

None None 74

Hbuston, Texas 7705813. Type of Report and Period Covered

2. Sponsoring Agency Name and AddressTechnical Note

22. Price

$3.75

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Washington. D. C . 20546

14. Sponsoring Agency CodeI5. Supplementary Notes

The JSC Dir ector waived the use of the International System of Units (SI) fo r th is Technical Note,

because, in his judgment, the use of SI units would impair the usefulness of the re port o r resu lt

in excessive c ost.

6 . Abstract

Development, delivery, and us e of food sys tems in support of the Apollo 7 o 14 missions ar e

discussed in this report. Changes in design cri te ri a fo r thi s unique program as mission require-ments varied a r e trac ed fro m the baseline system that w a s establi shed before the completion of

the Gemini Pro gram. Problems and progr es s in subsystem management, mat eri al selection,

food packaging, development of new food it em s, menu design, and food-consumption methodsunder zero-gravi ty conditions a r e described . The effectiveness of various approaches in meeting

food sys tem objectives of providing flight c rews with safe, nutritious, easy to prep are, and highly

acceptable foods is considered. Nutritional quality and adequacy in maintaining crew health a r ediscussed in relatio n to the establishment of nutritional cr it er ia for future mission s. Technolog-

ical advances that have resulted f ro m the design of separate food sy st ems for the command mod-

ule, the lunar module, the Mobile Quarantine Facility, and the Lunar Receiving Laboratory arepresen ted fo r application to future manned space cra ft and to unique populations in earthboundsituations.

17. Key Words (Suggested bv Authork ) 1 I 18. Distribution Statement

'Caloric Requirements * Space- Flight Feeding 1 STAR Subject Categories: 05 and 31.Electrolytes 'Nutrition

* For sale by the Nat i ona l Tech n i ca l In fo rmat i on Serv ice , Spr i ng f i e l d , V i rg i n i a 22151



APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The material submitted for the Apollo Experience Reports (a ser ies of NASATechnical Notes) was reviewed and approved by a NASA Editorial Review Boardat the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center consisting of the following members:

Scott H. Simpkinson (Chairman), Richard R. Baldwin, James R. Bates,William M. Bland, Jr. , Aleck C. Bond, Robert P. Burt, Chris C. Critzos,

John M. Eggleston, E. M. Fields, Donald T. Gregory, Edward B. Hamblett,

Jr. , Kenneth F. Hecht, David N. Holman (Editor/Secretary), and Ca rl R.Huss. The pr im e reviewer for this report was Donald T. Gregory.



CONTENTS

Section

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MANAGEMENT EFFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ORIGINAL FOOD AND PACKAGING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . .

Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Food Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE BASELWE APOLLO SYSTEM AND SUBSEQUENT DESIGN CHANGES . . .Baseline System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Basic Design Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Primary-Package Design Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTINGENCY FEEDING SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOOD STOWAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PERSONAL HYGIENE AND ACCESSORY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FOOD DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NUTRITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MENU SELECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MOBILE QUARANTINE FACILITY FOOD SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LUNAR RECEIVING LABORATORY FOOD SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE APOLLO 14 FOOD SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

POTENTIAL SPINOFF APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUDING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

1

2

3

4

4

7

9

11

11

15

17

20

23

28

28

32

37

39

40

41

48

49

iii



Section Page

REFERENCES 52

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX- ARIOUS APERTURE CONCEPTS FOR THE REHYDRATABLE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OOD PACKAGE. 58

i v





FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Organizational support fo r the Apollo food system and personal

hygiene it e m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Eight cr it ical control points fo r Apollo foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Examples of typical bite-s ize foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Examples of typical rehydratable foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

5 Typical package for bite-s ize foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

6 Baseline rehydratable-beverage package (top) compared with acur ren t beverage package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

7 Or i g i n a l Apollo rehydratable-food package (top) compared with

modified designs fo r semisol id foods (center ) andbeverages (bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

8 Contingency-feeding-system nylon re st ra in er pouch with attached

pontube and filled (at 3.5 psia) beverage package . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9 Contingency-f eeding-system pontube with rehydration-valveadapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

10 Pontube with mouthpiece adapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

11 Contingency-feeding-system re st ra iner assembly

(a) Topview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22(b ) Sideview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

12 Evolution of the contingency-feeding-system valve-adapter pontube

(ear lies t concept at top, intermediate concept a t center, and

cur ren t design a t bottom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

13 Apollo 8 contingency-feeding system, shown assembled and packaged

in nonflammable Kel-F-82 mate ria l (top). The valve-adapter

pontube is in the center, and the rest rainer pouch is at thebottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

14 Final contingency-feeding-system restrainer pouch, shown with

rehydratable-beverage package instal led before closure of the

zippers. A valve-adapter pontube is also shown . . . . . . . . . . . 23

15 Apollo CM ood-stowage areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

vi



Figure Page

16 Apollo LM food-stowage area and water-dispenser location, shownin a n aft view of the L M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

17 Fit-check tool installed on an LHEB food-stowage container . . . . . . 24

18 Lower equipment bay food-stowage container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

19 Rehydratable-food spoon-bowl package with water dispenser inser ted

in the rehydration valve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

20 Rehydratable-food spoon-bowl package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

21 One-piece plastic-film cone aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

22 Sponge-lined (closed-cell sponge) plastic-film cone aper tu re . . . . . 59

23 Double-plastic-film cone aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

24 Sponge- lined (open- cell sponge) double-plastic- film coneaperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

60

60

25 One-piece plastic-film cone aperture (reversing) . . . . . . . . . . .

26 One-piece plastic-film cone aper ture for spade adapter . . . . . . . .

61

61

61

61

62

62

62

27 Compression- spring-loaded poppet-valve aper ture . . . . . . . . . . .

28 Conical-spring-loaded poppet-valve aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Leaf-spring-loaded poppet-valve aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sponge-loaded (closed-cell sponge) poppet-valve aper tu re . . . . . . .

Conical- spring-loaded plug-valve aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Leaf- spring-loaded plug-valve aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 Elastomer-loaded plug-valve aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

3

34 Elastomer-loaded plug-valve aperture w i th flexible probe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62onnection

35 Rectangular sponge (closed-cell sponge) aperture, axial insertion. . . 63

36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63n s e r t i o n . .

Rectangular sponge (closed-cell sponge) aperture, perpendicular

vi i



Figure Page

37 Cylindrical sponge (closed-cell sponge) ape rture . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

38

39

40

Sponge aperture for needle adapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Silastic -bead ape rture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Rigid-diaphragm aperture

(a) Aperture closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4(b ) Aperture open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Slit- rubber aperture

(a) Aperture closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64(b) Aperture open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Elastic-diaphragm aperture

(a) Aperture closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65(b) Apertureopen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Pierced-diaphragm aperture

(a) Aperture structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65(b) Probe inserted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Flapper -valve aper ture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4 1

42

43

44

45 Combination closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6

viii



APOLLO EXPER I ENCE REPORT

FOOD SYSTEMSB y M a l c o lm C. S m i t h , Jr., Ri ta M. Rapp,

C lay ton S . Huber , * Pau l C. Rambaut, and

N o r m a n D. Heidelbaugh

L y n d o n B . Joh nso n Space Cen te r

SUMMARY

On each successive flight in the United States manned space-flight program, food

sys tem improvements have been introduced; thus, a logical sequence of progressive

development has occurred f rom the ea rl ies t concepts to the advanced food sys tem usedfor the Apollo 14 mission. A s a result, a wide variety of foods and dispensing tech-niques w a s added to the inventory of efficient and acceptable means for dietary support

of man in space in the Apollo Program. Food systems were designed and developed to

provide the Apollo flight crewmembers with the nutrients, energy, and electrolytes thata r e necessary fo r maintenance of normal metabolism. These foods were adequate tomaintain work efficiency and performance under unique environmental and mental stressconditions that a r e character isti c of the program to successfully land men on the lunarsurface and retu rn them safely to Earth.

Experience with the Apollo Program demonstrated that successful development,

fabrication, testing, and spacecraf t integration of food systems required unique techni-

cal management effo rt s to coordinate and establish prior it ies between and within biolog-ical and engineering considerations. This situation is caused by several factors inherent

to foods in general and foods for manned space flight: (1)most foods ar e dead biological

material s that have lost the original capabilities to adapt to environmental changes;

(2 ) food habits and prejudices are highly individualized and deeply ingrained i n the tas te s

of the intended consumers (the astronauts) and the inter ested nonconsumers ( the pro-gram, system, and subsystem managers); (3 ) foods are inadequately defined in biologi-

cal terms , and this situation is compounded by the need of aerospace system management

to have absolute definitions of foods in engineering terms ; and (4) criteria and configura-

tions usually a r e required long before specific knowledge of the final consumer is avail-

able. Generally, food systems fo r manned space flight consist of a group of poorly

defined components (foods) that can be infinitely variable and that a r e designed to satisfythe absolute physical cri ter ia for the spacecraft. The fact that cri ter ia for the adequate

support of the physiological and psychological processes of man ar e poorly defined re -sults in a natural tendency to place a lower priority on the development effort needed to

meet the nutrit ional requirements of the individual crewmember. Large individual

*Technology, Inc.



biological variations were also fac tor s that wer e found to have a significant negative

effect on the ability to predict and establish valid nutritional c ri te ri a fo r Apollo missions.

A review of known and anticipated spacecraft requirements revealed that the base-

line food system w a s adequate and qualified for flight. However, the baseline system

was modified and improved before the Apollo 7 launch and with each subsequent mission.

The culmination of these modifications is represented in the description of the Apollo 14

food system. The Apollo 14 food system could be viewed as the most successful of thoseused f o r the Apollo 7 to 14 missions, but a number of design problems and functional

discrepancies remained open and justified continued developmental effort. These open

items a r e readily classified as food packaging and dispensing, development of more

conventional food types, and development of improved techniques for di rect and indirectmeasurement of nutritional adequacy.

INTRODUCTION

The selection of unique foods and food-packaging methods for manned space flight

has resulted f rom known or anticipated conditions and character is tics of the flight vehi-cles, the mission environments, and the requirement for optimal crew performance.Crew performance cannot be compromised by foods that a r e not absolutely safe nor by

daily rations that a r e not nutritionally complete. Successful food system support of

manned space flight requires continual review and modification of food systems thatcan be designed to adapt to changes in vehicle and equipment requir ements, mission

profiles and objectives, individual eating habits and preferences, and biochemical indi-

viduality of the crewmembers. Implementation of these types of modifications and anecessity for design flexibility were not anticipated when the pr ime contract was

awarded i n April 1967 . The contract that w a s awarded w a s based on fixed designs andon components that were flight qualified during the Gemini Program.

In the two-man Gemini and Voskhod flights, which were scheduled to la st as longas 2 weeks, nutritional considerations began to constrain the food system designers.

Longer flights subsequently necessitated even more stringent measures to minimize

weight and volume. Within an exceedingly small weight and volume envelope, provision

had to be made fo r an adequate ration of energy, prote in, fa t, minera ls, and vitamins.

This Gemini food system envelope ( 1 . 7 lb/man/day and 110 in /man/day) al so contained

all the packaging materials that would protect the foods in environments with different

gravity fields, temperatur es, pr es su re s, acceler ations, and vibratory conditions. Be-

cause some pa rt of the water supply in the Gemini spacecraft was to be made available

as a product of fuel cel l operation, it became highly attractive from a food-acceptance

and weight-saving standpoint to employ dehydrated food that could be rehydra ted i n flight.

The us e of dehydrated food had the additional appeal of excellent preservation of nutr i-tional value and prolonged stability in the absence of refrigeration. Fo r these reasons,

Gemini food consisted principally of dehydrated items. Such foods have undergone ex-

tensive nutritional and acceptance evaluations. Flavorful foods and beverages werepackaged in efficient moisture and gas bar ri er s formed into flexible packages that a lso

incorporated a folded tube through which the fooci .,duld be dispensed in zero g. Foodsand beverages were rehydrated with water at ambient temperature; in some cas es, re -

constitution times a s long as 30 minutes were required.

3

2



The first design effort s fo r an Apollo food system were initiated by the prim e con-trac to r for the Apollo command module (CM) through a subcontract . Before 1965, itwas determined to be in the best inte res t of the Government to provide the food system

as Government-furnished equipment, and a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Apollo

food sys tem was awarded. Later, that contract w a s terminated and was awarded toanother f ir m fo r the Apollo Block I food system, Competition fo r the Apollo Block II

food system was limited to two firms that were exceptionally qualified to deliver thesystem off the shelf. A contract w a s awarded in April 1967.

MANAGEMENT EFFORT

The original management effort for the Apollo Block 11food sys tem appeared mini-

mal; in fact, the program w a s geared for management on a part-time basis by two indi-

viduals, both of whom had backgrounds and training in biomedical sc iences. Noprovisions were made or anticipated for technical support in engineering, sys tems man-

agement, and biomedical laboratory operations, Also, no adminis trative support for

clerical and secretarial tasks w a s allocated. The orig inal management plan appeared tobe adequate to provide sets of food and personal hygiene i te ms for all Apollo missions

because it w a s based on several assumptions : (1) hat the system w a s flight qualified

because of the similarity between the Gemini and the Apollo Block I systems, (2 ) that no

design and development effort w a s required, (3) that all components had been fabricated

and would requ ire only final assembly and inspection to meet launch schedules, and(4 ) that configuration of the flight art ic le s had been established and documented in the

award of a contract. During the early planning for Apollo missions, it was assumed

tha t the Gemini food system would be adequate. The crewmen of Gemini VII had beenable to accomplish thei r 14-day mission without major problems, and design iqwove-

ments had been implemented throughout the remaining Gemini miss ions. The inaccu-racy of these assumptions was demonstrated by experience with the food systems

employed for the Apollo 7, 8, and 9 missions. It became apparent that a system ade-quate for the types of missions flown in the Gemini Program was not necessa rily ade-

quate for the charac ter ist ic Apollo missions. The reason fo r this incompatibility is not

clearly defined, but several hypotheses a r e presented in this r eport.

A diagram of the management scheme as it evolved to meet the demands for timely

support of manned ground-based t es t vehicles and of the Apollo 7 o 11missions is shownin figure 1. This management scheme w a s quite effective in the accurate prediction of

problems, the rapid recognition of changes required, and the efficient implementation

of solutions and improvements in the Apollo food system. Not shown in the management

scheme in figure 1 a r e the interna l relationships at the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space

Center (JSC) (former ly the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC)) because, in a schematic,

these rela tionships would not be significantly different from oth er s within NASA. How-ever, it is important to point out that the Subsystem Manager for Apollo Food w a s givenauthority that w a s commensurate with the responsibili ties of the position. Without this

latitude of authority to act and make decisions concerning changes in the design and con-

figurat ion of the food system, i t is doubtful that the numerous improvements in foods

and packaging would have been possible within the allotted time f ra me s and fundsavailable.

3



Consultants

Prime contractors

Subcontractors

(mapr suppliers1

NASA Manned Spacecraft CenterFood System Management

Houston. lex.

Ir I I 1

the Univ. of Il lin ois . and thechoo l of Aerospace MedicineSan Antonio, lex.

Prime contractorHouston. lex.

San Francisco. Calif. Cleveland, OhioI I I

I I 1

manufacturer manufacturer

Hpecialty meatpacker

Madison. Wis.Texas AhM Univ.

College Station, Tex.I

I IUniv. of Nebrash Confection man ufactu rer

Hershey. Pa.Lincoln. Nebr. l l

San Francisco, Calif. Ful ler bn . Calif.

Prime contractorSt . Joseph, Mich.

Meatpacker

Oak Brook, Ill.

Milwaukee, Wis.

U . S . ArmyNatick Laboratories

Natick. Mass.

tood manufacturer

White Plains, N.Y.

t i

toodmanufacturer

Tarrytown. N.Y.

Specialty-fwdmanufacturerAlbany, Oreg.

Tableware manufacturer

. .

' I ' 1

Drug and cosmetic

Elmhurst. N.Y.

Food manufacturer

Minneapolis. Minn.

Plastics man ufacturerTrent04 N.J.

manufacturer -

-

-

Food manufacturerTrenton, Mo.

-

Figure 1.- Organizational support for the Apollo food system andpersonal hygiene items.

OR1 G I NAL FOOD A N D P A C K A G I N G 'D E S IG N C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

Original design cr it er ia fo r the Apollo food system were evolved fr om experience

in food systems development for military, civilian, and aerospace (Mercury and Gemini)use. The most important design cr it er ia fo r the original, o r baseline, Apollo food sys-tem are summarized briefly in the following subsections for foods and for packaging.These criter ia were modified to reflect experience gained with each Apollo mission and

to meet updated and expanded mission objectives.

Food

Weight . - Maximum allowable food weight for a 14-day mission w a s 1 . 7 lb/man/day.This a E c e uled out the use of any food other than tha t which had been stabilized by

dehydration. Dehydration as an effective method of weight reduction and food

4



preservation was possible because adequate quantities of water would be available as abyproduct of electr ica l power generation in the command and service module (CSM) fuel

cells.

Volume. - Total food-stowage volume was limited to approximately 5000 cubic

inches provided by two CSM food-stowage containers, volume L-3 in the left-hand equip-ment bay (LHEB) and volume B-1 in the lower equipment bay (LEB). For th ree crew-

3members on a 14-day mission, this total allowed an average volume of 119 in /man/day

fo r food, packaging, and accessor ies . Dehydrated and compressed foods wer e required

for optimal use of the available stowage volume.

Crew acceptance. - Individual foods were required to receive a sco re of 6 or better

when evaluated for c rew acceptance on a 9-point hedonic scale by a trained tes t panel of

food and nutrition experts.

clude monotony.

1A wide variety of food flavors w a s to be provided to pre-

Preparation time. - Dehydrated foods that could be rehydrated completely in15 minutes or le ss and that required minimal kneading or mixing were to be used. Bite-size foods were to be used as much a s possible because these foods a r e ready to eat

without further preparation and have nutrient density better than that of rehydratables.

Food-residue stabilization. - Foods that would be consumed completely, leaving

minimal residue in the package to preclude microbiological growth and putrefaction,were desirable. A germicidal agent to be mixed with any residual food w a s required.

This germicide w a s chosen to be effective in preventing the growth of micro-organismsbut to be nontoxic to crewmembers. Methods fo r resea ling and restowing used food

packages were required.

Wholesomeness. - Certified, top-quality food r a w mater ials were required alongwith traceability and historical records . Food handlers were required to be trained inthe proper sanitary techniques fo r food processing and storage. The foods had to be

capable of being processed in controlled-access and controlled-environment faci lities

(class 10 000 cleanrooms or bet ter). The health of the food-handling personnel w a s to

be monitored, and str ic t standards for cleanliness with maximum permissible numbers

and types of micro-organisms in food, packaging materi al, processing equipment, andwork ar ea s were to be imposed. The microbiological requirements for space foods arelisted in table I. These original requirements did not include cri te ri a for yeast and

molds, anaerobes, or viral particles.

Hedonic scale s for food acceptance are based on the degree of p leasure or painto be derived from consumption of a particular food,

for acceptance; ratings of 5 and below indicate increasing degrees of d ist ast e in de-creasing order.

A srnre nf 9 is a perfect rating

5



TABLE I. - MICROBIOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS F O R SPACE FOODS

Micro-organism

Total aerobes

Total coliforms

Fecal coliforms

Fecal streptococci

Coagulase-positive staphylococci

Salmonellae

Test limit

Not g reater than 10 OOO/g of

Not greater than 1O/g of

sample

sample

Negative in a 1.0-g sample

Not grea te r than 20/g of

sample

Negative in a 5.0-g sample

Negative in a 10-g sample

Gastrointestinal compatibility. - Foods with minimal indigestible components(such as crude fiber) were selected. Foods that were relatively bland and unseasoned;

foods that would not resul t in generation of noticeable quantit ies of gastrointest ina l gas

and fla tus ; foods that were completely digestible and readily absorbed in the small in-

tes tines; and foods that would result in feces of normal consistency, but that wouldcause minimal frequency and mass of defecations, were selected. Also, foods that

either reinoculate the intestinal tract with normal microflora or that provide necessary

subs tr ate to maintain the growth and balance of normal in tes tinal microf lora weredesirable.

Nutrient content. - Foods were to be processed, formulated, o r fortified to maxi-mize nutrient density on a weight and volume basis and to provide energy levels of

2800 kcal/man/day in the CM and 3200 kcal/man/day in the lunar module (LM). The

selected foods would provide a daily energy intake made up of 28 percent fat, 54 percent

carbohydrate, and 17 percent protein. Other requirements for the selected foods were

provision of 100 g/man/day of protein, 1000 mg/man/day of calcium (Ca),500 mg/man/day of phosphorus (P), 1800 mg/man/day of potassium (K) , and other

nutrients equal to or exceeding the minimum daily requirements established by the

National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council as recommended dietary

allowances (ref. 1).

Stability. - Design considerations for stability included physical, chemical, micro-

biological, and organoleptic qualities af ter exposure to nominal environmental conditions

of ground, sto rage , delivery, spacecraft launch, Earth and lunar orbi t, lunar landing,and return to Earth.

Physical: Packaging w a s designed to pro tec t the food against physical damage

from handling, shipment, stowage, and launch. Dispersion of food pa rt ic le s into the

6



cabin environment w a s to be prevented by the use of proper package design, edible foodcoatings, and compression or molding of the foods during process ing to eliminate rough,

sharp edges. Foods were selected that, after processing, would withstand externalpressures as great as 760 torr at 135" F for 3 hours, 100" F for 6 months, or 70" F

for 1 year without the occurrence of irreversible fusion, deformation, or development

of off-flavor o r off-color characteristics.

Chemical: Foods stable at spacecraft temperature extremes (3 hours at 135" F,

6 months at 100" F, or 1 year at 70" F) were selected. The moisture content of the

foods w a s reduced to re ta rd the formation of indigestible pigments and aminocarbohy-

dra te group complexes at elevated temperatures. Finally, the foods were to be packaged

in such a way that oxidation of nutr ients was prevented by elimination of oxygen through

decreasing the headspace by the us e of iner t gas. Contamination by environmental watervapor and oxygen was prevented by use of a plastic laminate impermeable to these

elements.

Microbiological: The foods were processed in a manner that ensured small popu-

lations of pathogenic and food spoilage bacteria, yeasts , and molds and that reducedwater content (or water activity) to levels below those required fo r growth of

micro-organisms.

Contingency. - The selected foods were to provide for minimal metabolic main-

tenance during contingency periods when the crewmen would be required to wear fullpressure suits continuously for as long as 1 1 5 hours i f accidental loss of cabin pres-

su re should occur.

Shape and size. - Foods amenable to irregular stowage-volume configurationswere to be selected. Reproducibility to ensure uniform nutrient content and the validity

of preflight spacecraft stowage studies w a s required.

Packaging

The most important design considerations with regard to food packaging ar e sum-marized as follows.

Protection. - The food package must prevent physical abrasion and deformation

and provide a barrier to adventitious contamination by oxygen, water, inert particles,chemicals, and micro- organisms.

Identification. - The food package must identify contents and crewman and must

Manufacture. - The food packages must be readily reproducible and be of high qual-

include preparation instructions and traceability information.

ity and reliability.

Weight. - The weight of the food package should be minimized by the use of flexible

plastic-film laminates.

Volume. - The volume of the food package should be minimized by vacuum pack-

aging and by the use of flexible plastic-film laminates.

7



Function. - The functional aspects of food system packaging included the following

considerations.

. . . . . . . . . . .e m p e r a t u r e , F

P r e s s u r e , t o r r

A t m o s p h e r e , p e r c e n t oxygen . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .c c e l e r a t i o n , g

Vibra t ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Practicability of food system use i n zero g (r ef s. 2 to 10)

35 to 135

1112 to 1 x

1 0 0 a t 2 1 . 5 , 5 . 0 , a n d 0.1 p s i a

1 . 0 t o 6.0 n +X a x i s o n l y

S i n u s o i d a l a n d r a n d o m i n a l l a x e s

2 . Segregation of discrete sets of food items with a primary package

3 . Unitization of food packages into meals by the use of a meal overwrap

4. Practicability of food ret rie val in the desired sequence

5 . Provision fo r food reconstitution by the addition of hot (140" 5 " F') or cold(40" F) water

6. Practicabil ity of managing (r es tr ai n, contain, and se rv e) food during meal

periods

7. Provision fo r consumption of food without the use of eating utensils (Sc issors

were available for opening the packages. )

8. Provision for the temporary re st ra in t of the package during food preparat ion

9 . Provision fo r use a s waste-stowage containers for food and packaging debri s

after meals

Materials. - The packaging materi als were required to have the following quality

prerequisites.

1. Adequacy of material quality to maintain high food grade

2 . Chemical iner tness of the materi al in spacecraft environments

3 . Provision of a hermetic seal to withstand pr es su re s that vary from 1 X

76 0 torr

to

Environmental tes t parameters fo r Apollo packaged-food and personal hygiene ite ms

a re summarized in table 11.

T A B L E 11. - ENVIRONMENTAL TE ST PA RAMETERS AND MEASUREMENTS FOR

TH E PACKAGED-FOOD AND PERSONAL HYGIENE ITEMS

I P a r a m e t e r I Value

8



Food Safety

Most of the foregoing cr it er ia contributed to the ultimate safety of the foods and

packaging used, but food safety as a separate and distinct discipline must be addressed

during the design, manufacture, and us e of aerospace food systems. Manned spaceflight re qu ir es accurate control of the environments in spacecraft to maintain life. Food

is an indispensable par t of that environment. Complex studies and experiments to de-termine the physiologic performance of man during space flight reinforce the need fo r

accura te definition and control of var iables in space foods. Man's increased suscepti-

bility to infection during physical and psychological stress further augments the need

for complete definition and strict control of food supplies.

Highly successful systematic procedures to ensure food safety and wholesomeness

were developed for the Apollo Program (refs. 11 to 26) . These procedures include the

st ri ct selection and control of r a w materials, personnel, processing techniques, equip-

ment, sto rage and manufacturing environments, and final assembly for spacecraft stow-

age. The success of the space food program demonstrates that var iables in man's food

supply can be accurately quantitated and regulated to the fidelity requi red. Procedures

and standards developed for space foods serve as benchmarks fo r industry and publicfood safety programs.

Safety standards for Apoilo space foods were implemented by controls classi fied

into four general categories. These categories are personnel, environment, production

controls, and end-item tests and assembly. Each of these categories w a s further di-

vided into uni ts fo r day-to-day management and implementation. For example, the per-

sonnel controls were composed of cr it er ia to ensure the best available motivation,

teamwork, medical examinations and on-the-job health car e, clothing control, and on-the- job monitoring by Government and contractor management.

Control of the production environment was accomplished primarily by the use of

modified cleanroom techniques. Cleanroom techniques a r e implemented by productionsequence selection, equipment sanitization schedules, airflow and air filtration, tem-

per atu re and humidity control, differential air pressures, and air/surface sampling.

Airborne food contaminants were minimized and controlled by the use of cleanroomequipment and techniques for processing and packaging Apollo foods. An additionalbenefit in food processing is derived from the motivation and psychological impact

insti lled in the food-production personnel by the cleanroom operation and environment.

Production procedures for Apollo space foods were stipulated by published andcontrolled specif ications for each food item. A l l r a w materials were selected and spec-

ified to optimize food quality and minimize the need for food additives. A typical foodspecification identified 17 quality control stations in the production flow. Eight of the

most cri tic al control points for an Apollo food item a r e shown in figure 2. Each ofthese stat ions had definite "go" and "no go" decision cr it er ia for the contractor and

Government inspectors assigned to the task.

End-item testing w a s divided into acceptance testing, package testing, unintentional-additive ana lyses, microbiologic testing, storage environment inspection, testing to de-

tect storage deterioration, and nutrient analyses. Acceptance testing consisted of

uct w a s required to rate at least 6 on a 9-point hedonic scale, which has a null point at 5.

Foods receiving an average ra ting of 5 or below were rejec ted. Package testing w a s

organokptk e...a!uat;,on of fl2yor 2nd 2ppe.rance hy 2 panel nf food experts; Each pmd-

9



Q Q QI I

Formulationpecification Receiving

review inspection

I

I Q Q 9I I

Serialnumberins

rocessing Packaging

- - 1 I

Internal pressure

Content

Headpace analyses

Microbiology

Moisture content

Nutrient analyses

Q

Figure 2.- Eight cri tical control points

for Apollo foods.

lished by the World Health Organization.

performed on each package by physical ex-amination fo r apparent damage and fo r leaks

and heat-seal integrity when placed in achamber and held at near-vacuum conditions

(2 9 inches mercury).

Unintentional-additive analyses wer e

performed for ars eni c, beryllium, boron,cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium,

thallium, vanadium, and the common chlori-nated insecticides. Only two foods (tunafish

salad and shrimp cocktail) were found to

contain significant quantities of any of these

potentially toxic elements and compounds.Tunafish salad contained 0.76 ppm of mer -

cury, and shrimp cocktail contained 0.38 ppmof mercury. Foods from these lots were

removed fr om the inventory of fl ight food

supplies.

The levels of mercury contamination

found were well above the accepted safe

standards proposed for general populations :

0.01 ppm established by the U. S. Food andDrug Administration and 0.001 ppm estab-

It must be understood, however, that the

levels established by agencies to protect public health a r e based on safe leve ls of con-

sumption over an en tir e lifetime and have very lit tle bearing on levels of consumptionduring a 10- to 14-day Apollo mission. Despite th is dispari ty, however, the "contam-

inated" foods were removed from the inventory to better ensure that Apollo foods were

not contributing to any future chronic toxicity in American astronauts. The pr imarysignificance of these analyses w i l l become apparent as the information is built up in adata bank and used fo r comparison with space food production lo ts fo r future generationsof manned space-flight vehicles.

Food-storage environments were routinely checked fo r specified tempera ture and

humidity levels. These checks a r e augmented by instorage degradation studies of foodsamples collected at random for determination of peroxide values, thiobarbi turic acid

values, accumulation of nonenzymatic browning pigments, pepsin digestibility, and

ascorbic acid.

Microbiological quality standards for production of space foods were adapted fro m

the standards successfully used during the Gemini Program. The acute onset and sev ereconsequences of food poisoning and most foodborne d is ease s were completely accounted

for in the specifications for microbiological analysis of foods, packaging, and work sur-

faces. The microbial limit s allowed in these specifications fo r the Apollo food system

a r e summarized in table I . The original specifications were designed fo r dehydratedfoods and were subsequently expanded in scope to incorporate te st s for anaerobic bacilli

and for yeast and mold. These additional te sts reflected inclusion of normal-moisture

foods and more intermediate-moisture foods in the Apollo food systems commencing

with the Apollo 8 mission.

10



THE BAS ELINE APOLLO SYS TEM AND

SUBSEQUENT DES IGN CHANGES

The baseline configuration of the Apollo food system w a s very similar to that of

the Gemini food system because the Gemini and Apollo P rogr ams wer e to have been se-

quential with only a few months time between the last manned G e m i n i mission and thefirst manned Apollo mission. However, the first manned Apollo mission w a s launchedalmost 2 years after Gemini XII, and the intervening period w a s used to improve the

food system as indicated by reassessment, review, and test progra ms that were per-

formed. Also, with each succeeding Apollo mission, inflight evaluations and flight crew

debriefings revealed additional areas in which improvement through design changes w a snecessary and feasible. Refinements in selection and processing of foods were con-

stantly probed and tested fo r potential application to an Apollo mission. Adaptations in

foods and packaging were implemented to meet special mission requiremen ts and objec-

tives (e. g. , in-suit food syst ems fo r lunar surface extravehicular activity, and lunar

miss ion postflight recovery and quarantine). Menu and food adaptations were also im-

plemented to meet individual crewmember needs and preferences. A l l these changes to

the baseline system improved the flexibility a n d efficiency of the food system withoutsacrifice in reliability and with considerable improvement in quality.

The culmination of design changes to reflect new technology and to implement im-provements is best shown in a description of the Apollo 14 food system. Therefore,

the Apollo 14 food system is described separately in a later section of this repor t.

Baseline System

The baseline Apollo menu w a s provided for a crew of th ree fo r a 14-day mission.

The C M menu (table 111)w a s designed on a 4-day cycle that would be repeated s tart ing

on the 5th, 9th, and 13th days of a mission; the L M menu (table IV) included meals fo r2 days. The baseline menus consisted of beverage powders and of foods that generallywere categorized as bite size, rehydratable, o r semisol id thermostabilized. The con-

figuration fo r the baseline Apollo food system was established in 1965 and w a s desig-

nated "Apollo Block I Foods and Personal Hygiene Items. ''

In the baseline system, the food category designated as semisolid thermostabilized

consisted entirely of a chocolate-flavored, nutrient-defined formula food that w a s pack-aged in flexible meta l tubes. These tubes were designed to be compatible with an inflight

contingency situation that would requir e the wearing of full pre ssur e sui ts constantly.

Microbiological spoilage w as prevented in these high-moisture products (40 to 45 percentmoisture) by heat processing at temperatures designed to steri lize the product. This

type of heat processing of foods is generally referred to as "canning, '' but that is hardlyan accurate description of the process. The process is more accurately described by

the te rm thermostabilization. This slight elaboration on the meaning of the ter m ther-

mostabilization is included he re because, throughout the program, some confusion ap-peared to exist as to the meaning and use of the word. Also, i t should be noted that the

ter m thermostabilized w a s rarely used to describe foods processed i n this manner.Instead, it w a s found to be eas ie r to use the word "wetpack" to descr ibe foods having

normal moisture content and requiring heat prncess i~gc! prevent fssd spzilage bj mi-crobia l growth o r by enzymatic autolysis (o r both).

11



TABLE III. - BASELIN'E MENU FOR THE BLOCK ll COMMAND MODULE, APRIL 1967

[Mean daily energy intake per cr ewme mber : 2800 kiloca lories ]

Meat and spaghetti or

Cheese sandwiches

Banana pudding

Pineapple fruitcake

Grapefruit drink

beef and vegetables

(fortified)

Menu fo r

days 1, 5, 9 , and 13

R

B

R

B

D

Peaches

Bacon squar es

Cinnamon-toasted

breadcubes

Grapefruit drink

(fortified)

Corn chowder

Chicken sandwiches

Coconut cube s

Sugar-cookie cubes

Cocoa

Beef and gravy

Potato salad

Brownies

Chocolate pudding

Orange-grapefruit

drink

R

B

B

D

RB

B

B

D

R

R

B

R

D

Menu for

days 2 , 6, 10, and 14

Applesauce

Sausage pa tties

Apricot-cereal cubes

Cocoa

Pea soup

Tuna salad

Cinnamon-toasted

bread cubes

Chocolate cubes

Pineapple- grape fruit

drink

R

R

B

D

R

FI B

I D

Menu for

days 3, 7, and 11

Fruit cocktail o r corn

Bacon squares

Cinnamon- toaste d

breadcubes

Orange drink

Corn chowder

Beef pot roast

Graham-cracker cube:

Butterscotch pudding

Grapefruit drink

(fortified)

Potato soup

Chicken sala d

Beef sandwiches

Gingerbread

Cocoa

Food

(b )

RBB

D

type

__

R

R

BR

n

R

R

BB

D

Menu for

days 4 , a , and 12

__

Ham and applesauce

Peanut cubesStrawberry-cereal cubes

Cocoa

Pea soup

Salmon salad

Cheese sandwiches

Apricot pudding

Grapefruit drink

(fortified)

Shrimp cocktail

Chicken and gravy or

Cinnamon-toasted bread

Date fruitcake

Orange-grapefruit drink

chicken and vegetables

cubes

R

B

B

D

R

R

B

R

R

R

R

B

B

D

aApproximately 900 kcal/m an/day of contingency food will be substituted fo r standard rehydratable and bite-siz e foods on the last 5 mission

days by deleting puddings, cocoa, cinnamon-toasted bread cubes , and bite-size sandwiches, a s approp riate o n those days, to make the total daily

enerby intake approximately 2800 kiloca lories .

bR = rehydratable: B = bite size; D = beverage powder

TABLE I V . - BASELINE MENU FOR THE LUNAR MODULE, AP RIL 1 9 6 7

[Mean daily energy intake per c rewm embe r:3200 kilocalories]

FoodI Meal I Menu fo r day 1

Sausage pa tties


Coconut cubes

l B Pea soup R

Pineapple fruitc ake B

Salmon salad R

Cheese sandwiches B

Grapefruit drink (fortified) D

Beef an d gra vyPotato salad

Chocol ate puddingBrownies


Menu for day 2

Bacon squares

Ham and applesauce

Grapefruit drink (fortified)

Butterscotch pudmng

Peanut cubes

Potato soup

Chicken salad

Sugar-cookie cubes

Pineapple-grapefruit drink

Corn chowderBeef sandwiches

Date fruitcake

Cocoa D~-aR = rehydratable: B = bite size: D =be ver age powder.

12



Each cr ewman was provided with 15 tubes of the semisolid contingency food,

which contained minimal nutrient requi rements and provided an energy of 900 kcal/day

for 5 days. Command module stowage weight and volume allowances would not accom-

modate provision of these foods over and above the nominal menus. Ther efore, theflight menus had to be designed for replacement of an equivalent quantity of nominal

bite-s ize and rehydra table foods with thr ee tubes of contingency foods pe r man per day

for the last 5 days of a mission.

The bite-size it ems were dehydrated, compr essed, ready- to-eat cubes that con-

sisted of various meats, cheeses , fruit s, confections, breads, and cer ea ls. The sim-

plest approach to the fulfillment of the requirements f or manned spac e flight was to use

bite- size foods. Special formulations and dehydration procedures, in conjunction with

compression, resulted in high-nutrient-density foods that appeared to fulfill o r exceed

the requirements for all other food systems . Inflight preparation and consumption wer e

simple and only r equ ired that the crewmen be able to open the package and eat the foods,

which we re i n a cubed or rectangular for m and could be placed comfortably in the mouth.

For the best result s, the cubes were to be allowed to rehydrate slightly with saliva be-

fo re they wer e chewed and swallowed. Control of food crumbling after the prim ary pack-

age was opened in flight w a s accomplished by careful formulation (use of binder s and the

control of fa t and moistu re content); by the use of exact processing procedure s; and bythe application of edib le, protect ive coatings of suitable formulation (simple gelatin;

zein-in-alcohol solution; or an emulsion of sodium caseinate, oil, glycer in, gelatin,

and water) . The coatings were applied as liquids to each bite- size unit, and the excess

moisture or solvent was removed by freeze -drying or air -drying. Examples of bite-

size foods are shown in figure 3 .

The third major food category, the rehydratables, consis ted of precooked, dehy-

dra ted foods that requir ed the addition of water fo r r econstitution before consumption.Most of t hese foods were process ed by f re ez e dehydration because thi s method res ul ts

in a product that is readily reconstituted with water and closely rese mbles the originalfood in appear ance , flavor, and texture. Rehydratable foods were not as high in nutr ient

density as we re the bi te-size foods because

the individual servings, although molded to

ens ure uniform siz e, were not compressed.

The reconstitution process for compressed

food generally r es ul ts i n intolerably slow

o r incomplete rehydration. Also, the pr i-

mary package required for rehydratable

food was considerably la rger than the sim-

ple pouch that was used f or bite-size foods.

The larg er package was required because

of the need fo r additional space to addwater, a tube fo r expelling liquid or semi-

solid food fr om the package, and a pouch

containing a germic idal tablet to stabilize

the waste food residue. The penalty in

weight and volume wa s negated by crew-

memb er pref erence and acceptance of the

Figure 3 . - Exampies of typicai

bite- size foods.

rehydratable foods because of their rela-

tively fa mil ia r flavor , appearance, and tex-

tur e. Typical rehydratable foods a r e shown

in f igure 4.

13





were placed in refrigerated s torage (40" F). The final installation and vacuum packag-ing (after a triple flush with nitrogen) of the primary flight packages were not scheduled

to begin until 30 days before the specified delivery dates, which coincided with launch

and test dates. After completion of the packaging in primary flight packages, foods

wer e a rranged efficiently in meal units according to individual crewmember nutrient

requirements, mission time lines, and spacecraft stowage-volume configurations. Eachgroup of foods in primary packages that comprised a meal unit w a s overwrapped, and

the overwrapped meal w a s evacuated to a pressure of 29 inches of mercury afte r a triple

flush with nitrogen. The meal overwrap was a four-ply aluminum foil/plast ic laminatethat reduced overall volume and provided additional protection against contamination and

damage. This meal overwrap also served to unitize and identify each meal and could beused as a container for stowage of waste food and packages after the meal.

M e a l overwraps were labeled by mission day, meal, crewman (by color-coded

Velcro patch), and serial number. Each meal w a s attached to the next meal in the menu

sequence by a nylon lanyard to ensure ease of sequential retr ieval in flight. These dietswere designed to provide each crewman with the required energy and nutrients for opti-

mum performance throughout the mission. Daily rations were designed to provide

energies of 2800 and 3200 kcal/man/day for crewmen of the CM and LM, respectively.Daily protein, fat, and carbohydrate were 19, 17, and 60 percent, respectively, of the

energy provided. Selected foods were fortified with calcium lactate to meet a require-

ment for 1000 gr ams of calcium in each daily ration. Personal hygiene and accessoryit ems included in each food system assembly were limited to one toothbrush/man/

mission, one wet-skin cleaning towel/man/meal, and one stick of chewing gum/man/

meal.

The foregoing description of the baseline Apollo food system is brief, but it shouldprovide the necessary points of reference to comprehend the changes that were imple-

mented as a result of the various programs f o r system reassessment after the Apollo 1

fire early in 1967. Also, major changes in the food system were initiated as a result

of the experience gained from the evaluation of manned ground-based simulation testsof an Apollo command module (2TV-1) and lunar module (LTA-8) and from ground-basedfunctional verification of the U. S. A i r Force (USAF) manned orbiting laboratory (MOL)feeding system.

B a s i c D e s i g n C h a n g e s

Changes to the baseline food system can be classified most conveniently as(1) those implemented as a direc t o r indirect result of system reassessme nt to reduce

fire hazards, (2) those implemented to incorporate Apollo 7 experience and MOL foodsys tem design and development experience, and (3) those implemented to incorporate

Apollo 8 and subsequent flight experience.

Several initial suggestions to reduce the fire hazard i n the baseline food system

included the potential of supplying nonflammable food packaging. Material specialists

in the NASA monitored a survey of nonflammable packaging mat eria ls suitable for the

Apollo food system. The survey resulted in the acceptance of a recommendation to

prevent exposure of combustible foods, primary foods, and primary food packages to

the spacecraft environment by replacing the aluminum foil/plastic-laminated film that

w a s used for meal overwraps with a nonflammable material, polytrifluorochloroethylene

15



copolymer (Kel-F-82). Other recommended changes included were (1) replacement ofthe adhesive-backed aluminum foil meal-overwrap label with gray tape (TA-44 Polyken

tape) approved for spacecraft use; (2 ) replacement of the nominal nylon cloth lanyard

with a Teflon-coated Beta-cloth lanyard; (3) use of Kel-F-82 mate rial , instead of poly-

ethylene film, fo r flexible parti tions in the spacecraft food-stowage containe rs; and

(4) stowage in nonflammable spacecraf t-food-container l in er s made of polyimide mate-

rial with Teflon-coated Beta-cloth covers.

Other candidate food-packaging materials that were considered i n functional ve ri -

fication analyses included Teflon, polyvinylchloride, Kapton Type F, Aclar, and poly-

carbonate films. Of these materials , only Teflon and Aclar were competitive with the

Kel-F-82 mater ial in fulfilling all cr it er ia for food packaging and in reducing the com-bustion potential.

package indicated that the use of heat se al s with these materia ls in the many small, but

cr it ical , seams of the package w a s not reliable. Hence, a waiver was requested andapproved to continue the use of the original four-ply plastic-laminate materials fo r pri -

mary food packages because these materials would be protected by the Kel-F-82 meal

overwrap at all times other than a t mealtimes.

Functional te st s using Kel-F-82 and Teflon fo r the primary food

The foregoing changes in mater ials resulted in several problems. Flaking of theTeflon coating on the Beta-cloth meal-package lanyards presented a potential hazard

of inhalation of the resul tant aero sol, even in one-g conditions. Beta-cloth lanyards

without Teflon coatings were used to solve th is problem. The new meal-overwrap ma-

te rial was a primar y cause for an inc re ase in food system weight of approximately

0.25 lb/man/day, a total incr ea se of 10.50 pounds or 14 percent of the baseline weight.The most troublesome problem was the in cr ea se in stowage volume and the difficulty in

stowage of meals overwrapped with the relatively bulky and br it tle Kel-F-82 material .

Material thickness w a s found to vary f rom 4 to 8 mils, with corresponding variations

in flex strength. Relatively minor manipulation and abras ion of the meal overwraps

frequently resulted in the formation of pinholes and loss of vacuum. The integrity ofheat seals w a s very difficult to establish o r maintain until the performance of consid-

erable experimentation resulted in determination of the proper settings of the heat-sealing equipment fo r pr es su re , swell time, and temperature. The manufacturer of

the overwrap (material) also improved the quality of the product for th is unique applica-

tion. A process change that contributed to improved product strength resu lted in an end-

item that w a s primarily amorphous, ra ther than crystalline, in structure . Because of

the protection afforded by the prim ary food package, the resultant increase in gas per -

meability w a s not considered to be a significant disadvantage. The uniform materialthickness and improved flex strength resulted in a highly reliable food-package materialthat was used with increasing frequency as a pr imary food package f or new and improved

food items fo r each succeeding Apollo mission. In addition, the experience gained in

overwrap handling and fabrication w a s of value for purposes of future planning.

The early attempts to work with thi s relatively unknown materia l were not fullysuccessful. The initial expense was considerably g re ater than for the original foil/

plastic laminate, and the costly fai lu re s nurtured numerous misgivings about the new

material. If other alternatives had been available, or even remotely possible, it is

doubtful that the use of Kel-F-82 material would have been pursued f a r enough to rea-

lize the success and potential additional applications that are being realized presently.

16



Pr im ary - Package Des ign Changes

Packaging fo r bite-size foods. - The relatively simple package for bite-size foods

(fig. 5 functioned w e l l throughout all Apollo flights. The only changes were the de-

crease i n the si ze of the paper labels and modification of the package size to accommo-date either four, six, o r eight cubes of food.

Packaging f o r rehydratable foods. - The package fo r rehydratable foods served

many functions, and the improved cur rent designs are still not optimal. Problems wereevident in the germicidal-tablet pouch, heat-seal strength, rehydration valve, zero-g

feeder mouthpiece, fabrication methods, package weight and volume, and procedures

required for food reconstitution and consumption. In an attempt to increase package

rel iabili ty and uniformity of quality, to reduce the weight and volume, to standardize

pa rt s, to reduce the amount of exposed surface ar ea of combustible materials , and to

reduce cost s by simplifying and increasing the speed of manufacture, numerous changes

were made.

1. The germicidal-tablet pouch w a s relocated and fabricated a s a portion of the

basic-package blank cutout. This relocation eliminated a frequent point of packagefailure caused by the attachment of th e germicidal-tablet pouch to the outside of thefinished package by a heat-seal process . The time and effort required for fabrication

were reduced.

2. The angle of the package shoulder was lowered from 45" to 30" . This changeresulted in a more gradual transition from the package-body diameter to the mouthpiecediameter that decreased the pressure st resses at the package shoulder when food was

squeezed from the package.

3 . The length of the package for semisolid foods was reduced. This change re -sulted in a weight reduction of 2 gr am s for each package and of approximately 1 pound

for a mission se t of food. The exposed combustible surface area w a s reduced by7 square inches for each package and by 1470 square inches for a mission set of food.

4. The length of the rehydratable-beverage package (fig. 6) was increased. This

change enabled the provision of beverages in 8-ounce servings instead of 6-ounce serv-

ings and, thus , increased the amount of beverage available per unit weight and volumeof packaging material.

5. A study was initiated to determine the feasibility of reducing the s ize of the

germicidal tablet from 1 to 0.5 gram. Study result s later indicated that this change was

feasib le but not worth the cost of new procurement of germicidal agents and the requireddocumentation changes.

6. Automated package fabrication w a s instituted. A s a result , the production in-

creased fro m approximately 12 to more than 100 packages/hr. Package uniformity also

was improved by using automated production methods.

7 . The diameter of the mouthpiece for rehydratable foods w a s increased from0.75 inch to 1.25 inches. This change made possible the use of lar ge r pieces of food--.Ind, t h ~ s , esulted i n i zLproy& te&di;re 2nd f lavor of the rehydrat&ie foods.

17



The differences in the original rehydratable-

food package and the modified des igns that

we re used for the Apollo 8 and subsequent

missions are shown i n fig ure 7. However,

despite the foregoing design improvements,

a few fai lur es occ urred during the 2TV-1

test and i n the Apollo 7 spacecraft.

a

,

Food syst em support for the 10- and

12-day manned thermovacuum (2TV-1 and

2TV-2) tests of the CSM was accomplished

without major problems. The three-man

tes t crews we re provided with sample s for

evaluation purposes. The ,preferences ofeach crewmember wer e considered i n de-signing the menus that w ere based on a nom-

ina l 4-day cycle. Although the decision to

reduce flight-menu energy levels from

2800 to 2500 kcal /man/day had been madepreviously, 2800 kcal/man/day we re pro-

vided during the ground-based test because

additional energy was requir ed to s ustain

body weight under one-g conditions.

i

Figure 7. - Original Apollo rehydratable-

food package (top) compared with mod-ified designs for semisolid foods

(center) and beverages (bottom).

The test was indicative that se ver al problems w er e inherent in the primary-food

package : (1) weakness in the heat-sealed side se am s of seve ra l rehydratable-food pack-ages, ( 2 ) water leakage around the rehydration valve when water was injected into the

package and when the test crewmen attempted to eat the rehydrated food, (3 ) malfunction

of the mouthpiece of severa l rehydratable-food packages, and (4) fai lure of the heat sealsepara ting the germicidal tablet fro m the food before food consumption. The problem

of weak heat se al s was the most significant because uncontrolled dispersion of liquid

or dry food partic les in a zero-g cabin environment could cause damage to spacecraft

equipment or re su lt i n inhalation of foreign mate ria l by the crewmen.

Similar package failur es o ccurr ed during a manned test i n the MOL simulator

at the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine (SAM) at Brooks A i r Force Base, Texa s.

The baseline design fo r the MOL food system w a s the same as for th e Apollo Prog ram ,

and the sa me prime contractor and subcontractors were used. A working group that

consisted of representatives from the MOL Systems Office, Lo s Angeles, California;

SAM, San Antonio, Texas; the U.S. Army Food Labor atorie s, Natick, Massachusetts;

and MSC, Houston, Texas, had been unofficially formed to share the design and develop-

ment task s of both syst ems.

A review of the problems showed that the side-s eam fai lure s in the rehydratable-

food packages we re caused by delamination of the package materi als . The delamination

was traced to a change in the adhesive material that was used by the supplier. Compar-

ison te st s showed that the new adhesive material de terior ated and lost strength mor e

cpickly L5an had the original adhesive. Fresh lot s of m ate ria l were procured, and the

contract manufacturing specifications that governed the procurement were revised to

preclude re cur ren ce of the problem.

18



The los s of a heat seal near the germicidal tablet w a s not attributed to a problemwith the materi al, because the fai lur e appeared to result f rom inadequate heat, pressure,

or dwell time of the heat-seal bar during package fabrication. The fai lure w a s a singular

occur rence among more than 1000 rehydratable-food packages, and the heat-seal equip-

ment may have had a trans ient localized failure. However, to prevent a rec urr ence of

this situation, the package-fabrication heat platens were checked and readjusted. In-

spection of the integrity of the germicidal-tablet-pouch se al s w a s placed on the list ofmandatory 100-percent-inspection points.

Fai lures in the water valve and mouthpiece during the 2TV-1 test were attributed

to poor workmanship and inadequate inspection. Closer supervision of employees, im-proved fabrication methods, and increased inspection during manufacture were imposed

as corrective measures by the contractor. Several batches of tes t arti cle s were fabr i-

cated and tested to verify that the process would be satisfactory. Otherwise, the crew-men were satisf ied with the quantity and quality of the ir food suppl ies. Post-testanalysis of the food set revealed that nearly 90 percent of the available food had been

consumed. The 90-percent level of consumption is rather remarkable because approxi-

mately 2 to 5 percent of the food is residue that adheres to the w a l l s of the packages.

During the second day of the Apollo 7 mission, further problems with the

rehydratable-food packages occur red. The crew repor ted a rather messy failure of aside sea m of a package of chocolate pudding. Subsequently, during the sa me flight, the

crewmen reported finding one mouthpiece that had been sealed shut, a water valve that

did not have an accessible opening to allow addition of water, and several other water

valves that leaked food or water around the outside of the valve. Postf light analyseswere conducted with the assistance of personnel f rom SAM and fr om the U . S . Army

Natick Laboratories. The cause of the side-seam fa ilures w a s more elusive this time.

An extensive search to determine the source of the problem w a s required before it w a sdetermined that an automated package-fabrication technique should be modified to en-

sur e that heat seal s were at least 0.25 inch wide. Verification te st s were conducted

by SAM personnel, and revised in-process inspection procedures wer e increased froma 10-percent-sample-test requirement to a 34-percent-sample-test requirement. Con-

tr ac tor and Government inspections of the finished packages were increased to100 percent.

The working group also developed a more reliable technique fo r installation of the

rehydratable-food-package water valve. This technique included the use of a section of

Teflon shrink tubing to form a leakproof friction f i t of the water valve to the package.

The previous method of hand wrapping nylon thread over the interface w a s deleted be-

cause of susceptibility to human er r or and the difficulty of checking fo r discrepancies.Package fail ures did not recu r in any subsequent mission food set. However, the

rehydratable-food package is susceptible to failu re, and correction of one weak spot

or failure point see ms to resu lt in a similar fai lure in another pa rt of the package.Any relaxation in production discipline and quality assurance could be expected to re-

sult in a recurr ence of package fai lures.

19



CO NT I NGEN CY FEED I NG SYSTEM

The purpose of the contingency feeding system is to pro ride nutriment to the c rew-

men when they are wearing pressurize d suits. The nominal Apollo food s ys te m was not

designed to provide f or food consumption while the c rewmen a r e wearing p res sur ized

suits. In case of complete loss of cabin pre ssure dur ing a mission, the crewmen might

be required to wear pressurized suits continuously for as long as 115 hours. Water

would be available by passing the probe of the potable-water dis penser through the hel-

met f eedport.

The contingency food sys tem, which had been designed fo r Apollo Block I, involved

a nutrient-defined semiso lid food contained i n flexible metal tubes that had an attached

pontube. Rea sse ssment of the basic sys tem revealed that a crewman could not exert

sufficient external pr es su re on the metal tube to force the s emisol id food from the tube,

through the pontube, and into hi s mouth. This problem w a s attributed to the positive

pr es su re differential (3.5 ps ia inside the suit) and the viscosity of the semiso lid food.

The configuration of any food selec ted for contingency feeding was limited by the si ze

of the helmet feedport , which is 0.34 inch in diameter. In addition, consumption of

the bas ic contingency food each day, as part of the regularly scheduled meals, general-

ly was not acceptable. Stowage weight and volume res tri ct ion s made it mandatory that

contingency foods be an inte gra l pa rt of the daily menu. Because some missions we re

scheduled for only 10.6 days duration, it is apparent that 5 days of contingency food

co mp ri se s almos t one-half of the nominal diet. A t this level, i t is inappropriate to

consider the food as being i n a contingency category. A l s o , the sweet chocolate flavor

of t he food wa s not acceptable when consumed as a major portion of the diet over atimespan of a week o r more .

P r io r to selec tion of a final design (fig. 8 ) , several approaches to contingency

feeding we re evaluated. The development, designs, and problems assoc iated with each

approach are described briefly in this report. Numerous concepts wer e considered,but only those concepts that were selected for design-verification testing a r e presented.

Fluted probe to

Manuall y operated valve

Mates with pressure-suit

Interrupted threads to cut

match ng threads in

rehydration-valve body

Figure 8 . - Contingency-feeding-system

nylon restrainer pouch with attached

pontube and filled (at 3.5 psia)

beverage package. adapte r.

Figure 9. - Contingency-feeding-system

pontube with rehydration-valve

20





Removable

pressure

dat e

*.em-

L r a m e

(a ) Topview. (b) Side view.

Figure 11.- Contingency-feeding-system restrainer assembly.

The evolution of the valve-adapter pontube that w a s designed to interface with the

rehydration valve of the food package is shown in figure 12. A shutoff valve w a s incor-

porated into the valve-adapter pontube to prevent the lo ss of cr iti ca l suit pr es su re i f arupture of the beverage package were to occur, Also, the shutoff valve w a s incorporated

to prevent the lo ss of liquid fr om the package afte r r ehydration and to prevent a sudden

su rge of p re ssur e into the package when the pontube w a s inse rted into the helmet. With

the use of a shutoff valve, the pre ss ur e inside the package could be gradually equalizedwith the su it pre ss ur e without rupturing the food package when the valve was used with

the nylon res tr ai ne r pouch. The length of the pontube w a s increased from 4 o 6 inches

to improve acce ssib ilit y to the crewman's mouth. The one disadvantage of the valve

adapter is that the orifice, at the point of a ttachment, is small; therefore, only low-

viscosity fruit beverage s were recommended f o r use.

The nylon res tr ai ne r pouch that was

included in the Apollo 8 system is shown infigure 13. Although thi s design prevented

rup ture of the food package, the crewmen

would have been requi red to ins er t the food

package into the pouch while wearing pre s-

surized gloves, and this w a s a difficult and

time-consuming task.

The last configuration of t h e food-

rest rain er pouch as used on Apollo 10 and

subsequent miss ions is shown in figure 14.This design incorpora tes a double-zipper

pouch that enables the crewman to ins er tthe package into a relatively l arge opening

and then re str ain it further by closing the

second zipper. The only problem encoun-

te red during evaluation of the nylon re-

str ain er pouch w a s a fail ure in the package

between the main section of the package andthe germicida!-t&!et sectim. TMs prob-

lem was eliminated by the removal of the

r-- e

Figure 12. - Evolution of the contingency-

feeding-system valve-adapter pontube(ea rli es t concept at top, intermedia te

concept at center, and current design

at bottom).

22



J

Figure 13. - Apollo 8 contingency Figure 14. - Final contingency-feeding-

feeding syst em, shown assembled and syste m re st ra in er pouch, shown with

packaged in nonflammable Kel- F- 82 rehydratable-beverage package in-materia l (top). The valve-adapter stalled before closur e of the zipper s.pontube is in the center, and t h e re- A valve-adapter pontube is also

shown.tra ine r pouch is at the bottom.

germic idal t ablet fr om the fruit-beverage package and by the provision of a supply of

tablet s i n an acce ssor y bag, which w a s stowed sep arately .

The location of the feedport in the Apollo A7L-style helmet is approximately op-posite the left ear; therefore, drinking or eating is a n awkward, but not impossible,

task. It w a s anticipated that the crewmen might r equ ire the as sist anc e of a fellow crew-

man when consuming contingency foods.

The contingency feeding sy stem that w a s used fo r the Apollo 10 to 14 missionsconsisted of one valve-adapter pontube and three nylon food-restr ainer pouches. Each

restrainer pouch contains a package of beverage powder. Thus, f or initial us e, the

crewman must rehyd rate the beverage powder and attach the pontube. After drinking

this beverage, the empty package can be replaced with additional beverage packages asmany times as the crewman desi re s o r until all beverage powders a r e consumed. On

the Apollo 10 to 14 miss ions, however, no problems were encountered i n maintaining

the space craft cabin pr es su re ; thus, contingency feeding w a s not neces sary.

FOOD STOWAGE

Spacecr aft food-stowage locations, the LEB and the LHEB in the C M and one com-partmen t in the LM, are shown in fi gures 1 5 and 16, respectively . The C M stowage

container s we re manufactured by the pr ime contractor f o r the CM and shipped to the

food con tracto r fo r stowage of t ie food system. To ensure h a t stowage of ihe food s y s -

tem did not re sul t in changes to the external dimensions of the food containe rs and to

ens ure the proper inter face between the spacecraft and the container, a fit-check toolwas provided fo r use before shipment of the food sys tem to the launch site. The

23



Food- W a t e r

dispenser

L L E B ood bo x Figure 16. - Apollo LM food-stowage

area and water-dispenser location,

shown in an af t view of the LM.

LHEB food bo x

Figure 15. - Apollo CM food-stowage

areas .

fit-check tool is shown in f igure 17 insta lled on an LHEB food-stowage conta iner. The

stowage configuration of the LEB food-stowage container ( C M compartment B- 1) isshown in figure 18 a s it appeared for the First Article Configuration Inspection. The

crewman locates the first inflight mea ls by removing the o ra l hygiene kit (indicated by

a tube of toothpaste and br is tl es of a toothbrush seen on the face of the stowed meals in

fig. 18). Then, the crewman follows the lanyard to the meals that ar e designated fo r

day 1. Meal identification is accomplished by the u se of a patch of Velcro t h a t iscolored red for the commander (CDR), white for the command module pilot (CMP), and

blue for the lunar module pilot (LMP).

Food-stowage orientations fo r the LM were performed according to int erf ace con-trol drawings and specifications. Meals were then shipped to the launch site in mockup

LM food containers.

Considerable difficulty was e xper i-enced in the coordination between the con-

tract or for the C M and the food con tractor.

This problem occu rred prima rily because

the dimensions of the food-stowage con-

tainers were not available until shortly be-

fo re the 2TV-1 test in May of 1968. The

orig inal total volume ava ilable in LHEB

compartment L-3 and LEB compart-ment B-1 food-stowage containers was

5208 cubic inches. Materials and configu-

rati on changes resulted in a reduction of

205 cubic inches, which r esul ted i n a total

available volume of 5003 cubic inches.

This volume appears to be more than ade-quate because -baseline food and packaging

Figure 1 7 , - Fit-check tool installed onvolume requirements averaged an LHEB food-stowage container.

24



3115 in /man/day, fo r a total requirement

of 4830 cubic inches fo r a 14-day mission.

However, the volume that was available w a sprovided in irr egu lar shapes and w as not

necessarily compatible with food-package

and mealsha pes. Several change s i n the

available volume of the spacecraft food con-

tainer s were necessar y because of incon-sistent C M wire-bundle dressings behind

the containers. This configuration resulted

i n considerable redesign of meal orientation

and stowage.

Despite these irreg ula r shapes and

difficulties with firm ly defined in ter faces,

the Apollo Block II system of food stowage

w a s a significant improvement over the s y s -tems available for the Gemini and Apollo

Block I food sys tems . For example, the

Apollo Block I food-stowage area w a s sub-

divided into seven small, irr egu lar ly shaped

conta iners that proved to be very inefficient

and rest ri ct ive for the purposes of food

stowage. The food-stowage volume for

Gemini missions also w a s inefficient; how-

ever, the most cr iti cal factor was that food-

stowage containers were not available for

use by the food contractor and meals could not be shipped i n the proper configuration

to the launch sit e. Consequently, considerable effort w a s required to achieve stowage

in the Gemini vehicles i n the cri tical period 24 hours before launch.

Figure 18. - Lower equipment bay

food- stowage container .

The weight and volume histori es ( table V) show an overal l growth i n these param-

3e ter s f ro m the low of 115 in /man/day and 1 .8 lb/man/day of food i n the baseline s y s -

3tem to 188 in /man/day and 2.48 lb/man/

day of food for the Apollo 14 food system.

Food acceptance and consumption by the

crewmembers also increased considerably

during this period , but the relationship of

food system weight and volume to crew ac-

ceptance is not linear. The increa se in all

three parameters is primarily attributable

to the idealized and unrealist ically lowweight and volume of the baseline food s y s -tem and the r eal ist ic liberalized allowancesfo r the actual flight systems.

T A B L E V . - FOOD SYSTEM WEIGHTS AND VOLUMES

SUPPLIED FO R SELECTE D APOLLO MISSIONS

Average weight / Average vo lum e/3

m a d d a y , i na d d a y , lb

i s s i o n

B a s e l i ne

Apollo 7

Apollo 1 1 2 . 2 6

Apol lo 14 2 . 4 8

25



The growth in both weight and volume would have been much g reater if a numberof basic design changes had not been implemented. A number of major fac to rs contrib-uted to the weight increases.

1. Inclusion of conventional foods, thermostabilized and intermediate-moisturetype, with normal moisture content (60 to 70 percent and 20 to 30 percent moisture,

respectively, compared with dehydrated foods containing less than 7 percent moisture)

2. Use of rigid metal cans as the primary packages for some thermostabilizedfood

3. Change of meal overwraps from aluminum foil/plastic laminate to nonf1am’-

mable Kel-F-82 plastic film

4. Addition of partitions to the spacecraft food-stowage containers

5. Addition of the or al hygiene kit

Several major fac tors contributed to the reduction of the food system weight and

volume.

1. Deletion of contingency food in flexible metal tubes

2. Size reduction of the rehydratable-food packages

3. Reduction of the daily energy provisions per man fr om 2800 to 2500 kilocalo-ries in the CM and from 3200 to 2800 kilocalor ies in the L M

One of the most significant Apollo food-package improvements that w a s introducedinto the food system was the rehydratable-food spoon-bowl package (figs . 19 and 20). ASthe name implies, the spoon-bowl package allows fo r food consumption in a more or less

conventional manner by using a spoon to eat fr om a bowl. The original package fo rrehydratable foods w a s character ized by squeezing and sucking food through a plastic

mouthpiece into the mouth. The spoon-bowl package ac ts as a bowl after food rehydra-

ventional serving spoon. Conversely, food can be readily consumed in the original

squeeze and suction method by removing the rehydration valve af ter rehydration and

mixing and using this orif ice as a mouthpiece. In fact, a few crewmembers used this

lat ter option on severa l occasions in flight.

tion and allows fo r consumption of liquid foods in weightlessness with the aid of a con-

Limited quantities of the spoon-bowl package were first used on the Apollo 10flight. This pouch package is shaped with an extension on one side a t the bottom of thepackage for the rehydration valve. Rehydration of foods in the spoon-bowl package is

accomplished i n the same manner as for the original rehydratable-food package. Afterthe food is mixed with wate r, the top of the package is cut with scissors along a marked

line. The cut flap is held out of the way by mating Velcro patches on the flap and bodyof the package.

Two parallel plastic zippers are incorporated at the top of the package. The useof two zippers effect a stronger temporary closure, and the lower zipper keeps the top

zipper clean during rehydration. The lower zipper also se rves as a place where excess

26



Cutting lineThumblfinger loops

Plastic

zippers va Ive

Cutting tine-’

Figure 19. - Rehydratable-food spoon-

bowl package with wate r di spens er

ins ert ed in the rehydration valve.

Figure 20. - Rehydratable-food spoon-bowl package.

food can be scrape d off the spoon during consumption. Both z ippers may be used for

tempo rary rec los ure of the package during the mealtime and for final clo sure af ter

eating, before stowage of the used package with any food residue and a germicidal

tablet. On each side of the package, a finger/thumb loop is available f o r us e by the

crewman fo r one-handed opening and closing while using the other hand to spoon out

the contents in a ra th er conventional fashion.

Severa l approaches fo r improving the method of adding water to rehydra table

foods we re investigated during development of the spoon-bowl package, but none offered

significant advantages over the basic design. The best of the design modifications con-

sidere d was based on the use of pliable, self-sealing o r self-closing ma ter ial s that wer ephysically displaced o r f orced open temporarily by inser tion of the water-dispensing

probe. These ape rtu re concepts offered simplified manufacture because of the circum-

vention of a number of the precision par ts i n the original r ehydration valve (such asgrooved areas fo r rubber O-rings and spring-loaded one-way valves). Many of the

concepts investigated are included in the appendix of th is report . Inclusion of th is ex-

tensive collection of rehydration-valve o r aperture concepts should not be const rued to

mean that this was the only a r e a of packaging that w a s thoroughly investigated. Similar

studies wer e conducted fo r each component of the Apollo food sys tem. Inclusion of

the se various valve and apert ure concepts as an appendix is justified by t he fact that

the cu rr en t Apollo and Skylab designs ar e not optimal and should be improved. Th is

appendix provides a sui tab le point of departure fo r improving the design of the food-

package rehydrat ion valve in futur e space food sys tem s.

Many of the detailed design analyses that were performed on Apollo foods and pack-

aging wer e conducted by the ad hoc Joint NASA-Department of Defense Aerospace Feed-

ing System Working Group. The U.S. A i r Force and the U.S. Army provided most of

the technical manpower fr om extensive res our ces at the School of Aerospace Medicine

and the U.S. Army Natick Laboratories.

27



PERSONAL HYGIENE AND ACCESSORY ITEMS

Changes in personal hygiene and accessory items before the Apollo 7 mission

consisted primarily of the inclusion of an oral hygiene kit that contained a roll of dentalfloss, three toothbrushes, and a tube of ingestible toothpaste. For Apollo 8, new

contingency-food-system packages, food-serving spoons, and an ex tra package of ger-

micidal tablets were provided. Spoons were packaged individually in Kel-F-82 plasticfilm and were integrated into each subsequent mission food set.

FOOD DEVELOPMENT

A s w as indicated earlier in thi s repor t, the Apollo food system w a s considered tobe fully developed by 1966 and additional re se ar ch and development were not programed.

Development funds for any flight foods were extremely limited and were designated for

the Skylab Program (then the Apollo Applications Program). The unanticipated delay

(February 1967 to October 1968) between the first scheduled manned Apollo mission

(Apollo 1) and the first actual manned mission (Apollo 7) afforded an opportunity for aninvestigation of the foods available for the remainder of the Apollo Program. Biomed-ical personnel from MSC served as test subjects in evaluation of the baseline menu

(tables III an d IV ) by use of the foods as a sole source of sustenance fo r 5-day periods.The deficiencies that were suspected in the food system were evidenced by subjective

rep ort s resulting from these personal experiences. One of the first conclusions wasthat active crew participation in menu design would be an absolute requirement to en-

su re success of the inflight food system. Other points of interes t that were observedincluded the fact that a food which w a s disliked mildly by an individual at the outset

might be unbearable when consumed frequently with subsequent meals . The conversew a s tru e for other items; for example, a particular food which w a s disliked mildly whenfirst eaten with a meal might be elevated in pre ference to "like slightly" at subsequent

meals. The composition of meals reflected a preference fo r individual foods. A favor-

ite item, such as bacon squares, might be anticipated with a response that varied fro m

pleasure to exuberance. Evaluations were performed while maintaining normal work

routines, and food preparat ion w a s found to be tedious and time consuming. Consump-

tion of food i n the manner prescribed for zero g during flight w a s unnatural and difficult.

Food textures and flavors usually were not character istic of a particular food item;for example, a hard, compressed cube made of toasted breadcrumbs held together by

a starch-gelatin matrix and coating does not taste like a conventional slice of toasted

bread. A s a result of the foregoing evaluations, a review of the Gemini mission data,and ground-based investigations of organoleptic acceptance of aerospace flight-type

foods, development efforts were established with an objective of improving the overa ll

food system.

A s mentioned previously, funds fo r development of the food system were not

available; however, it is doubtful that the time available for developmental efforts on

a cont ract basis would have been sufficient to be of significant benefit to the early Apollo

missions. A NASA contract, which w a s in effect with the Natick Laboratories, contained

requirements fo r some rather broadly described support services . The support serv-ices that were provided concerned menu design, food-preference and flight-qualification

screening, writing and maintaining cur rent specif ications for food production, supply of



several food formulations (as Government-furnished products) through the MSC to the

prime food contractor, and development of experimental foods for the Skylab orbital

workshop. This effor t w a s redirected to emphasize improvement of the Apollo Program

foods. Personnel at the USAF SA M provided the services of a food technologist on vir-tually a full-time basis to monitor and perform the developmental efforts at the Natick

Laboratories. Also, military personnel assigned to the SAM continued to perform par-

allel investigations and collaborated on the direction of developmental efforts. Numerousspecific projects were undertaken and are listed as follows.

1. Improving the texture of rehydratable foods

2. Increasing the variety of flavors and types of rehydratab le and bite-s ize fooditems

3. Developing a technique for preservation and packaging of conventional fr esh

bread

4. Accelerating the development and flight qualification of normal-mois turethermostabilized foods

5. Determining a method for maintaining storage stability of fresh fruit

6. Developing in termediate-moisture foods

The results of the initial efforts were rewarding, and the original li st of 47 foods

(table VI) was increased to 90 foods that passed flight-qualification te st s (table Vn).Sixteen foods submitted for test failed and were rejected. In addition to the nominalqualification tests and analyses , selected physical, chemical, and microbiological

analyses (table VIII) were performed to establish objective indexes and rates of de-

terioration. Analyses were performed after 0-, 14-, 30-, and 60-day exposures tosimulated spacecraft environments. The interpretation and extrapolation of the analyt-

. ical data enabled rapid evaluation and a more accurate prediction of the potential forsuccessful flight qualification of new foods that were developed or suggested for subse-

quent flights.

29



TABLE VI.- APOLLO PROGRAM BASELINE FOODS, APRIL 1967

~

FoodFood type

(a)ood

Desserts

Gingerbread BPeanut cubes BPineapple fruitcake B

Sugar-cookie cubes B

Contingency food T

Salads

Chicken R

Potato RSalmon R

Tuna RShrimp cocktail R

soups

Corn chowder R

Pea R

Potato R

I Beverages

Cocoa

Grapefrui t drink (fortified)Orange drinkOrange- grapef rui t drink

Pineapple- grapef rui drink

DDD

D

D

I Breakfast i ems


Fruits and vegetables

Applesauce

Corn

Fruit cocktail

Peaches

Peas

R

R

RR

R

I Breads

Cinnamon- toasted bread cubesGraham-cracker cubes

Desserts

Apricot pudding

Banana pudding

Brownies

Butterscotch puddingChocolate cubes

Chocolate puddingCoconut cubesDate fruitcake

R

R

B

RB

R

BB

Meats

Bacon squ ares

Beef and gravy

Beef pot roast

Beef-sandwich bites

Beef and vegetables

Cheese-sandwich bites

Chicken and gravy

Chicken-sandwich bites

Chicken and vegetables

Ham and applesauceSausage pattie s

Spaghetti and meat sauce

B

R

R

B

R

B

R

B

R

RRR

?D = beverage powder; R = rehydratable; B = bite size; T = thermostabilized.

30



TABLE M.-FOODS QUALIFIED FOR FLIGHT

Cheese-c racker cubesCinnamon- toaste d bre ad cube sToasted bread cub es

Food

BBB

Beverages

, CocoaChe r ry punchCoffeeFruit punchGrape punchGrapef rui t dr inkGrapef rui t d r ink ( for ti f ied)Grapef rui t dr ink (p ink)Lemon punchLemon-lime punchMilk (whole)Or a nge d r inkOrange dr in k ( for t i f ied)Orange- grapef ruit dr ink

Pineapple ju icePineapple-grapefruit dr inkRasp ber ry punchStrawber ry punchTe a with lemon and sugar

B r e a k f a st i t e m s

DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

DDDDD

IApricot- cerea1 c ube sC r e a m e d whe at cerealOa tm e a lToa s t e d - oat c e r e a lS trawber ry-cerea l cubesSugar - f ros ted f lakes

Fru i t and vege tables

Applesauce

C or n c howde rFruit cockta i lP e a c he sPeach es wi th cot tage cheese

Cr ea m of chicken

Pota toCre am of tomato

Sa lads

ChickenPotatoSalmonShr imp cockta i lTuna

RRRRR

Food Food typeI (a)

D e s s e r t sI

Apricot cubesApr icot and c rea mApricot puddingBanana-chocolate mddingBanana riceBanana puddingBrowniesButterscotch pudding

But te r scotch tapiocaC a r a m e l rice puddingChocolate cubesChocolate ice c r e a mChocolate puddingCheesecakeCoconut cubesCoffee ice c r e a mCusta rdDate fruitcak eGingerbreadMaple-walnut tapiocaMocha ice c r e a mNut sundaePeanut cubesPineapple fruitcak e

Rum-coconut tapiocaVanil la ice c rea m

M e a t s

Alaskan crabBeef and gravyBeef and vegetablesBeef barbecueBeef hashBeef pot roastBeef sandwichBeef stewCanadian baconCanadian bacon an d app lesauceCheese sandwich

ChickenChicken sandwichChicken stewChicken with v egetab lesMeat and spag hettiPork barbecueP or k sa usa geSausage patti esStuffed tu rke y

BRRBBRBBBRB

BBBRRRBRB

aD = beverage powder ; R = renyara tabie ; B = bi te size, T = iilarrriudiabiiiaed.

31



TABLE VIII. - ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR

FLIGHT- QUALIFICATION TESTING

Types of analy ses performed a fte r 0-, 14-, 30-, and 60-day[ exposures to simulated spacecraft environments 1

Test type

Microbiological

Chemical

Physica1

Para met ers measured

Aerobes

Anaerobes

Salmonellae

ColiformsEnterococci

Staphylococci

Yeasts and molds

Hydrogen ion concentration

Moisture

Fat

Thiobarbituric acid

Peroxide valueAscorbic acidCarotene

A stacene

Nonenzymatic browningProtein

Frangibility

Rehydration ra te

0 rganoleptici ty

NUTR IT 1O N

In the determinat ion of the t rue value of any food sys tem, an ass es sm en t of how

effectively the foods maintain normal physiological pro cess es is as important as an as-sessment of the pleasure (hedonics) experienced by the consumer. Physiological as se ss -

ment w a s difficult because of the nature of mission objectives that were specified fo rspacec raft operations and the limited time available fo r exploration of the lunar surface.

Every manned space flight involved nutrition as an essential component of the lifesupport systems. Space-flight nutrition not only concerns the direc t support of the crew-men but also intimately involves the validity and interpretation of a l ar ge spec trum of

physiological and biochemical measurements obtained during flight.

32



Apollo food systems were designed to provide the crewmen with the energy, elec-

tro lytes, and nutrient balances that ar e necessary to maintain normal metabolic function,but the systems were not ideally s tructured to provide fo r complex evaluation of inflight

physiology. The preflight and postflight medical measurements that were made were

not expected to enable the detection of subtle changes in nutritional sta tus ; however, the

data that have been accumulated have resulted in clarifica tion and establ ishment of

trends that can be quantitated la te r a s a result of the complex inflight metabolic medical

exper iments (se ri es M-070, Nutrition and Musculoskeletal Function experiments) sched-

uled fo r the Skylab missions.

Changes that result f rom nutritional imbalances or deficiencies are slow to mani-

fes t themselves in the fo rm of gross physiological symptoms. Even severely deficient

energy intake will not a l w a y s produce remarkable signs for days or even weeks. The

incipient danger of such slow manifestations of deficiencies is that correction of the de-

ficiency and return to normal physiological status usually can require even more time

than was requir ed to produce th e condition. For the relatively shor t-duration Apollo

flights, nutritional measurements must be designed fo r maximum sensitivity and accu-

racyto

detectthe changes that would be much mor e evident during longer flights. This

set of cir cumstances frequently resu lt s in the tendency to overlook the need fo r meas-

urement and assessment of any medical parameter that is not an acute fulmination or

an absolute condition. Therefore , the rationale of providing fuel and elect rolytes to

maintain the physical ability to perform critical mission tasks is understandable. How-ever, this rationale wi l l not provide data that are necessary for the adequate interpre-

tation of changes in crew health status and fo r the establishment of accu rate cr it er ia

for life support on future manned missions.

Preflight and postflight changes in body weight and estimated daily energy intakes

for the Apollo 7 to 14 crewmen are presented in table IX; verage daily nutrient intakesfor these crewmen are listed in table X. The data in these tables are derived fro m

chemical analyses of the food item s that were provided for each crewman, an inventoryof foods provided fo r each crewman, and an inventory and evaluation of residual food

returned fr om each flight. Possible inaccuracies in the data occur in the postflight in-

ventory and evaluation because the crewmen occasionally elected to tr ade foods withone another and failed to make an appropriate entry in the daily flight-menu log. To

determine the degree of this type of inaccuracy is difficult, if not impossible, because

i t is the res ul t of inadvertent omission of a procedure that may seem inconsequential.

However, these errors are probably minimal, and the data presented rep resen t the

best available ass essme nt of inflight nutrient consumption.

Loss of body weight has been a consistent postflight finding in all Apollo astronauts

with the exception of the Apollo 14 CDR and L M P . Most medical opinions ascribe weight

lo ss es in Apollo crewmen to l os ses in total body water. These opinions are based onthe fact that Apollo crewmen have regained postflight weight deficits within the fi rs t48 hours after recovery. That logic is incomplete because changes in body composition

result ing fro m changes in proportions of fa t and lean tissue are omitted from considera-

tion. The bases for postulating that changes in body weight are caused by los s of lean

body mass as wel l as by los s of total body water are equally as valid but cannot beproved until more sophisticated techniques of anthropometric measurements are em-ployed in future manned space-flight missions. Determination of the type of body-weight

lo ss resulting fro m pro tracted periods of null gravity may have profound effects on nu-tritional cr it er ia and design of foods and focrd systems fo r fiitiire rXiriied apace-flight

programs.

33



T A B L E E.-ODY-WEIGHT CHANGES AND ENERGY INTAKES FOR THE APOLLO 7 T O 14 MISSIONS

Apollom i s s i o n

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

C r e w m a n

CDRC M PL M P

CDRC M PL M P

CDRC M PL M P

CDRC M PL M P

CDRC M P

L M P

CDRC M PL M P

CDRC M PL M P

CDRC M PL M P

A v e r a g ep re f l i g h t

(a )

193.5153.3155.8

168.8169.3146.3

161.0180.8163.8

175.2169.3175.1

173.0166.7

172.3

146.8155.8154.0

173.5197.1156.2

172.8166.0183..

Wei g h t , l b

L au n ch

day

194157156

169172142

159178159

171165173

172166

167

149.25155.25152.50

177.50197156

168165176

Reco v e ry

d ay

189.75147149.50

160.50164138

153.50172.50153

168.50159.50163

164159

166

145148140

163.50186149.50

169153177

R e c o v e r y+ 1 day

190.50150.50153.50

163.25164.75138.50

156.25181157.25

170.75161.25164.50

170159

170

147152143

(b )(b )(b )

170160178

Infl ight weightch an g e , l b

-4.25

-6.5-10

-8.5-8-4

-5.5-5.5-6

-2.5-5.5

-10

-8-7

-1

-4.25-7.25-12.5

- 14-11

-6.5

+1

-12+1

A v erag e d a i l yinf l igh t energy

i n t a k e , k c a l

197021401800

148016901340

192017201640

140013851310

20401640

2280

175016701690

158015401520

23101720'2330

Average of weigh ts determined 30, 15, an d 5 d a y s b e f o r e l a u n ch .

%o m e a s u r e m e n t t ak e n.

34



T A B L E X. - COMPARISON O F AVERAGE DAILY INFLIGHT NUTRIEN T INTAKES

Apol lom i s s i o n

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

C r e w m a n

CDR

L M PC M P

C DRL M PC M P

CDRL M PC M P

C DRL M PC M P

CD RL M PC M P

CDRL M PC M P

C D RL M PC M P

C D RL M PC M P

a

b S a i u m .

Iron.

Magnesium.

FOR THE APOLLO 7 TO 14 MISSIONS

1970

18002 140

1480

1340

1690

1920

1640

1720

1400

1310

1385

20402280

1640

1750

1690

1670

1580

1520

1540

2310

2 330

1720

Prote in ,

g

81

7496

59

52

80

86

66

78

58

49

46

7994

71

70

57

65

59

57

57

90

81

79

Chem ica l an:

Fat ,

g

72

5678

39

33

49

60

47

53

34

30

30

6573

54

50

42

49

5049

47

76

89

61

-

Carbo-iydrat e,

g

2 59

268280

231

217

240

280

252

240

213

208

213

29032 2

224

263

280

249

2 39

228

235

309

319

2 30

rses of nutrient intake

s h ,

g

16

1418

1110

15

15

13

14

3

3

3

1719

14

16

15

15

15

15

15

20

20

17

C a,

m g

64 4

9259 38

427

366

4 79

562

494

489

8 36

8 54

808

10361114

851

1095

1291

1022

870

786

871

802

843809

1060

8411125

847

760

983

1146

892

1073

8 14

701

74 6

10501225

901

1090

965

1028

780

716

720

1308

1304

1109

aFe,

mg

8

79

5

5

7

76

6

6

5

5

89

7

9

78

8

8

8

11

11

8

- bNa ,m g

3810

34804000

3170

2730

3980

4000

3410

3770

2970

2670

2290

27703220

2060

3580

3290

3240

3630

3350

3480

4870

4750

3780

- , .m g

1879

13361958

1229

986

1571

1677

1386

1708

1463

1182

1376

1751

2061

1441

1835

1484

1685

2036

1964

1942

2485

2576

2147

- ~

192

141185

113

97

145

157

129

146

107

96

104

138

166

119

119

108

117

107

102

98

181

192

149

35



Evaluation of the recorded nutrient intakes indicates that the Apollo 11LMP re-corded the best overall dietary intake. This evaluation of the quality of d ietary intake

does not necessarily correlate with the changes in body weight and is mentioned onlyto emphasize the fact that weight loss in flight should not be considered as the only pre-

dictor of the adequacy of a particular diet. Food intake for the relatively short durationof the Apollo missions may be most c ri tica l fo r the maintenance of a proper fluid and

electrolyte balance. The low levels of food consumption by many crewmen would beexpected to reduce their effectiveness to perform if those levels were maintained for

periods in excess of 2 1 to 30 days.

CDR CMPI

Measurements of changes in bone density as a result of weight lessness wer e per-

formed on the Apollo 7, 8, and 14 crewmen (table XI). Measurements taken after theApollo 7 and 8 missions were accomplished by using a radiographic technique pioneered

by Dr. P. B. Mack of Texas Woman's Universi ty. Bone-density change for theApollo 14 crewmen w a s measured by using an improved gamma-ray absorptometric

technique tha t is based on the measurement of photon-beam attenuation by soft and hard

body tissues. A s anticipated, no changes in bone density were detected. Significantchanges in bone density have not been apparent until at least 14 days of exposure to

simulated weightlessness (horizontal recumbency and hypokinesis). Simi lar measure-ments programed for later Apollo and Skylab missions will provide additional valuablebaseline data and refinement of measurement techniques for use in the Skylab Program

medical experiments.

LMP

TABLE XI. - MEASUREMENT O'F CREWMAN BONE DENSITY BEFORE

Multiple o s calc i s sec t ions

Multiple hand-phalanx sections

AND AFTER THE APOLLO 7, 8 , AND 14 MISSIONS

-4.10 +o. 19 +O . 85

- 9 . 3 0 +2.04 - 6 . 5 0

I 1

Multiple o s calc i s sec t ions - 7 . 0 8 - 6 . 0 4 - 6 . 5 0

Os calc i s +3.3

Radius - 1 . 5

36

+5.7 +5.9

-. 9 + l .0



On the remaining flights of the Apollo ser ie s, extraordinary precautions weretaken to ensure that the inflight menus were designed to provide predetermined quanti-

ties of such nutrients as phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, sodium, calcium, and

nitrogen. Very ca re fu l monitoring of water intake w a s continued. Special nutrient and

electrolyte formulations were developed for use on the lunar su rf ace while the crewmen

were performing their extravehicular activities. In addition to this rigorous inflight

control of nutrient intake, 3-day preflight and postflight nutritional control per iods wereimplemented. In the preflight and postflight periods, foods that approximated the foods

and nutrient composition of the inflight rations were provided. These sho rt periods of

preflight and postflight nutritional control helped to prevent rad ica l changes in nutrient

consumption while the crewmen were adapting from one g to z ero g and from zero g to

one g. In this w a y , changes that might otherwise have been brought about by differencesin nutritional intake were not incorrectly ascribed to the effects of weightless flight.

Analysis of inflight fecal and urine samples provided a better understanding of inflight

nutrient efficiency and gas tr ic function.

MENU SELECT1O N

Litera ture available on menu design, food habits , food pre ferences, psychophys-iology of eating, appetite, hunger, and related subjects is extensive. Reports, observa-

tions, and theories relat ing to dietary planning fo r every conceivable type of population

have been published. Some of these sou rces ar e listed in the bibliography. Examples

of the types of populations investigated and reported on include the following.

1. Military - submarine crews, surface vessel c rews, long-range ground combat

patrols, ballistic missile crews, aircraft alert crews, long-range reconnaissance and

bomber crews, medical air evacuation patients, and hospital s taffs and patients

2. Civilian - transoceanic airline passengers; coal miners ; ethnic groups;

minority groups; preschool children; high, low, and middle income groups; and collegestudents

3. Special civilian/military - polar explorers, mountain climbers, athletes,

astronauts, and environmental test subjects

Careful se lection and elimination of reference materials make it possible to

develop and justify almost any point of view and approach to the successful design of

menus fo r a given population. Even if all reports and data published during a specified

period of t ime could be accurately presented, the resulting conclusions and decisions

would be highly subjective and probably not pertinent to a new set of circumstances andvariables f or some future event. The origins and nature of individual food habits and

preferences preclude total objectivity in the selection of die ts for a group of people.

Many methods were considered for the design of Apollo menus, but experiencesoon identified two most promising approaches : %u%vidualized menus" fo r each

crewmember and "standardized menus" a s recommended for each flight (same menufor each crewmember of any given flight). In turn, each of these approaches w a s com-

posed of either "formula foods" o r %onventional foods. v v

37



The formula foods considered were nutrient-defined foods that contained all re-quired dietary allowances plus precise quantities of nutrients specified as a resu lt ofmedical experiments. Such formula foods could be assembled into either standardizedor individualized menus.

In the standardized menu configuration, each crewmember would be provided with

an identical formula food using a single acceptable flavor. The quantity of formula to

be consumed each d ay would be identical for each crewmember without allowance forpossible differences in physiological o r psychological requirements .

In the individualized menu configuration of formula food, various degrees of in-dividualization are possible. To limi t the range of possibi lities to manageable propor-

tions, it was assumed that this approach is characterized by the following.

1. Nutrient content is identical in each serving o r sample, but se vera l different

choices of flavors and textures are available for crewmember selection.

2 . Daily consumption is established in accordance with individual physiological

requirements.

systems are the following.

Among the numerous advantages of formula diets for manned space-flight food

1.

2 .

3 ,

4 .

5.

6 .

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Accuracy of nutrient intake measurements

Uniformity of nutrient consumption

Precision of adjustments fo r correction

Decrease in fecal mass and defecation frequency

Decrease in gastrointestinal gas and flatus production

Ease of measuring and disposing of wastes and residues

Stability at 70" F for as long as 2 4 months

Decrease in inflight meal preparation t ime

Reduction in time required for menu design and crew preference test ing

Eliniination of requirement for special inflight preparatioii equiprnmt

Reduction of weight and volume

Simplicity of package design

Reduction of nutrient and chemical analysis sample s iz e and replication

Ease of manufacture

Reduction of cost

38



The formula foods developed to date, however, have a single disadvantage that negatesall of these advantages. This disadvantage is manifest in the marginal crew acceptance

of the formula diet for periods in excess of a week o r two.

It was determined that the best probability fo r successful design of menus fo r the

Apollo Program would be found in the us e of individualized menus composed of conven-

tional foods. To establish a baseline configuration, however, it was necessary to fi rs t

establish a standardized menu using available Apollo conventional foods.

Conventional foods were selected from a n ar ray of Apollo foods consis ting ofprocessed natural foods and combinations of na tural foods. Standard menus were de-

veloped based primari ly on average physiological and psychological requir ements typicalof the astronaut population. This type of menu planning is employed by.the Departmentof Defense to meet the needs of unique military populations. Allowances fo r individual-ized menus are made for submarine crews, hospital patients, and others . However,

in virtually every instance, the military man is not restricted to eating all meals from

a single food service facility- ach individual ha s resources at his disposal to se cur efood fro m other sources. These options a r e never available to the astronaut, and this

fact reinforces the requirement to individualize menus to the extent possible..

A s flight crew ass ignments for each Apollo mission were announced, individual-

ized menus were developed using the best information obtainable for the requir ementsof each individual. The individualized menu gave each crewmember full opportunity

to satisfy h i s food preferences; the only limitation w a s that the menu selected must bewithin normal nutri tional allowances. It w a s learned in the Apollo Progr am that themore a crewmember had opportunity to familiarize himself wi t h the food before flight,the greater w a s his satisfaction with the food system. Experience with the Apollo food

system reinforced the theory that individuals are unique in their food habits, pr efer -ences, and requirements.

MOB ILE Q UARANTINE FAC IL l T Y FOOD SYSTEM

The Mobile Quarantine Facility (MQF) w a s used for ground-based biological isola-

tion of astronauts and support personnel during the initial s tages of recovery and tr ans -port after the Apollo 11, 12, and 14 lunar landing missions. The MQF food systems

(primary and backup) were deployed on the recovery vessel s fo r the Apollo 13 mission

but were not used because no lunar landing was made. These foods were returned to theMSC and were later used in support of Project Tekt ite I1 missions. A food system was

designed to be compatible wi th the facilities in the MQF and to fulfill postflight quaran-

tine requirements. Requirements for food tr ansfer s into the MQF, f or garbage trans-

fers out of the MQF, and for rapid meal preparation b y untrained personnel i n isolation

were established and were included in the design of the MQF. Precooked frozen mealswere used as the co re of the system and were reconstituted by the use of a small micro-

wave oven, which was located inside the MQ F . These meals were supplemented withshelf-stable beverages and snacks that were stowed in the MQF before transport to the

recovery zone. Production, packaging, handling, and configuration specif ications,

which were developed to meet the unique requirements of the M Q F , were imposed onthe contractor who prepared the precooked frozen meals.

39



During two simulation studies, it was found that exotic gourmet meals were unac-ceptable because these foods aggravated nausea that was attributed to the relatively

rough seas to which the CM is subjected after landing. It w a s determined that vomiting

and even sma ll amount of flatus would be a problem within the confined quarters . It wasalso determined that a 4-day menu cycle w a s most acceptable to simulation subjectsand that it was most feasible to provide the meals fro m the foods that wer e available.

Packaging methods were developed that effectively protected the foods and con-taine rs fr om damage despite the rough handling that occurred during transport of the

food system to the air cra ft car ri er and during the time the food w a s on board the re-covery vessel . Meals fo r six individuals were packaged in corrugated cartons, com-plete with the necessary eating utensils. Then, these boxes were enclosed in aninsulated shipping container fo r added protection. Also, the primary meal cartons wereused as waste containers for res idual food, food tr ay s, and food-packaging material .

To prevent putrefaction, res idual food was stabilized by the use of 8-hydroxyquinoline

sulfate before placement i n the primary meal container. To fulfill postflight quarantinerequirements, the pr imary meal carton, which contained res idual food and waste mate-rial, was placed in double polyethylene bags and hermetical ly sealed before t ransfer

(through’a disinfectant bath) out of the MQF.

During the Apollo 11 recovery phase on board the U.S.S. Hornet, the M Q F foodsystem was rendered virtually inaccessible, Frozen food storage w a s located on an-

other deck on the ship and w a s inaccessible to NASA food support personnel because ofU.S. Navy security requirements. Therefore, the MQF food syst em for subsequent

missions was stowed i n portable deep-freeze un i t s for transport to and storage onboard the recovery ship. These fr eeze rs greatly simpiified the task of meal transfer

because the freezers were stored near the MQF. D r y ice (120 pounds in each freezer)

maintained frozen-storage conditions during transit from the MSC to Pearl Harbor,Hawaii. On board the aircraft carrier , t h e freez ers were operated by electr ical power

and were guarded by U.S. Marine personnel.

Print ed menus and inst ruetiens Pnside the MQF for meal preparation aided thecrew in meal pl.epptratiOna~&txmdhMsn. A l s o , an M$C Food and Nutrition Branch

technical r epresentat ive, who accompanied the food to Hawaii, was on board the recoveryship to serve as the MQF food consul tant, and he remained w i t h the crewmen until theirreturn to the MSC . This individual ensured the smooth operation of the MQF feeding

system during the hectic activities t h a t are characteri stic of the first few days after aspace flight.

LUNAR RECElV l NG LABORATORY FOOD SYSTEM

A food syst em was designed to feed flight crews and support personnel in the

Lunar Receiving Laboratory (LRL) during the mission quarantine periods after lunarmissions. Basically, the system consisted of precooked frozen foods that were sup-

plemented with fre sh produce, beverages, a n d canned items .

The principal requirement for the LRL ood system w a s the provision of mealsand prepara tion equipment that would require a minixmm number of galley personnelbehind the quarantine ba rr ie r. By the use of precooked frozen meals, meal components,

and rapid-food-reconstitution equipment (microwave and infrared quartz ovens), the

40



initially recommended number of s ix galley personnel that are required in similar con-ventional food-preparation systems w a s reduced to one.

A specification in which the requirements were outlined for processing, packaging,

and shipping frozen food w a s prepared and was used to procure f rozen foods fro m quali-

fied commercial sources . A l l other foods that were used in the LRL operation wereGovernment inspected and purchased on a brand-name basis. Handling procedures wereprepared for the acquisition, storage, tr ansfer, preparation, and serving of the food.

An emergency food system that could feed 100 additional persons in the SampleOperations Area of the LRL w a s also provided in case of a possible break in the quaran-

tine. Freeze-dried foods that were shelf stable at ambient temperatures and that could

be prepared readily by each individual were made available for the fi rs t 24-hour period.

The freeze-dr ied foods could be supplemented by other convenience foods that could be

sto red at ambient conditions. Precooked frozen foods, which were sim ila r to the normal

LRL foods, could be procured and made available for consumption during the remaining

period of an emergency quarantine.

THE APOLLO 14 FOOD SYSTEM

The food system for the Apollo 14 lunar landing mission w a s the most advanced

space-flight food system ever developed at that time. This system provided balanced

nutrition for the astr omcts dwing all phases of the m-ission. Unique constraints wereimposed on the food system by the variety of environments and operational conditions

that were encountered by the crewmen during this flight. To satisfy all conditions,

modes w a s used that incorporated many of the advances in research and development

that have been accomplished in space-flight food systems during the pas t decade. Theseadvances a r e indicative of the potential f or future improvements.

a wide variety of foods, food-production methods, packages, and food-preparation

. .%

Before launch, each prime and backup crewmember conscientiously evaluatedavailable flight foods and selected preferred food items . These foods subsequently

were assembled into nutritionally balanced menus designed to provide approximately2105 kcal/man/day of energy and 100 g/man/day of protein. The crewmembers werebriefed on spacecraf t stowage, food-preparation procedures, and methods of waste

disposal . After donning his suit and before departing for the launch pad, each crewman

w a s supplied with a specially prepared frozen sandwich, a package of bacon squares,and a rehydratable beverage. These foods were overwrapped in Kel-F-82 material and

placed in a pocket of the space suit for consumption when des ired during the fi r s t

8 hours after launch. The sandwiches were prepared in the MSC Food and NutritionLaboratory 72 hours before launch; quality control inspection ensured that the sand-withes met all applicable spacecraft and food system requirements. If, for some

reason, microbiological safety standards had been violated, the frozen sandwiches wouldhave been withdrawn and the crewmen would have chosen replacement items from the

nominal mission foods.

During flight days 1 to 5, the physical appearance of foods in the C M contrastedsharply with that of conventional foods. The foods provided for each crewmember fo r

days 1 to 5 are iisted in tables XII to XI'J. Wew foods included. for the Apollo 14 mission

4 1



TABLE xII.- APOLLO I4COMMANDER'S MENUS FOR DAYS I TO 5

A

B

C

Meal I Menu for days '1 d S

PeachesBerambled ggsBacon squares ( 8 )Grapefruit drlnkCoffee, black

ChickenandriceAppleaauceChocolate bu


Cream of tomato soupw e f f l ad meat saucePeach ambrosiaCheese-cracker cubes (4

Gravedrink

Cream of chicken mupFrankfurters

B puddingBromdes (4)

Pineapple-grapefruit drink

Total axlorlea

-8 Lobster bisque RSB Beef andgra vyT Beef stew RSB Chicken and vegetablesRSB Beef sandwiches (4) D Chocolatepudding

IM %gar-cookie cubes (4)M Caramelcandy

RD Orange-grapefruit drink RD Gra Hru it drink

2212 2151

RSBRSBIMRDRD

RSBRSB

RDrn

RSBRSBRSBD

RD

A

B

C

I T 4 8-PeachesScrambled eggsBacon q m e s 8 )Grapefruit drinkCoffee, black

BeefpotmastApplesauceJellied fruit candyOrange-grzpefruit drink

CreamoftomatosoupPork and scallopedpotatoes

Peach ambrosiaCheese-cracker cubes (4)

Grape drink

Menu for day 2 Menu for day 3 Menu for day 4

Sawage pattiesspiced fruit cere alOrange drinkCoffee, black

RSBRSBIMRDRD

Pea noup RSB Chicken and rice soup

Spa Wch spreade Graham-cracker cubes (4)ButterscotchL"~E RSB Cr aw Dunch

MeatbnllS with sauceke). and gravy

C r m b e r r y - o r ~ a a u c eineapple fruitcake (4) 1 I readslicesd

Gripe p u r h

1 I Lemon pudding

Fruit cocktailApricot-cereal cubes (4).Spiced fruit cerea lOrangedrinkCoffee,black

RSBD

RSBRDRD

T

%ay I comisted of meal c oniy.' b a y 5 comieted of meal A only.

'RSB - rehydratable spoon-bowl; IM * intermediate moisture; RD I ehydraable drink; D I ehydrated; T - hermostabilized; NS = natural state.

h e a d : cheese, rye, or wbite.

eSandwicb .prclds: chicken, h a m , tuna naiad, cheddnr cheese, peamt butter, jelly.

PeachesScrambled eggsBacon squar es ( 8 )

CrapedrinkCoffee, black

Peamun

TABLE Xm. APOLU) I4 LUNAR MODULE PILOT'S MENUS FOR DAYS 1 TO 5

Meal 1 Menu for days '1 and b5 Menu for day 2

RSBRSB

Beef and gravyCranberry-orange saucePineapple fruitcake (4 )Grape punch

Rr l

1835

Butterscoteh puddingGrapefruit drink

RSB Lobster bisqueT BeefstewRSB Beef 6andwlches (4)IM ApricotsRD Caram el candy

Icocoa

2139

Menu for day 4

TRSBIMRD

RD

RSB

NS

TRSBRD

RSB

RSBD

IMIM

RD

Mixed fruitCanadian bacon and applesauceCornflakesPineapple-grapefruit drinkCoffee, blackICorn clwwderMeatballs with sauceVanilla puddingChocolate barGrape punch

Beef and gravypotato soupChocolate p d d i ~ q%gar-cookie cubes (4)Pineapple-grapefruit drlnk

2268

PDay 1 conllisted of meal c only.

b a y 5 cmsistec~f meal A oniy.

'RSB = rehydratable spoon-bowl; IM = intermediate moisture; RD = rehydratable drink; D = dehydrated; T = thermostabilized; NS = natural State.

%read: cheese, rye, or m t e .

efiandaich spreads: chicken, ham, tuna salad, cheddar cheese, peanut butter, jelly.

FWd

bpe(C)

TRSBRSBRDRD

RSBTTD

RD

TRSBRSBD

RD

2098-

TRS BRS BRDRD

RS BTTIM

RD

TRSBRSBD

RD

2365-42





-

Meal

A

B

C

-

TABLE xv. APOLLO 14 LU N A R MODULE MENU^

[2-2/3 man-days (eight meals)]

Menu for day 1

None

Cream of tomato soup

Bread sliceHam s al ad sandwich

spread

Caram el candy

Pineapple -grapef ruit

Grapefruit drink

drink

Beef and gravy

Cheese-cracker cubes ( 4 )Apricots


Drange-grapef ruit drink

Grape punch

-

Food

type

(b)-

--

RSB

NS

T

IM

RD

RD

T

D

IM

RSB

RD

RD-

Total

:alories

--

906

875

Menu for day 2

Peaches

Bacon squares (8)Sugar-coated cornflakes

Cocoa

Drange-pineapple drink

Lobster bisque

Meatballs with sau ce

Chocolate ba r

Pineapple fruitcake (4 )Grapefruit drink

None

-

Food

type

(b)-

RSB

IM

RSB

RD

RD

RSB

T

IM

IMRD

- -

-

Total

:alories

668

880

- -

CD R - red Velcro; LMP - blue Velcro.

bRSB = reh ydr ata ble spoon-bowl; IM = interme diate moistur e; RD = rehydratable drink;

NS = natural state; T = thermostabilized; D = dehydrated.

support staff. The food system w a s adaptable to variations in the number of pe rsons

to be served. Also, the variety of available foods allowed fo r accommodation and ad-

justment of the different eating habi ts, food preferences , and energy requirements ofall quarantined personnel. The LRL food program is now being used as the point of

departure for the design of the alert-crew food system fo r the Space Shuttle Progr am.

This program will require s tr ic t control of food quality and safety analogous to thecontrols developed for the Apollo Program.

In general, the comments by the Apollo 14 crewmembers concerning the quality ofthe inflight foods and the food system were favorable. One crewmember reported a

preference f o r the inflight foods rather than the precooked frozen foods provided in theMQF. Of articular inte rest were the crewmembers' comments concerning the wide

variety of thermostabilized foods packaged in the aluminum cans with full-panel pulloutlids . The crewmen reported that the lids were removed carefully and that no accidentaldispersion of food occurred.

44



TABLE XVI. - PANTRY STOWAGE I N THE APOLLO 14

COMMAND MODULE FOR DAYS 6 TO 10

Quantityood type

(a)Food Total

Beverages

123333

2

63333

CocoaCoffee

Grape drink

Grapefruit drink

Grape punchOrange- grapefruit drink

Orange juicePineapple- grapefruit drink

Pineapple-orange drink

44

RD

RD

RD

RD

RD

RD

RDRD

RD

Breakfast items

Bacon squares (8)Cinnamon-toasted bread cubes (4 )Canadian bacon and applesauce

Cornflakes

Fruit cocktailSausage patties

Scrambled eggsPeaches

Spiced fruit cerealApricots

Peaches

IMB

DBRSBRSB

RSB

RSB

RSBRSB

RSBIMIM

Cubes/candy

Brownies (4 )Caramel candy (4)Chocolate ba r

Creamed chicken bites (6)

Cheese cracke r (4 )Cheese sandwiches (4)Beef sandwiches (4)Jellied fruit candy

IMIMIMD

DD

D

IM

616

2626

2066

aRD = rehydratable drink; IMB = intermediate moisture bite si ze; DB = dehy-

drated bite size; RSB = rehydratable spoon-bowl; IM = intermediate moisture;D = dehydrated.

45



TABLE XVI. - PANTRY STOWAGE IN THE APOLLO 14

Quantityood type(a)ood,

COMMAND MODULE FOR DAYS 6 TO 10 - Continued

Total

Cubes/candy

JerkyPeanut cubes (4 )Pecans (6 )Pineapple fruitcake (4 )Sugar cookies (4 )Turkey bites (4 )

I MN SIMIMD

D 39

Desserts

Applesauce

Banana pudding


Chocolate pudding

Cranberry-orange saucePeach ambrosia

Salads/ soups

Chicken and ric e soup

Lobster bisquePea soup

Shrimp cocktailTomato soup

Tuna salad

Potato soup

RSBRSB

RSB

RSB

RSBRSB

RSB

RSBRSB

RSB

RSBRSBRSB

Sandwich sp reads/br ead

15

18

Bread (slice)

Cheddar cheese (2 oz.)

Chicken salad (8 oz.)Ham salad (8 oz.)Jelly

Mustard

Peanut butter

Catsup

%S = natural state; IM = intermediate moisture; D = dehydrated; RSB = rehy-Lratable spoon-bowl; T = thermostabilized.

46



TABLE XVI. PANTRY STOWAGE I N THE APOLLO 14

COMMAND MODULE FOR DAYS 6 TO 10 - Concluded

Quantityood type(a)

Food Total

Meat items

RSB

RSB

RSB

RSB

RSBRSB

RSB

RSB

Beef pot roast

Beef and vegetables

Beef stew

Chicken and riceChicken and vegetables

Chicken stewPo rk and scalloped potatoes

Spaghetti with meat sauce

3332222

3 20

Beef and gravy

Frankfurters

Meatballs with sauce

Turkey and gravy

Thermos abilized food

T 4T 2T 4T 2 12

I I I

Day 4

Crepes Georgia

Plain omelet

Breakfast ham

Breakfast rollJelly

Roast beef au jusDuchess potatoes

Glazed ca r ro t s

Dinner rollFudge brownies

Day 5

Crepe s Normandie

French toast

Crisp bacon strips

Maple siru p

Braise d beef tipsTiny whole potatoes with

Dinner rollVanilla ice crea m

green peas

% = thermostabilized; RSB = rehydratable spoon-bowl.

TABLE xvn. - APOLLO 14 MOBILEQUARANTINE FACILITY FOOD'

Meal

Breakfast

Lunch

Dinner

Day 1

Crepe s Georgia

Cheese omelet

Cr i sp bacon s t r ips

Breakfast rollJe l ly

Roast beef sandwich

Corn re l i sh

Mixed fruit compote

Vani l la ice c ream

Assorted cookies

Strip steak

Baked potatoes

Asparagus spearsDinner rollApple cobbler

Day 2

Crepe s' Normandie

Link sausage

Pancakes

Maple siru p

Beef stew

Dinner roll

P lums

Chicken Kiev

White r ic e

Mixed vegetables

Dinner roll

Fudge cake

Menu for -

Day 3

Crepes Diar.eCheese omelet

Cri sp bacon stri ps

Breakfast rollJe l ly

Spaghetti with meat sauceGreen beans amandine

Dinner rollVanilla ice crea m

Oatmeal-raisin cookies

Baked ham with pin eapple

glaze

Potatoes au grati n

Buttered green peasDinner rollCherry cobbler

Short r ib s of beefButtered peas with

mushrooms

Whole kerne l cor n

Dinner roll

Pecan p ie

Lobster Newburg

White r ic e

French style green beant

Dinner rollAlmond torte

%stant coffee, tea, butter , and ster iliz ed CaMed whole milk avallable with each meal.

47



The CDR and t h e LMP consumed the foods as outlined in the programed menus,and the bod y weight of each w a s maintained throughout the mission. The CMP deviatedslightly from the programed menus and reported that the quantity of food supplied fo r

each meal was greate r than his appetite needs. A sma ller variety of high-preference

it ems would have been more acceptable. The body weight of the CMP at recovery w a sslightly less than that recorded at launch. The crewmembers repor ted that undissolved

gas w a s present in the water supply but that the gas caused no significant problem with

proper rehydration of food.

POTENT I AL S P INOFF A PP Ll CAT1ONS

Prediction of potential future applications of new knowledge or technology is fraught

with difficulty. It is important, therefore, to record all exper tise developed so that fu-tu re workers can critically review the past i n orde r to glean maximum productivity for

any set of accomplishments. The following is a list of advances made during the design,development, and delivery of the Apollo food sys tem that now appear to be most likely

candidates for productive spinoff applications for other segments of society.

1. Perfected food dehydration techniques

2. Established optimal food safety standards (tolerance levels fo r additives,

chemical residues, sto rage conditions, and microbiology)

3 . Improved food packaging to facilitate long shelf life

4. Improved diagnostic techniques for detection of changes in bone density

5. Elucidated thermal proper ties of foods to improve use of power for heating

food

6. Improved definition of the nutrient requirements of man

7. Improved understanding of and treatment for bone and muscle di seases byalter ed nutrition

8. Definitized normal distribution of nutrients i n natural food supplies

9. Contributed to knowledge of stability persis tence of vitamins and amino acidsin stored foods

10. Set nutrient standards fo r individual food items

11. Improved food cleanroom-production methodology

12. Reduced costs of providing nutrient-balanced foods

1 3 . Enhanced food quality control and inspection procedures

48



14. Devised foods suitable fo r consumption from open plates in weightlessness(applicable for eating in cramped, inconvenient conditions; e. g. , airplanes)

15. Developed more than 100 new and improved foods (e .g ., space food sticks,nutrient-defined drinks, instant ric e, nutrient-complete meals in the form of rehydra-

table powders (instant meals), shelf-stable intermediate-moisture foods (bacon squares,nutritional candy, jelly-filled pastry))

CONCLUDING REMARKS

During the Apollo Program, dramatic progress has been made in the design ofthe packages fo r rehydratable solid foods. This progre ss is exemplified by the Apollo

spoon-bowl package. In comparison, little progress has been made in the design of

packages fo r rehydratable liquid foods. The propensity to flow exhibited by bulk liquidsin null gravity makes liquid management a distinctly different problem than management

of solid and semisolid foods. Continuation of an intensive development program isneeded to modify the drink packages to make them more convenient for the crewmembers

to handle during preparat ion and consumption. Test ing of some of the new drink pack-ages w a s scheduled for the Apollo 15 mission.

The intermediate-moisture foods used f o r the Apollo missions were those fo r

which water activity was controlled to ensure retardat ion of chemical and microbiolog-

ica l deterioration while maintaining acceptable texture at the time the foods were con-

sumed. These intermediate-moisture foods characteristically a r e in equilibrium andhave water activities of 0.2 to 0.75 on a scale fo r which water activity is expressed asthe ratio of partial pr essu re of water in the food to the vapor pressure of pure water atthe given temperature . The intermediate-moisture foods a r e highly acceptable, nutri-

tious, safe, and very easy to eat. No preparation for eating the intermediate-moisturefoods is required other than removal of the food from the package. Additionalintermediate-moisture foods should be developed fo r future flights. The most popularintermediate-moisture items in the Apollo food system inventory included jellied fruit

candy, pecans, peaches, pears, apricots, fruitcakes, bacon squares, nutrient-definedcaramel-flavored candy sticks, and nutritionally complete snacks.

for all Apollo missions. In addition, the dehydrated foods, like the intermediate-

mois ture foods, were convenient to eat during periods in which the number of requiredmission activities was increased. Historically, the bite-size dehydrated foods are the

oldest ite ms in space-flight food systems. These foods and tubes of pureed fru it werethe basic types of food used during the Project Mercury space flights. The most accept-

able and nutritious of these early food types have been retained for use in contemporaryand future space-flight food systems.

An excellent menu variety w a s provided by including dehydrated ready- to-eat foods

Thermostabilized foods are the newest food type to be used in the space program.

These foods open thepotential fo r the use of a much wider variety of foods during spaceflights. Flexible or rigid packages are used. The older package fo rm is the flexible

laminate of p las tic and aluminum foil that is opened by cutting with scissors at eitherend and from which food is consumed by using a conventional spoon. Th is type of

49



package is now in use for commercial products. A more recent development in

thermostabilized-food packaging for manned space flight is the use of rigid aluminumcans with full-panel pullout lids. This type of can w a s used in space for the fir st timeduring the Apollo 10 flight in May 1969. The package proved so successful that i ts usein the Apollo food system w a s expanded to include virtually all categories of thermo-stabilized foods commercially available in aluminum cans fitted with full-panel pullout

lids. Although thermostabil ized food in this type of package readily fulfills the objec-tives that space food should be appetizing, safe, nutritious, and convenient to eat, it iscostly from a weight and volume standpoint in spacecraft sys tems that generate o r re-cover water i n flight.

The fact that most foods can be consumed in null gravity from open containers byusing conventional tableware has been established during the Apollo Program. Expan-sion of the list of suitable foods on la te Apollo flights has provided an extensive selec-tion of foods in a variety of forms that not only will meet the unique requirements of the

Skylab and Space Shuttle Programs but also will be highly acceptable to individuals with

a variety of food preferences.

A brief insight into some of the problems, solutions, and achievements in the foodsys tems associated with the Apollo Program is presented in this report. The descrip-

tions in this re port should contribute to the validation of the hypothesis that food andfood system management for manned space flight are complex and unique and cannot bedeveloped successfully through application of simpl istic , absolute approaches. The ris kinvolved i n following a natural human tendency to design systems that would satisfy

known absolute requirements , such as those established for the spacecra ft, to the ex-

clusion of the requirements of the consumer should be avoided in future manned-spacecraft food system development.

The Apollo food system has been the most successful and most advanced food s y s -

tem design in the history of the United States manned space-flight program. Accuratesolutions to the complex logistical and technical problems were evolved and implementedas a resul t of the effor ts of a large group of people of diverse backgrounds, in te rest s,and skills. The best efforts and abilities of this group were applied to achieve a com-

mon goal of designing the var ious components of the Apollo food system. Although thisdescription sounds like an example of NASA teamwork, it is doubtful that most of the

people involved were aware of the full extent of the synchronization of their effor ts withthe efforts of other persons in similar and diverse areas of expertise. These people,

who accepted the tasks that were assigned in either dis crete or broad terms, were enthu-

sias tic in their efforts to seek new responsibilities and were willing to commit personalor corporate resources to achieve the goals of manned space flight. Each individualexpressed enthusiasm in his own w a y , and most were caught up in a desire to contribute

to a glamorous, adventuresome, and authentic program of space exploration by theUnited States. Future programs without this kind of enthusiasm and zeal could be more

difficult and costly. Such inc reases in difficulty and cost can only be offset by the im-plementation of the efficiencies in design and production that evolved as a result of pre-vious space-flight experience.

Food systems that will be designated fo r future manned space flights w i l l be de-signed properly only i f the experiences gained fro m previous programs are thoroughlyunderstood. Each mission, vehicle, and crew is different, and all cri teri a must be

reviewed and tested carefully. The success of future food sys tem designs will requ ire

50



close coordination and understanding of the technological improvements that constantlyresult from programs in research, operations, and engineering design. Vertical andlateral lines of communication must be open and used in all three areas of endeavor.

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Houston, Texas, February 13, 19749 4-50-9 -07-72

51



REFERENCES

1. Anon. : Recommended Dietary Allowances. Seventh ed. , Publication 1694,National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, 1968.

2. Benedikt, Elliot T. : General Behavior of a Liquid in a Zero or Near-Zero GravityEnvironment. Weightlessness - Physical Phenomena and Biological Effects.Proceedings of the Symposium on Physical and Biological Phenomena UnderZero-g Conditions, Elliot T. Benedikt, ed., Plenum Press (New York), 1961,pp. 3-32.

3. Neu, J. T. and Good, Robert J . : Equilibrium Behavior of Fluids in Containers

at Zero Gravity. AIAA J . , vol. 1, no. 4, Apr. 1963, pp. 814-819.

4. Povitskii, A. S.; and Lyubin, L . Y a. : Emptying and Filling Vessels in Conditionsof Weightlessness. Planet. Space Sci ., vol. 11, Nov. 1963, pp. 1343-1358.

5. Shuleikin, V. V. Ground Experiments With Weightless Liquids. Soviet Phys.

Dokl., vol. 8, no. 10, Apr. 1964, pp. 985-988.

6. Richards, A. ; Streimer, I. ; and Wendrow, B. : Foods and Food Systems as In-

fluenced by Zero-Gravity Space Flight. Vol. 5 of Physiological and PerformanceDeterminants i n Manned Space Systems, pa rt I , Paul Horowitz, ed., WesternPeriodicals Co. (North Hollywood, Calif. ), 1965, pp. 31-38.

7. Macklin, Martin: Water Handling in the Absence of Gravity. Aerospace Med.,

vol. 37, no. 10, Oct. 1966, pp. 1040-1045.

8. Vanderveen, John E. ; O'Hara, May J. ; and Leeber, Donald A. : Consumption ofRehydratable Food in Zero-Gravity Environments Using Conventional Eating

Utensils. Aerospace Med., vol. 41, no. 3, M a r . 1970, pp. 306-308.

9. Flentge, R. L.; Grim, A. C.; Doppelt, F. F.; and Vanderveen, J . E.: HowConventional Eating Methods Were Found Feasib le fo r Spacecraft . Food Technol.,vol. 25, no. 1, Jan. 1971, pp. 51-54.

10. Rambaut, Paul C. ; Bourland, Charles T. ; Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; Huber,Clayton S. ; and Smith, Malcolm C., Jr. : Some Flow Proper ti es of Foods in

Null Gravity. Food Technol., vol. 26, no. 1, Jan. 1972, pp. 58-63.

11. Pelczar, M. J. ; et al. : Manual of Microbiological Methods. McGraw-Hill BookCo., Inc. (New York), 1946.

12. Hajna, A . A . ; and Damon, S. R. : New Enrichment and Plating Media for the

Isolation of Salmonella and Shigella Organisms. Appl. Microbiol. , vol. 4,no. 6, Nov. 1956, pp. 341-345.

13. Austin, Philip R.; and Timmerman, Stewart W . : Design and Operation of Clean

Rooms. Business News Publishing Co. (Detroit), 1965.

52



1 4 . Anon. : Clean Room and Work Station Requirements, Controlled Environment.

Fed era l Standard No. 209A, 1966.

15 . Cordaro, Joseph T. ; Sellers, Walter M. ; Ball, Robert J. ; and Schmidt, Jerome P. :Study of Man During a 56-Day Exposure to an Oxygen-Helium Atmosphere at258 mm Hg Total Pressure: Part X - Enteric Microbial Flora . Aerospace

Med., vol. 37, no. 6 , June 1966, pp. 594-596.

16. Heidelbaugh, Norman D. : Space Flight Feeding Systems: Cha rac ter is tic s,

Concepts for Improvement, and Public Health Implications. J. Am. Vet. Med.ASSOC., vol. 149, no. 12, Dec. 15, 1966, pp. 1662-1671.

17 . Anon. : NASA Standards for Clean Rooms and Work Stations fo r the Microbiologi-

cally Controlled Environment. NASA Handbook 5 3 4 0 . 2 , 1 9 6 7 .

18. Anon. : Standard Procedu res fo r the Microbiological Examination of Space Hard-ware. NASA Handbook 5340.1 , 1967 .

19. Anon. : Contamination Control Handbook. NASA SP-5076, 1969.

20 . El-Bisi, Hamed M . ; and Powers, Edmund M . : The Microbiological Wholesome-

ness of Space Foods. Tech. Rept. 70-41 -F L, U. S. Army Natick Laboratories,

Natick, M a s s . , 1969.

21 . Fox, Donald G . : A Study of the Application of Laminar Flow Ventilation to Oper-

ating Rooms. Public Health Monograph 78 , U.S. Public Health Service Publica-

tion No. 1894, 1969.

22 . Darrah, R. M. : Contamination Control i n the Food Processing Industry. Con-

tamination Control, vol. M, os. 7 and 8, 1970, pp. 15-16 .

23 . Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; and Smith, Malcolm C . , Jr. : Potential Applicationsof Space Food Processing Environment Controls fo r the Food Industry. Pr o-

ceedings of the Food Engineering Forum, American Society of Agricultural

Engineers, (St. Joseph, Mich.), 1971, pp. 95-105 .

24 . Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; Smith, Malcolm C . , Jr. ; Rambaut, Paul C . ; Hartung,T. E. ; and Huber, Clayton S. : Potential Public Health Applications of Space

Food Safety Standards. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., vol. 159, no. 11 , Dec. 1 ,1971, pp. 1462-1469.

25 . Powers, E . M .; Ay, C. C.; Eckfeldt, G. A.; andRowley, D. B.: Modification

of the American Public Health Association Procedure fo r Counting Yeast andMold in Cottage Cheese. Appl. Microbiol. , vol. 2 1 , no. 1, Jan. 1971,pp. 155-156.

26 . Shahidi, Syed A. ; and Ferguson, Alphonza R. : New Quantitative, Qualitative,

and Confirmatory Media for Rapid Analysis of Food for Clostridium perfringens.

Appl. Microbiol., vol. 21 , no. 3, Mar. 1971, pp. 500-506.

53



B IB L I O G RAPHY

Adams, Carsbie C. : Nutrition in Space Flight. Missiles and Rockets, vol. II, no. 11,

NOV. 1957, pp. 105-107.

Bowman, Norman J. : The Food and Atmosphere Control Problem on Space Vessels.

Part 11 - The Use of Algae fo r Food and Atmosphere Control. J. Brit. Interplanet.Soc., vol. 12, no. 4, July 1953, pp. 159-167.

Brockmann, M. C.; Henick, A. S.; Kurtz, G. W . ; and Tische r, R. G. : Closed Cycle

Biological Systems for Space Feeding. Part 11 - System 3. Food Technol. , vol. 12,no. 9, Sept. 1958, pp. 454-458.

Bychkov, V. P. : Influence of a Di e t Consisting of Dehydrated Products on the F’unc-

tional State of the Human Organism. Environmental Space Sciences, vol. 3, no. 4,JUly-AUg. 1969, pp. 261-266.

Bychkov, V. P. : Metabolic Characterist ics of Humans Maintained on a Diet of Dehy-

drated Foods for 120 Days. Environmental Space Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1,

Jan.-Feb. 1969, pp. 73-76.

Chichester, C. 0. : Food Technological Problems in Adverse Environments. Federa-

tion Proc. , vol. 22, Nov.-Dec. 1963, pp. 1447-1450.

Clamann, H a n s G. : Some Metabolic Problems of Space Flight. Federation Pr oc . ,vol. 18, no. 4, Dec. 1959, pp. 1249-1255.

Cooke, Julian P. ; and Heidelbaugh, Norman D. : Rapid Decompression and Exposure

of Fresh Foods to Near Vacuum Conditions. Rept. SAM-TR-65-321,U.S. A i r Force

School of Aerospace Medicine, 1966.

Dymsza, H. A. ;Stoewsand, G. S. ;Donovan, Patr ici a; Barrett, F. F. ; nd

Lachance, P. A. : Development of Nutrient-Defined Formula Diets fo r Space Feeding.

Food Technol. , vol. 20, no. 10, Oct. 1966, pp. 1349-1352.

Finkelstein, Beatrice: Feeding Crews in A i r Vehicles of the Future. Food Technol. ,vol. 12, no. 9, Sept. 1958, pp. 445-448.

Finkelstein, Beatrice: Nutrition Research for the Space Traveler. J. Am. Dietet.

ASSOC., vol. 36, no. 4, Apr. 1960, pp. 313-317.

Finkelstein, Beatr ice; and McGhee, Bernice: Liquid Diets fo rU s e

in High-Altitude,High-Performance Vehicles. WADC Tech. Rept. 59-32,Wright A i r Developzent

Center, Wright-Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio, 1959.

Finkelstein, Beatrice; and Taylor, Albert A , : Food, Nutrition and the Space Traveler .

Am. J. Clin. Nutr. , vol. 8, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1960, pp. 793-800.

54



Flentge, Robert L. ; and Bustead, Ronald L. : Manufacturing Requirements of Food for

Aerospace Feeding. Rept. SAM-TR-70-23, U. S. A i r Force School of Aerospace

Medicine, 1970.

Gaume, James G. : Nutrition in Space Operations. Food Technol. , vol. 12, no. 9,

Sept. 1958, pp. 433-435.

Hanson, S. W . F. : Some Observations on the Problems of Space Feeding. FoodTechnol., vol. 12, no. 9, Sept. 1958, pp. 430-432.

Harper, Alfred E. : Discussion: Proteins in Space Nutrition. Conference on Nutritionin Space and Related Waste Problems. NASA SP-70, 1964, pp. 143-145.

Heidelbaugh, Norman D. : Influence of the Package on Changes in Stored Heat-ProcessedFoods. M. S. Thesis , Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1963.

Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; and Rosenbusch, Marvin A. : A Method to Manufacture Pel-letized Formula Foods in Small mant it ie s. Rept. SAM-TR-67-75, U. s. A i r Force

School of Aerospace Medicine, 1967.

Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; Vanderveen, John E. ; and Iger, Howard G. : Developmentand Evaluation of a Simplified Formula Food for Aerospace Feeding Systems. Aero-

space Med., vol. 39, no. 1, Jan. 1968, pp. 38-43.

Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; Vanderveen, John E. ; Klicka, M a r y V. ; and O'Hara, M ay J. :

Study of Man During a 56-Day Exposure to an Oxygen-Helium Atmosphere a t258 mm Hg Total Pr es su re : Pa rt VIU - Observations on Feeding Bite-Size Foods.Aerospace Med., vol. 37, no. 6, June 1966, pp. 583-590.

Hewitt , Eric J. : All-Purpose Matrix for Molded Food Bars. Rept. TR-FD-14, U. S.

Army Natick Laboratories, Natick, M a s s . , 1965.

Hodgson, James G. ; and Tischer, Robert G. : Spacc Feeding Problems: A Bibliog-

raphy. Food Technol., vol. 12, no. 9, Sept. 1958, pp. 459-463.

Hollender, Herbert A. : Development of Food Items to Meet A i r Force Requirements

fo r Space Travel. Rept. AMRL-TR-64-38, Aerospace Medical Research Laborato-

ries, Wright-Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio, 1964.

Hollender, Herbert A. ; and Klicka, M a r y : Development of Dehydrated and Bite-Size

Food Items. Rept. AMRL-TR-65- 160, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories,

Wright-Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio, 1965.

no. 5, May 1964, pp. 358-361.

Klicka, Mary V. : Development of Space Foods, J . Am. Dietet. Assoc., vol. 44,

Klicka, M a r y V.; Hollender, H. A.; and Lachance, P. A. : Foods for Astronauts.

J. Am. Dietet. ASSOC., vol. 51, no. 2, Sept. 1967, pp. 238-245.

55



Lachance, Paul A . : Nutrition and Stre sses of Short Te rm Space Flight. Conference

on Nutrition in Space and Related Waste Problems. NASA SP-70, 1964, pp. 71-78.

Lachance, Paul A . ; and Vanderveen, John E. : Probl ems in Space Foods and Nutrition:

Foods for Extended Space Travel and Habitation. Food Technol., vol. 17, no. 5,

May 1963, pp. 567-572.

Mayo, Alfred M. : Some Survival Aspects of Space Travel . J. Aviation Med., vol. 28,no. 5, Oct. 1957, pp. 498-503.

Michel, Edward L. : Preparation, Handling, and Storage of Foods fo r Pres en t Space

Projects. Conference on Nutrition in Space and Related Waste Problems.

NASA S P - 7 0 , 1964, pp. 57-63.

Nanz, Robert A . ; Michel, Edward L. ; and Lachance, Paul A. : Evolution of Space

Feeding Concepts During the Mercury and Gemini Space Programs . Food Technol.,

vol. 21, no. 12, Dec. 1967, pp. 1596-1602.

Newlin, Harry E. ; and Morris, E. R. : Development of Food Bars Employing Edible

Structural Agents. Rept. TR-FD-20, U. S. Army Natick Laboratories , Natick,M a s s . , 1965.

O'Hara, May J . ; Chapin, Roy E. ; Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; and Vanderveen, John E. :Aerospace Feeding: Acceptability of Bite-Size and Dehydrated Foods. J. Am.

Dietet. ASSOC., vol. 51 , no. 2, Sept. 1967, pp. 246-250.

Sarett, Herbert P. : U s e of Formula Diets. Conference on Nutrition in Space and

Related Waste Problems. NASA SP-70, 1964, pp. 353-361.

Schoman, C . M. , Jr . Food Engineering for Atomic Submarines. Food Technol. ,vol. 13, no. 11, Nov. 1959, pp. 615-620.

Scrimshaw, Nevin S. ; Johnson, Robert E . ; and Davidson, Charles S. : Panel Discus-

sion. Conference on Nutrition in Space and Related Waste Prob lems. NASA SP-70,

1964, pp. 367-370.

Senter, R. J . : Research on the Acceptability of Precooked Dehydrated Foods During

Confinement. Rept . AMRL-TDR-63-9, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories,Wright-Patterson A i r Force Base, Ohio, 1963.

Simons, David G. : Nutrition in Space Flight: Balloon Flight Experience. FoodTechnol., vol. 12, no. 9 , Sept. 1958, pp. 436-441.

Simons, David G. : Pilot Reactions During "Manhigh II" Balloon Flight. J. AviationMed., vol. 29 , no. 1, Jan. 1958, pp. 1-14.

Smith, K. J . ; Speckmann, E. W . ; George, Marilyn E.; Homer, G. M. ; and Dunco,D. Wiltsie : Biochemical and Physiological Evaluation of Human Subjects WearingPressure Suits Under Simulated Aerospace Conditions. Rept. AMRL-TR- 65- 147,Aerospace Medical Resea rch Laboratories, Wright-Patterson A i r Force Base,

Ohio, 1965.

56



Smith, K. J. ; Speckmann, E. W . ; Lachance, Paul A . ; and Dunco, Dorothea W. :Nutritional Evaluation of a Precooked Dehydrated Diet for Possible U s e in Aerospace

Systems. Food Technol., vol. 2 0 , no. 1 0 , Oct . 1966, pp. 1341-1345.

Smith, Malcolm: The Apollo Food Progra m. Aerospace Food Technology.

NASA SP-202 , 1970 , pp. 5-13 .Smith, Malcolm C., Jr. ; Huber, Clayton S. ; and Heidelbaugh, Norman D. : Apollo 14

Food System. Aerospace Med., vol. 42, no. 11, Nov. 1971 , pp. 1185-1192.

Speckmann, E. W .; Smith, K. J .; Vanderveen, J. E.; Homer, G. M.; andDunco,

D. W i l t s i e : Nutritional Acceptability of a Dehydrated Diet. Aerospace Med. ,vol. 36, no. 3 , M a r . 1965, pp. 256-260.

Taylor, Albert A. : Prese nt Capabilities and Future Needs fo r Space Feeding. Food

Technol., vol. 12, no. 9 , Sept. 1958, pp. 442-444.

Vanderveen, John E. ; Heidelbaugh, Norman D. ; and O'Hara, M ay J . : Study of ManDuring a 56-Day Exposure to an Oxygen-Helium Atmosphere at 258 mm Hg Total

Pressure: Part IX - Nutritional Evaluation of Feeding Bite-Size Foods. Aerospace

Med., vol. 37, no. 6 , June 1966, pp. 591-594.

Vinograd, S. P. : Nutritional Trends in Future Manned Space Flights. Conference on

Nutrition i n Space and Related Waste Problems, NASA S P- 7 0 , 1 9 6 4 , pp. 17-21 .

Winitz, Milton; Graf f , Jack; Gallagher, N e i l ; Narkin, Anthony; and Seedman,Daniel A. : Evaluation of Chemical Diets as Nutrition for Man-In-Space. Nature,

~ vol. 2 0 5 , no. 4973, Feb. 20, 1965, pp. 741-743.

57



A P P E N D I X

VARIOUS APERTURE CONCEPTS FOR THE

REHYDRATABLE FOOD PACKAGE

Some of the ape rture concepts investigated fo r use in the rehydratable-food pack-

age are as follows.

1. Cone apertu res

a.

b.

C .

d.

e .

f .

One-piece plastic-film cone (fig. 21)

Sponge-lined plastic-film cone (fig. 22)

Double-plastic-film cone (fig. 23)

Sponge-lined double-plastic-film cone (fig. 24)

Reversing one-piece plastic-f ilm cone (fig. 25)

One-piece plastic-film cone for spade adapter (fig. 26)

2.

3.

Poppet-valve apertures

a. Spring loaded

(1) Compression spring (fig. 27)

(2) Conical spr ing (fig. 28)

(3) Leaf spring (fig. 29)

b. Sponge loaded (fig. 30)

Plug-valve apertures

a. Spring loaded

(1) Conical spring (fig. 31)

(2) Leaf spr ing (fig. 32)

b. Elastomer loaded (fig. 33)

c. Elastomer loaded, with flexible probe connection (fig. 34)

58



4.

5.

6 .

7.

a.

9 .

10.

11.

Sponge aper tu res

a. Rectangular, axial insertion (fig. 35)

b. Rectangular, perpendicular insert ion (fig. 36)

c. Cylindrical (fig. 37)

d. Sponge for needle adapter (fig. 38)

Silastic-bead aperture (fig. 39)

Rigid-diaphragm aperture (fig. 40)

Slip-rubber aperture (fig. 41)

Elastic-diaphragm aperture (fig. 42 )

Pierced-diaphragm apertu re (fig. 43)

Flapper-valve apertu re (fig. 44)

Combination closure (fig. 45)

I

-+-Figure 21 . - One-piece plastic-f ilm

cone aperture .

I \Plunger

Slit-

Figure 22. - Sponge-lined (closed-cell

sponge) plastic-film cone aperture.

59



\\ I

Figure 23. - Double-plastic-filmcone aperture.

Pmbe beingwithdrawnr ; YI 1

Pmbe beingwithdrawn

seal

Figure 25 . - One-piece plastic-filmcone aperture (reversing).

Figure 24. - Sponge-lined (open-cellsponge) double- plastic -film coneaperture.

Figure 26. - One-piece plastic-film coneaperture for spade adapter.

60



f robe

Plunger

- askel

RetainerwFigure 2 7 . - Compression-spring-loaded

poppet-valve aperture.

Leaf spring--/ \-seal

Figure 29. - Leaf-spring-loaded poppet-

valve aperture.

wall

Lc oni cai spr ing

I,,,Figure 28.

-Conical-spring-loaded

poppet-valve aperture.

Figure 30. - Sponge-loaded (closed-cell

sponge) poppet-valve aperture.

61



L c o n i c a l s pr in g

lug plate

Figure 31. - Conical-spring-loaded plug- Figure 32. - Leaf-spring-loaded plug-valve aperture. valve aperture.

I I I T V a l v e body lflexible plastid

Rigid plug plate

Figure 3 3 . - Elastomer-loaded plug-valve aperture.

In folded

condition

Figure 34.

-Elastomer-loaded plug-

valve aperture with flexible probeconnection.

62



WPmbe

Direction of

waterflaw

Figure 36. - Rectangular sponge (closed-cell sponge) aperture, perpendicular

insertion.

Figure 3 5 . - Rectangular sponge (closed-

cell sponge) aperture, axial insertion.

Plastic-ft Im

cylindrical iube

Figure 37. - Cylindrical sponge (closed-

cell sponge) aperture.

Cylindrical sponge

Figure 3 8 . - Sponge aperture for needleadapter.

63



p-r

Figure 39 . - Silastic-bead aperture.

PW

(a) Aperture closed.

Rigid diaphragm-(a) Aperture closed.

Package

(b) Aperture open.

Figure 40. - Rigid-diaphragm aperture.

(b) Aperture open.

Figure 41. - Slit-rubber aperture.

64



(a) Aperture closed. (b) Aperture open.

Figure 42. - Elastic-diaphragm aperture.

Pierceddiaphragms

Slits displaced/at 120" intervals

through diaphmgms

(a) Aperture structure. (b) Probe inserted.

Figure 4 3 . - Pierced-diaphragm aperture.

65



Pmbe

/--

Valve body

Figure 44. - Flapper-valve aperture. Figure 45. - Combination closure.

Documents

Apollo Experience Report Food Systems