NASA Conference Publication 2370

NASA-CP-23 70 19850016422

Food Service
and Nutrition
for the
Space Station

•i :. Proceedings of a workshop held at

' _ . the Nassau Bay Hilton Hotel
!:
;i:: ' :: ' :' " ' Houston, Texas
April 10-11, 1984

NI_A
 NASA Conference Publication 2370

Food Service
and Nutrition
for the
Space Station

Richard L. Sauer, Editor

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, Texas

Proceedings of a workshop sponsored by

NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and held at
the Nassau Bay Hilton Hotel
Houston, Texas
April 10-11, 1984

N/kSA
National Aeronautics
and Space Administration
Scientific and Technical
Information Branch

1985

.......... r ......
 CONTENTS

Page

Purpose and Scope of the Workshop ............................. i

Overview of Space Food Service Systems ......................... 2

Richard Sauer

The Context for Food Service and Nutrition

in the Space Station ........................................ 4
Peter E. Glaser

NASA Plans for a Space Station ................................ 12

Clark Covington

Food Service Management ....................................... 16

Clinton L. Rappole and Sandra A. Louvier

Food Acquisition, Food Ingredients, Raw Materials, and

Supply ....................................................... 20
David W. Wheat

Preparation Methods: Past and Potential Methods of

Food Preparation for Space .................................. 23
Clayton S. Huber

Alternative Food Preservation Techniques, New Technology in

Food Preparation, and Appropriateness of Food Supply for the
Permanently Manned Space Station ............................ 30
Richard H. Whelan

Use of Irradiated Foods ....................................... 33

Ari Brynjolfsson

Equipment for Hot-to-Serve Foods .............................. 36

Donald P. Smith

Nutritional Criteria for Military Rations and Effects

of Prolonged Feeding on Acceptability ....................... 47
David Schnakenberg

Nutrition in Space Flight: Some Thoughts ..................... 49

Philip C. Johnson

Food Service and Nutritional Needs ............................ 53

Joseph Kerwln

Psychobiology and Food Perception ............................. 56

Anne Neilson

iii

F
 Page

Packaging's Contribution for the Effectiveness

of the Space Station's Food Service Operation ............... 59
Bernard A. Rausch

Packaging for Food Service .................................... 63

E. Joseph Stilwell

Shuttle Operational Test and Scientific Investigations ........ 67

John C. Stonesifer

Summary of Discussion on Detailed Supplemental Objectives for

Future Space Shuttle Experiments ............................ 74
Workshop Participants

Food Acceptance .......................................... 75

Integrated Food Preparation, Presentation and

Consumption Systems .................................... 77

Multipurpose (Re)Thermalization Appliance ................ 79

Food Preservation ........................................ 80

Waste Disposal and Sanitation ............................ 81

Environmental Control .................................... 82

Appendix A - Agenda ........................................... 84

Appendix B - Workshop Attendees ............................... 87

Appendix C - Workshop Participants' Views ..................... 89

iv
 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE WORKSHOP

Significant activities are being initiated to study and define various

operational and design requirements for a space station. These efforts include
the definition of requirements and concepts for environmental control and life
support systems.

A Workshop on Food Service and Nutrition with participation of representatives

of NASA, federal government agencies, academic institutions and industrial
organizations who could define these requirements and develop food service
concepts was organized by Arthur D. Little, Inc. on behalf of the NASA, Johnson
Space Center.

The purpose of the Workshop was to accomplish the following:

I. Define food supply and service requirements for a space station and
develop concepts for food service systems which meet these requirements.

2. Identify and/or define the potential knowledge gaps associated with the
implementation of a fully-integrated food service system in a space
station.

3. Consider the need for experiments to resolve the previously identified

knowledge gaps.

4. Develop detailed test objectives for the experiments which could be

performed during future space shuttle missions which would provide the
information to guide the design of the space station food service system
prototype.

The scope of the Workshop included:

I. Review of the current concepts and uses of the space station.

2. Definition of food service requirements and concepts.

3. Identification of knowledge gaps.

4. Description of research and in-flight demonstrations to fill these

knowledge gaps.

5. Development of a detailed agenda to guide the discussion and activities

during the Workshop.

These Proceedings constitute the output of the Workshop and are made available
to the Workshop participants and other interested parties.
 OVERVIEW OF SPACE FOOD SERVICE SYSTEMS

Richard Sauer
Program Manager, Food Systems
NASA, Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX

We have a lot of work to do in the next 8 years to place the Space Station into
operation. We do not know exactly when the initial operational capability will
be achieved. This workshop will provide us with leading ideas and indicate what
the requirements are going to be for Space Station food systems and how we are
going to get there. The current space shuttle food system is based on tech-
nology developed for the Gemini, Apollo, and Skylab missions. For the most
part, reliance was placed on a food warming capability only. We provided a
number of food items for these missions. This afternoon, when we go on our
tour, we will show you specific examples of this food.

Our early space shuttle food package was virtually an Apollo food package;
flexible and containing rehydratable food. It is no longer used. Astronauts
are able to eat food with a spoon more or less gracefully. The surface tension
of the food will cause it to attach to a spoon or fork or any appliance. If the
person moves too quickly, it will separate and come off. The types of food
include thermally stabilized, natural form, irradiated, and rehydratable. The
rehYdratable container has an injection-molded base and thermally-formed
flexible lid. The food is vacuum-packed so that when it is rehydrated with
water in flight an excess amount of gas is not ingested with the food. This
reduces the separation problem the astronauts would have with gas in the food if
it were not vacuum packed. We use an intermediate moisture package, dried
fruits, etc. and fruits in natural form. We buy commercially as many food items
as are available such as fresh fruits, dried fruits, natural form foods and
dehydrated food items. Freeze-drled vegetables for the most part are not
available commercially; we prepare them here. We buy dried fruits directly off
the shelf as well as all the thermally stabilized foods in either cans or
flexible pouches.

For the first time we are able to supply fresh food, e.g., bread, bananas,
fruits, etc. This fresh food along with the other food is packaged in trays
that fit into the mid-deck lockers. The mid-deck lockers are in the front part
of the vehicle. A food-eating tray is provided that can be used as an eating
surface. There is one tray dedicated to each astronaut. It can be carried to
any place in the space craft where an astronaut would like to eat. There is no
dining table in the Space Shuttle. It is closer to camping out; the astronaut
goes to a corner to brace himself, or anywhere else where he or she wants to
eat. They use eating utensils that can be attracted to a magnetic surface or
the eating tray.

The food items include a breakfast, dinner, and lunch meal. The lunch meal,
meal B, has been relegated to a snack type. We provide a standard six-day menu.
Menu food is packaged in the trays by itself. Other food is stored in a pantry.
In the event that the astronaut does not like a particular food item that is on
the menu, he or she can go to the pantry and can substitute other foods for it.
On the next flight, the astronauts will have more of a direct selection on the
menu but the impact of this program has not yet been totally evaluated. In
addition to supplying the menu and pantry food, two days of contingency food are
supplied in the event that NASA extends the mission.
A water dispenser assembly is used when we do not have a galley onboard for food
rehydration. This device provides chilled water or ambient water. We do not
have hot water available if we do not have a galley onboard. The dispenser
device gives us incremental amounts of water depending on the selection of two-,
four- or eight-ounces of water.

The food package to be rehydrated has a septum into which a needle can be
inserted and water introduced to the beverage powder or dehydrated food inside
the package. The package is then removed and a straw allows the astronaut to
suck the fluid from the container in the case of a beverage or the lid is cutt
out by scissors or knife in the case of a food item to permit the food to be
eaten.

The food warmer allows us to heat food or warm food on a mission when there is
no galley. It is a briefcase with an internal heating element which sandwiches
the food against the centrally located heating element. It is two-sided,
beverages are placed on one side and food items on the other.

The galley is installed in the mid-deck area in the Shuttle when there is room.
The galley provides food tray storage for assembling meals allowing one person
at the galley to assemble up to seven meals. A food warming capability is
provided by a forced air convection oven. A water dispensing post allows the
water to be dispensed into the beverage packs and the rehydratable food
packages. In addition, there are dispensers for condiments such as mustard,
ketchup, etc. We use commercially-packed items for these.

A personal hygiene station is integrated with the galley. This provides a

sponge bathing capability and minimal free-water washing of the hands. The
galley has a hot water temperature indicator. There is a hot or cold water
dispenser snd a selector for the amount of water that goes into each food
package. A needle interfaces with the package septum to allow rehydration.

Pepper or salt cannot be shaken onto foods in space. Salt is dissolved in water
and the astronaut squeezes the solution onto a food item. Pepper is put into an
oil suspension and similarly applied to the food.

The galley oven will hold meal items for up to seven people. The thermally
stabilized food items are placed in the top portion and are heated by
conduction. The packages and the rehydratable beverage containers are heated by
forced air convection in the lower portion of the oven. The beverage straws are
provided with shut-off clamps because in zero gravity some of the liquids
through surface tension forces would crawl out of a straw. Containerless
drinking with a straw was an experiment on the last flight. We also started to
grow plants for food purposes in space. Seeds were packaged and rehydrated in
space to grow sprouts. The idea was to provide food variety for sandwiches in
space. A humble beginning, but the type of activities which could lead to
Detailed Supplemental Objectives (DSO) experiments for the Shuttle.

A Detailed Test Objective (DTO) is not necessarily an experiment but a demon-

stration that is performed to support the Shuttle. DSOs are flown on the
Shuttle to support advanced missions like space stations.

In this workshop we will be discussing primarily DSOs. The food service systems
that we wish to develop will undoubtedly also support the Shuttle. We are
looking to the workshop discussions to develop new ideas and DSOs that will be
important to meet Space Station food service requirements.
 THE CONTEXT FOR FOOD SERVICE AND NUTRITION IN THE SPACE STATION

Dr. Peter E. Glaser

Vice President
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA

INTRODUCTION

Space is part of humanity's continuing evolution and an integral part of man's

capabilities to fashion a better future for this and succeeding generations.
There is no turning back; space is the arena where U.S. industry has the
opportunity to achieve a competitive edge and restore the vitality of industrial
innovation.

As in any emerging field with bright promise, skeptics can point to major
obstacles to space operations, including the high cost of space transportation
and space activities, the risks of new ventures and the timing of entry into the
space market. Commercial activities in space represent diverse markets where
international competitors will be motivated by economic, technical and political
considerations. Although the technical details, costs and benefits of these
activities can only be conceived in broad outline, it is time to take a
constructive view of the attainable economic returns from space endeavors.

President Reagan directed NASA to develop a permanently manned Space Station

within a decade to demonstrate U.S. leadership in space and to stimulate
commercial exploitation of space.(1) " A Space Station," declared Dr. James M.
Beggs, NASA Administrator, "provides a logical stepping stone to the exploration
and exploitation of space."(2)

THE SPACE STATION PROGRAM

The Space Station opens a door for American industry. This will be crucial to
the future of U.S. businesses because the successful development of commercial
products and services is essential to exploiting "the enormous potential of space
commerce."(1) Space commerce will be as significant in determining political and
commercial relationships in the twenty-first century as developments in aviation,
electronics, and computers in the twentieth century are in determining economic
growth, industrial expansion, and international influence.

The Space Station will pay off because it is not just a technological challenge.
It will be worthwhile because it makes many other projects in space science,
telecommunications, manufacturing, and exploration possible. It clears the way
to tap the inexhaustible energy and material resources of the solar system. It
is the next step we are ready to take.

The Space Station will have an important role in support of a broad range of
scientific and commercial activities, which may be performed either in the Space
Station or in free-flying satellites tended by the Space Station.

The Station will permit extensive facilities in orbit to be built up gradually

and equipment to be maintained and repaired leading to major improvements in
capabilities to perform scientific investigations, to manufacture products and to
reduce project costs. It could be a support base for transportation of payloads
to higher Earth orbits and eventually provide routine access to the Moon and to
the planets. The building of a lunar base, where materials could be processed
for use in the construction of more extensive space projects in Earth orbits and
in support of scientific explorations, would provide a major mission for the
Space Station. This base would give an open-ended aspect to the development and
growth of an industrial infrastructure that could support an increasing variety
of commercial activities designed to make the most effective use of the
inexhaustible energy and materials resources of the solar system. The Space
Station is "The Right Stuff" to ensure that U.S. industry will be in a position
to meet the competition from other nations in exploiting the opportunities for
commercial activities in space.

INDUSTRIAL PARTICIPATION

From the onset the Space Station program will involve industry to ensure that
industrial organizations can make the most productive use of the unique
environment of space. This is in keeping with one of the President's objectives
"to encourage industry to move quickly and decisively into space." Appropriate
Federal government policies and cooperation between the public and private
sectors can develop the necessary industrial infrastructure. An indication of
the commitment to increased participation by the private sector is the February
24, 1984 Executive Order authorizing the Department of Transportation to
coordinate a program to allow private corporations to launch their own satellites
into space. President Reagan said, "...and if our efforts in space are to show
the same energy, imagination and daring as those which made our country great, we
must involve private enterprise to the fullest."

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN SPACE

The direction and scope of commercial activities in space are already being
defined as a result of the wide ranging experiments being performed on the space
shuttle. Unlike the Shuttle, the Space Station will be designed to accommodate
experiments performed over periods of weeks and months in a nearly gravity-free
environment. The strategy for near-term commercial activities must be planned
and coordinated with long-term space industrialization goals, such as
establishing a lunar base and obtaining energy from space for use on Earth. The
Space Station program brings these industrialization goals into sharper focus.
Areas of potential commercial interest with near-term benefits include:

i. A "fee-for-service" laboratory where industrial organizations

could rent space to perform experiments.

2. Observations of the Earth and atmosphere.

3. A platform for a space-based communications program including the

maintenance and upgrading of communications satellites.

4. New materials developed in space for use on Earth or in space-based

production.

The Space Station will provide opportunities to engage in experiments and pilot
plant operations in order to gain experience working in space. Participation in
Space Station activities by industrial organizations could be an integral part of
business planning strategies for organizations interested in space ventures.

Incentives for industry participation in commercial activities could be provided

by services supplied to Space Station users. If NASA would provide long-term
guarantees and service contracts, companies might be interested in providing
facilities and services charged to the users in ways analogous to similar
services provided in terrestrial industrial facilities. Examples of such
services are power supplies; housekeeping and life support including equipment,
consumables and waste management; habitability features including crew
accommodations, recreational facilities, and food preparation and service.

The return on industry investments to provide commercial facilities and services

to a Space Station would be negotiated between participants in a competitive
environment, with industry taking the lead to develop and provide the necessary
facilities and services on a business basis. These commercial activities could
be planned from a modest and embryonic start to encompass future major investment
in space industrialization.

FOOD SERVICE AND NUTRITION

Habitability

The establishment of a permanently manned Space Station places the focus on

habitability. Habitability could be achieved by complete food resupply from
Earth, by partial recycling of air and water, and possibly by growing a few
selected food resources and in the future, by a completely controlled ecological
life support system. The key to achieving acceptable habitability will be
providing adequate food in a form that meets the physiological and psychological
needs of the crew members when exposed to the Space Station environment. The
habitability goal is to maintain crew members in the physical conditions
approaching those considered normal by Earth standards.

Effects on Physical Condition

There is a growing understanding of the effects of space missions on the physical

conditions of crew members. For example, protein metabolism will be altered, so
optimal protein levels in the diet will have to be determined. Current
indications are that protein levels may have to be reduced because of effects of
calcium metabolism. Carbohydrate and fat level fluctuations do not seem to have
adverse effects within the limits of currently acceptable diets. Total energy
requirements may increase slightly because of an increased workload and/or
decreased efficiency of utilization. Calcium requirements are not known to a
desirable degree; they will probably increase in an effort to reverse the loss of
calcium from the bones. Even more important may be the ratio of calcium to
phosphorous. Requirements for some vitamins may be altered by stress,
gravitational changes and extended periods of food storage. Vitamin supplements
may have to be made available to the crew members.

Dietary Goals

Dietary goals have been established to form a bridge between nutritional needs
and the food service system which meets these needs. These dietary goals
include the following:

o Establishing access to a variety of foods

o Determining and maintain ideal weight for the crew
o Avoiding too much sodium by eliminating highly-salted foods
o Reducing protein intake
o Reducing the calcium to phosphorous ratio

6
The food service system for a Space Station must meet several requirements. It
must

i. Fulfill dietary goals by delivering of appropriate nutrients.

2. Deliver acceptable foods with desirable sensory attributes.

3. Maintain health and safety standards.

4. Meet unique crew needs imposed by the Space Station environment and
the expected activity levels of the crew.

5. Provide potable drinking water.

Food Preparation

Techniques will have to be developed to prepare acceptable meals from foods

stored in the Space Station and resupplied by the space shuttle.

Constraints on cooking devices in the Space Station environment include the

absence of convection, the need to keep foods contained and the difficulty of
weighing, measuring, and transferring materials. The three major forms of
cooking or thermal processing are (I) fluid immersion by pressure cooking or deep
fat frying, (2) roasting and baking with a combination forced convection/
microwave oven with an attached browning unit, and (3) direct contact and/or
radiant heating for gr_lling, pan frying, and other stove-top operations.

Meal Service and Food Handling

Meal service will have to be adapted to the mission and the crew size.
Individualized preplanned meals may be practical with increased crew size and
some type of food service operation may be warranted. The menu may be varied and
cycled, with choices offered as needed. Food monitoring systems may be used for
inventory purposes and to insure adequacy of diet.

Options for meal service include solo, group or fast food "vending" with
equipment to be developed for this purpose. Food packaging and handling
techniques will have to meet sanitary and health requirements. It will be
important to minimize waste in packaging and food processing at every step of a
functioning food service system.

DEVELOPMENT TESTS

Considerable information on food service and nutrition has been obtained in past
Skylab and Space Shuttle missions. The food service and nutrition requirements
for a Space Station will require evolutionary advances which will have to be
based on new information. Terrestrial laboratory tests can provide only part of
this information because the space environment will influence food service
requirements. Detailed test objectives and detailed supplementary objectives for
Space Shuttle experiments must be defined to develop new concepts and approaches
for food service systems and nutrition for the Space Station.
The participants in this Workshop met to exchange knowledge on the state-of-the-
art of food service system and nutrition in space flight, and to explore areas
where additional knowledge will have to be gained to guide the development of
food service systems. There are no text books or handbooks which can be
consulted to select optimized approaches. Working together, learning from each
other and sharing in the creative process during the Workshop will provide the
opportunity to lay the foundation for future advances of food service systems and
nutrition in a Space Station.

References

1. The State of the Union Message, Ja.nuary 25, 1984.

2. NASA Press Conference, January 26, 1984.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
 NASA PLANS FOR A SPACE STATION

Clark Covington
Space Station Program Manager
NASA, Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX

In the State of the Union Message, .January 25, 1984, the President stated
"Tonight I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned Space Station and
to do it within a decade. A Space Station will permit quantum leaps in our
research in science, communications, in materials science and life saving
medicines which can be manufactured only in space."

The Space Station forms part of the growing space infrastructure, which includes
the Space Shuttle. Other components will be added in the future. The Space
Station is an operational base which includes a number of modules for living
quarters, logistic supplies and support, laboratory facilities, utility ser-
vices, and berthing and assembly activities. The Space Station can grow by the
addition of additional modules for laboratories, construction, assembly, and
orbital transfer vehicle support. Pallets also can be attached to the Space
Station and appropriate equipment mounted on them.

The Space Station also provides a base for maintaining, servicing and control-
ling unmanned platforms where microgravity experiments and processes, remote
sensing and scientific observations of Earth, the solar system and the universe
beyond could be performed. Such unmanned platforms could be free flying or
tethered to the Space Station and maintained and serviced by extravehicular
activities using orbital maneuvering units and orbital transfer vehicles. There
are several possible orbital locations for the Space Station and associated
platforms. The Space Station is envisaged as a multipurpose facility which can
serve a wide range of scientific and technology development activities. It
would serve as an in-orbit laboratory, a permanent space observatory, and a node
in the space transportation system (which may be extended to other orbits or
planets in the solar system). Finally, it would serve as a communications and
data processing center between men and equipment in space and data acquisition
facilities on Earth. The Space Station could also serve as a manufacturing and
assembly facility to service free-flying satellites and as the storage depot for
food, equipment and supplies needed to perform various missions.

The rationale for developing a Space Station includes the following:

o Ensure U.S. leadership in space during the 1990s.

o Stimulate development of advanced technologies.
o Develop fully the commercial potential of space.
o Provide a versatile, efficient system for space science and
applications.
o Couple maturing international space programs to U.S. space systems and
provide a vehicle for international cooperation in space.
o Enable the U.S. to function more efficiently in space and build on
previous national investments.
o Increase prestige abroad and pride at home.
o Stimulate interest in scientific and technical education.
o Maintain the continuity and focus of the nation's civilian space
program.
o Provide options for future national endeavors in space.

12
The decision to develop a Space Station in i0 years recognizes that the develop-
ment program will take time, that the Shuttle is becoming operational, that the
Soviet threat to U.S. leadership in space is real and that the U.S. economy
requires investment in new technology.

A number of alternative approaches to the Space Station have been considered,

including:

o A Space Shuttle with expanded capabilities and extended stay times in

orbit. However, it would be costly to design and refurbish a Space
Shuttle for this purpose and it would be less capable of performing
the needed functions than a Space Station. The Space Shuttle does not
represent a needed step towards Space Station design. Further,
refurbishing the Shuttle would compete with other future Shuttle
improvements.
o An unmanned Space Station. A Space Station would require development
of sophisticated automated equipment. Even if equipment could be
developed during the next i0 years, it would be less capable to meet
the goals for the Space Station than a manned facility and it would
not assure obtaining the objective of leadership in space.

The Space Station development program is not expected to crowd out science
programs. Space science prospered during the Apollo program. The funds which
were made available for the Space Shuttle development would not have been
appropriated for science. Scientific activities just as the Space Station
development must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget and Congres-
sional on their own merits. Although the Space Station is not essential for
current space science programs, it would be an effective system for the future,
enabling scientific investigations not now possible.

The Space Station is designed to serve civil requirements, but it is likely that
the Department of Defense may conduct R&D aboard a NASA Space Station. The
notion that the Soviet Salyut Station employs second-rate technology and repre-
sents no threat is misplaced. The Soviet space program is growing quantitatively
and qualitatively, so Salyut and its successors represent a threat to U.S.
leadership in space.

International interest in the U.S. Space Station program is growing. This

interest derives in part from existing contributions to the Space Shuttle, past
and present cooperative activities with NASA, recognition that a U.S. Space
Station is the next large development program, the maturity of U.S. and other
countries' aerospace industries and the winding down of Spacelab development in
Europe.

Several countries have already asked how they can be involved in NASA's planning
for the Space Station. The European Space Agency, Germany, France, Canada, and
Japan are conducting separate, parallel mission requirement studies to comple-
ment NASA's studies. Both the European Space Agency and Japan are examining
elements that they could develop for a U.S. Space Station. Italy's present
satellite systems study includes possible application of a tether to a Space
Station.

So far, no other nations have made commitments to participate in the Space

Station program. Potential partners must be sensitive to U.S. concerns per-
taining to national security, technology transfer, exploiting jobs, and effi-
cient management. NASA is presently undertaking initiatives including visits

13
to Europe, Canada, and Japan for high-level discussions on international
participation in the Space Station. The plan for international cooperation will
be developed based on these discussions. A target date of early 1985 has been
set for completion of an agreement on management relationships and the
definition of specific cooperative programs.

Planning guidelines have been established for the Space Station development.
The management-related guidelines include

o A 3-year extensive definition phase (5 to I0 percent of program

costs).
o NASA-wlde participation in Space Station development.
o Development of funding to be made available in FY 1987.
o Initial operations of the Space Station are being planned for the
early 1990s.
o Cost of obtaining initial operational capability (IOC) estimated at $8
billion.
o Extensive user involvement in science applications, technology and
commercial activities in international participation.

Englneering-related guidelines include the requirements that the Shuttle will

o Be continuously habitable.
o Be Space Shuttle dependent.
o Contain both manned and unmanned elements.
o Be part of an evolutionary development.
o Be maintainable and restorable.
o Be capable of autonomous operations.
o Be customer friendly.
o Be technology transparent.

The Space Station program schedule milestone include the issuance of the request
for a proposal for Phase B, "Definition Studies" in the summer of 1985, the
start of the definition phase of the Space Station in February 1985, and the
election of contractors by the end of 1984. The budget for Space Station
development in FY 1985 is $170 million which, at the present time, includes:

Item $ Million

Utilization requirements 14.1

Supporting studies 5.8
Focused technology 54.2
Advance development 20.2
Flight experiment II.0
Systems definitlon/integratlon 58.3
Program support 6.4

The Space Station program assumes a NASA budgetary framework of i percent real
growth per year and identifies 600 NASA personnel in direct support of Space
Station development.

The Space Station program utilization philosophy is strongly motivated to be

customer friendly. Throughout the Space Station evolution an ongoing process
will

14
 o Develop an informed customer community.
o Influence Space Station capabilities with realistic requirements.
o Accommodate flexible customer schedules and use profiles.
o Provide total accommodation requirements to achieve an operational
performance envelope.
o Specify an evolving customer accommodation requirement that will
support an evolving space market.
o Provide requirements traceable back to the source.
o Provide a forum to resolve conflicting design, operational or utility
issues.
o Establish communications between basic research, technology
development, applied research, and applications communities.

The Space Station will be geared to commercial use because space is already
commercialized by the communications industry and encouraging private sector
activities in space is part of U.S. national space policy. Several NASA acti-
vities already have a commercial dimension, including expendable launch vehicles
and the Space Shuttle. The Space Station could provide laboratory and servicing
capabilities to private sector endeavors in space. Materials processing has
already been identified as a particularly promising area.

The Space Station planning process includes commercial working groups and
contracts to nonaerospace industries. Commercial requirements are expected to
influence Space Station design, particularly requirements to protect proprietary
data, and provide required power and other support activities.

To realize the commercial potential of a Space Station no quick sell is en-

visaged. On the contrary, commercial utilization of a Space Station will
require considerable early success as a result of research and experimentation.
Some of this research could be conducted with NASA's ground facilities such as
drop towers, aircraft, and the Space Shuttle.

NASA realizes that it must reach researchers and management in industry.

Therefore, it will nurture contacts with industry because otherwise the enter-
prise will sour. Continuity and consistency plus patience are the essential
ingredients. NASA believes that commercial endeavors that use a Space Station
involve risk but that the potential benefits are both real and large. The
challenges faced by NASA in the development of the Space Station are fully
recognized and include the need to

o Design for "permanence," maintainability and growth.

o Build to cost and schedule.
o Conduct systems engineering/integration in-house.
o Orchestrate the international dimension including politics,
technology, development and operations, and management.
o Maintain customer focus when time, money and engineering begin to
pinch.

The Space Station represents determined steps by NASA to build a space infra-
structure. Figures I, 2, and 3 indicate possible Space Station designs which
will be further defined, modified, and developed. The Space Station is a major
U.S. effort designed to lay the foundation for expanded space activities in this
and the next century so that "We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living
and working in space for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain." (President
Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Message, January 25, 1984.)

15

' r
 FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT

Clinton L. Rappole
Associate Dean
Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management
Houston, TX
and
Sandra A. Louvier
University of Houston
Houston, TX

We conducted a study to design a food service system using current technology to

serve a small scale Space Station. We made the following assumptions:

o Population of Space Station is eight crew members

o Length of stay is 90 days
o Microgravity of environment in all areas of the Space Station
o Food resupply every 30 days
o Emergency requirement that a 90-day food supply be kept in the Space
Station
o Emergency rations equal to 57.2 percent of the normal 90-day food
supply

We investigated the psychological, sociological and nutritional factors

affecting feeding in microgravity conditions, and identified and evaluated the
following system components:

o Demand forecasting
o Menu planning
o Purchasing
o Receiving
o Packaging
o Delivery
o Storage
o Issuing
o Production
o Service
o Sanitation
o Logistics management

The first step in organizing a food service system is demand forecasting, which
dictates the menu. A food service planner should know the market or the system
as well as astronaut preferences. We recommended a survey of the astronauts and
the increased number of astronauts now offers a sample large enough for survey
purposes. For missions involving international crews, cultural differences
should be considered.

The next step is menu design because all aspects of the food service are
affected by the menu. Psychological and sociological needs should be
considered. Nutritional needs of astronauts on extended missions are still
being studied. When this information is developed, it should be incorporated
into the menu. In our system, we used the four basic food group rules as
guidelines when developing meals.

16
A major psychological need for Space Station users will be variety. A
reasonable variety of food types should be incorporated into the menu without
requiring excessive storage space. Attention can be paid to food
characteristics. For instance, flavor is a combination of aroma and taste. The
ability to smell food aromas is impaired in microgravity conditions due to the
lack of normal air convection. In light of this, other food characteristics can
be emphasized. Taste can be improved by flavor enhancers like condiments. Food
colors, shapes, consistency and textures can be varied without affecting storage
requirements.

The sociological aspects of eating can affect the morale of the crew. We
recommend provisions for the group to eat together. Dining ambience can be
provided or improved by providing a small inventory of flatware and china.
However, this would necessitate sanitizing and recycling. In addition, pleasant
lighting and music can make the meal more enjoyable as can theme meals planned
for special occasions like Thanksgiving.

The dinner menu we designed has 30 different, complete meals for a one-month
cycle. With the 90-day emergency supply, we can offer a choice of three
different meals each day. This way the meal appears as a choice three different
days in the month, yet an astronaut can choose something else all three times if
he or she does not particularly like that meal. Resupply at the end of 30 days
replenishes 30 days worth of meals eaten out of the 90-day supply. Luncheon
meals are organized in a similar fashion.

For breakfast, we designed a limited a la carte menu, keeping in mind that

Americans tend to prefer less variety in their breakfast items from day-to-day
than for lunch or dinner. Therefore, we offer a smaller variety of foods but
the astronauts can choose each item from the breakfast menu rather than having
to choose complete meals.

The next step in organizing the system is selecting food preparation methods.
Currently, menus are largely made up of combinations of preserved foods and food
preparation involves reconstitution and warming or chilling. Adding fresh foods
to the menu will involve more cooking from scratch, which calls for standardized
recipes and more sophisticated preparation techniques. It also may involve
growing some vegetables there. Experiments should he conducted to determine:

o Chemical reactions in cooking methods such as baking, broiling or

frying.
o Ways to bake bread.
o Ways to grow vegetables in space, e.g., hydroponics.
o Ways to portion food from bulk packages for service and to mix
recipes.
o Ways to store leftovers.

As knowledge grows it can be incorporated into the Food Service System.

ZT
In our study, we used available technology, so food purchasing, receiving,
preparation and packaging is done on earth. Methods of preservation include:

o Dehydration
o Thermostabilization by canning, retort pouch and irradiation
o Intermediate moisture
o Freezing
o Not preserved

For packaging we recommended single serving packages like the ones currently
used for shuttle missions, where the crew numbers only eight. A breakoff point
must be established as to how large a crew can be before individual packaging
becomes impractical. Consideration should also be given to the development of a
less labor intensive, more easily opened package and the reduction of package
weight.

Our delivery and storage functions begin at the ground based commissary. It
handles purchasing, receiving, preproduction delivery and storage of raw
materials, and pre-flight post-production storage of prepared foods. The main
ground based activities for the Space Station food service system are: initial
food delivery, food resupply and food inventory monitoring (which is performed
via a communication link with the Space Station).

In our system, when the initial delivery of the 90-day food supply is made to
the Space Station it will be stored in three separate locations. This is a
safety precaution. In the event that one storage location becomes inaccessible,
food will still be available from the other two storage locations.

Food will be resupplied every 30 days. Computer feedback from the Space Station
to earth, available on a daily basis, will monitor which meals and what food is
needed for resupply. Food service functions aboard the Space Station are to
take the order, get the food, prepare it, serve it and clean it up.

We have designed a storage system that dictates even depletion of food from the
three storage locations. This is necessary to meet safety requirements. Food
is stored so that it is taken from the storage locations on a daily rotating
basis.

In our system, each day each astronaut will place his or her meal orders for the
following day. Available selections will be displayed on a computer screen, the
astronaut will type in meal choices and the choices will be stored in the
computer. The next day, approximately one and a half hours before meal times,
the computer will provide the following information: What meals the crew
ordered and what storage area contains the food for that day. An astronaut will
get the food from that location and the computer will delete the meals from
inventory for Earth-based supply records. Each crew member can prepare his or
her own meal or one crew member can prepare all meals. For the production
function we use the Galley System designed by General Electric, which is
currently in use for the Shuttle System. Food items are reconstituted by the
crew member(s) according to directions on the packages.

18
Meal trays are assembled in the galley area. From this point the astronauts can
serve themselves or food trays can be carried to the table and served to them.
Cafeteria-style procedures could be developed for large crews.

Cleanup affects the waste management system. It is designed to accommodate

housekeeping, body waste and food waste. Individual portion disposable serving
packages could generate large amounts of waste relative to bulk packaging or
reusable dishware. However, problems associated with bulk packaging and
portioning must be considered also.

The logistics of the Food Service System must be defined. Factors include the
need for:

o A centralized food production facility on Earth.

o Food demand forecast.
o A production plan that indicates which food items are to be produced,
when these items are needed, and what quantities are needed.
o Inventory planning and control, both on earth and in the Space Station.
o Quality and performance control.
o System user feedback.

19
 FOOD ACQUISITION: FOOD INGREDIENTS, RAW MATERIALS AND SUPPLY

David W. Wheat
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA

My objectives are to consider the kind of food supply system that will serve the
space station in coming years and to identify detailed supplementary objectives
related to questions we must answer to make the system work. Thus we will
consider the direction and rate of evolution of space food service systems, and
ask, what do we need to know to supply appropriate food to space station crews?

Naturally, the food supply system cannot be considered in isolation since it

depends on other elements such as the preferred food preparation system, the
types and variety of food desired, packaging and preservation technologies, and
so on. These and other issues are discussed in other sessions of this workshop,
and we will need to keep these issues in mind as we consider the food supply
system.

The current approach to feeding the shuttle crews is a "heat and eat" feeding
system, like a TV dinner with "mix and match" selectable components. Is this
the best long-term approach? We have heard the Shuttle missions referred to as
"camping trips," where inconvenience is tolerable because duration is limited,
but will the crew members want to eat TV dinners for months on end?

It appears that a system improving on both the quality and variety of menus
available will need to be developed for the space station. This will require
innovations in food sourcing, recipe development, pre-preparation, packaging,
preservation, preparation, presentation, consumption and waste disposal.

With the long-term development of space activities a more self-contained,

self-sufficient system may have to be developed. We are not going to be able to
supply fresh-baked loaves of bread and crates of fresh vegetables from Earth.
Regenerative systems will be necessary. The question is, how soon do we have to
think about doing that? What are the steps to get to that regenerative system?
What can we do on the shuttle to move in that direction? Steps taken now,
perhaps as part of the food service system for the space shuttle or only as
experiments, will lay the groundwork for regenerative long-term solutions.

A few food items which would fill unmet needs by the current system include
salads, which would give a "fresh" character to the diet. A start has been made
in this direction with the on-board generation of salad sprouts from seeds.
These efforts should be expanded as much as possible. Larger-scale hydroponic
gardening probably will have to be the subject of considerable experimentation
in the shuttle and in the space station itself. There are a number of
unanswered fundamental questions in this field so this research probably should
be the subject of larger-scale experiments rather than a DSO.

It may be possible to prepare corn flakes with dehydrated milk to which only
water is added, which may be better than no corn flakes at all. However, they
are not likely to be as appetizing as a crunchy breakfast cereal product
developed with the needs of the crew and the space station food service system
in mind, and served with real milk. How important is it to be able to do this?
"Camping" food may be tolerable for a while, but will long-term dependence on

20
such a style and quality of eating experience interfere with crew morale or
performance? We believe the answer is yes.

In considering the nature of the food supply system, we can look at the major
categories of solid and liquid foods comprising the crew's diet:
o Water
o Just add water and heat or chill, e.g., freeze-dried items, powdered
beverages and soups.
o Add water and prepare, e.g., pancake mix.
o Complex items, e.g., jams, ketchup, peanut butter, etc.
o Frozen foods, e.g., meats, "made" dishes, vegetables.
o Vegetables, etc., that can not be freeze-dried or frozen.
o Alcoholic beverages.
o Fats.

We can also look at the various methods of preparation available to us. We need
to establish which of these can and should be employed in the space station:
o Eat it raw
o Drink it from a container
o Add water to it
o Heat frozen items
o Put together frozen parts and heat
o Produce it onboard
o Spread it on thawed breadstuffs
o Fry it
o Bake it
o Boil it
o Cook it in a microwave
o Broil it
o Others?

We need to consider which combinations of food types, food preparation methods,

and food packaging and delivery systems will best fit the needs of the space
station crew and the constraints on the space station and its supply system. In
addition we need to consider such issues as housekeeping, pest control, tools,
condiments and other aspects of eating in space. All of these issues are
candidates for the design of detailed supplemental objectives which can be
carried out on the space shuttle.

As currently envisioned, the food service system for the space station will rely
on frozen food items, to the extent possible, to provide the highest possible
quality of food. These items, and the packaging and preparation systems
required to deliver high quality, should be designed specifically for the space
station and its conditions. The technology required appears to be available.

To augment these items a carefully-considered and tailored selection of

condiments and fresh items will be required. Most of the fresh items,
especially fruits and vegetables, will be supplied in the normal resupply cycle,
with packaging or pre-preparation to provide long storage life in the space
station. Other ancillary items, to give character and fresh quality to the
diet, may be produced on-board.

Specific DSOs which should be designed and executed in development of the space
station food system involve experimentation with simple, self-contained systems
to generate fresh salad items. These would include sprouts, mushrooms,
miniature carrots and the like. How can these be produced onboard and how can

21

................... T
they best be transferred from their production medium to the food in which they
are to be consumed? What demands will the production of such supplemental items
make on crew time, space, and other resources? Experiments must be carried out
to learn about these issues.

Questions about means of portioning bulk-packaged materials, such as cereals,

condiments, spreads, drinks, and so on need to be addressed in DSOs. Bulk
packaging and portioning will reduce the amount of packaging waste.How can loose
materials, such as breakfast cereals and drink mixes, be handled in the space
station? Experiments with such materials will tell us whether we need to stay
with single-serving packs or devise dispensers for such materials.

To add fresh character to the diet it is important to provide fresh-baked bakery

products routinely in the space station. To determine whether these will have
to be supplied in long shelf-life form in the normal resupply cycle (which would
make significant demands on cubic capacity in the resupply modules) experiments
with on-board baking need to be devised and carried out. Use of frozen or
refrigerated doughs seems feasible, although systems designed with the
requirements of the space station in mind will have to be prototyped and tested.
The baking of frozen breads or rolls will be an important model for on-board
preparation of fresh foods. Dough formulations need to be tested to address
problems of crumbling, as well as adaptation to acceptable thermalizatlon
methods.

In these and related DSOs attention needs to be paid to the development and
validation of preparation systems and ingredients which minimize demands on crew
time, while providing maximum eating enjoyment. We recommend that DSOs testing
these principles be executed as early as possible in the development of the
space station food service system.

22
 PREPARATION METHODS: PAST AND POTENTIAL METHODS OF FOOD PREPARATION FOR SPACE

Clayton S. Huber
Professor, Food Science and Nutrition
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT

The long-standing objective for a food system for manned space flight has been
to provide the crew members with appetizing, safe, nutritious and convenient
food which is light in weight, small in volume and compatible with the mission.

There has been a logical progression of development of space food systems during
the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and Shuttle programs. Preparation methods
have ranged from no preparation to heating, cooling and freezing. The food
system for each program will be reviewed briefly.

MERCURY

The Mercury flights were of short duration and the food systems were simple and
experimental. The orbital Mercury program flights of astronauts Glenn (Mercury
6), Carpenter (Mercury 7), Schirra (Mercury 8) and Cooper (Mercury 9) demon-
strated for food system planners that man could consume and digest solid and
liquid food in space. The experience gained in food packaging and in-flight
handling led to the evolution of the Gemini and Apollo food systems.

Foods developed for the early Mercury flights were pureed-type foods packaged in
collapsible tubes. Pontubes attached to the containers were inserted through an
opening in the face plate of the pressure suit helmet. Later in the Mercury
program, bite-slze foods were developed and tested. These foods were fabricated
as cubes coated with an edible coating to reduce the possibility of crumb
formation in the spacecraft and to alleviate the problem of stickiness or
greasiness. Freeze-dried foods were used in the last Mercury mission.

GEMINI

Mission length increased during the Gemini program, requiring a more complex
food system. Approximately 726 grams of packaged food providing 2800 calories
were allocated per crew member each day. The volume provided for food stowage
was restricted to 2130 cubic centimeters (cms) per crew member per day. The
diet was designed to provide 16-17 percent protein, 30-32 percent fat and 50-54
percent carbohydrate.

The Gemini food system included blte-sized compressed and freeze-dried

(dehydrated) foods, rehydratable beverages and solid/semi-solids, and
intermediate moisture foods. The stability of intermediate moisture foods is
controlled primarily by adjusting water activity (aw). Water activity is
usually expressed as a decimal derived from the ratio of water vapor pressure of
the food to the vapor pressure of pure water at a given temperature. Dehydrated
and intermediate moisture foods, which included bite-size cubes of meat, fruit,
dessert, and bread products, were consumed directly from the package without
dehydration. Their uniform shape, high caloric density (5 calories/gram), and
variety of flavors made them ideally suited to the engineering requirements of
space flight. Rehydratable foods and beverages are dehydrated products that
must be rehydrated before consumption. Rehydratable fruits, beverages, salads,
desserts, meats, and soups were developed during the Gemini program. These
foods were packaged in a laminated plastic bag with a valve for water insertion

23
tube through which the foods could be consumed. The 1.9 cm 3 diameter of the
tube restricted the maximum food particle size to 0.3 by 0.6 cm 3.

Packages of food were arranged in meal units. Each meal was overwrapped in an
aluminum foil plastic laminate which also served as a garbage bag for in-flight
stowage of used food packages.

Only cold water (21.1 to 21.2°C) was available to rehydrate dry products. The
water was a by-product of electrical power generation in the spacecraft fuel
cells. The Apollo spacecraft used a similar method to produce water.

APOLLO

The initial Apollo food system was basically the same as the one developed for
the Gemini program. As a result of the spacecraft fire in January 1967, each
spacecraft system, subsystem and component received thorough re-evaluation and
analysis to identify and reduce the hazards of flammable materials. Since it is
impossible to produce non-flammable foods, packaging materials that would not
support combustion in a pure oxygen environment were selected and developed.
Commencing with Apollo 7, meal units were over-wrapped in a non-flammable
fluorohydrocarbon.

Several significant developments occurred during the Apollo program. First, hot
water (65.5°C) was available to rehydrate dry food. Second, commencing with the
Apollo 8 mission a spoon was used to consume many food items. Keplerian
trajectory aircraft flights verified that a spoon could be used in null gravity.

Based on results of laboratory research and null-gravity studies of foods during

Keplerian trajectory flights in C-135 aircraft, candidate foods and packages
that appeared to have the desired characteristics for use during space flight
were selected and used on subsequent Apollo flights. As a result, a wide
variety of foods and dispensing techniques were added to the Apollo food system.
Six types of foods were used in the later Apollo missions: dehydrated,
intermediate moisture, irradiated, rehydratable beverage, rehydratable
solid/semi-solid and thermostabilized. Several food items in the dehydrated and
rehydratable solid/semi-solid categories were freeze-dried.

In addition, the first meal after launch in Apollo flights consisted of a frozen
sandwich, which was prepared and packaged under Apollo system quality control
and stowed for easy access in a pocket of each crew member's flight suit. Bread
and wine were included on some later Apollo flights.

The average weight and storage volume per man per day for later Apollo missions
were 1125.9 grams and 3083 cm 3, respectively.

Dehydrated and intermediate moisture foods were consumed directly from the
package without rehydration. These foods were protected by a sealed four-ply
laminated plastic package, which was opened with scissors.

Irradiated food on the Apoll_ missions was bread processed from flour
pasteurized by exposure to 5 x I0 rads of cobalt 60 gamma radiation.

Rehydratable solid and semi-solid Apollo foods were packaged in a pouch that
allowed convenient preparation and eating with a spoon in null-gravity. Water

24
was inserted from the spacecraft water dispenser into the pouch through a one-
way, spring-loaded valve. After the food was completely rehydrated (5 to I0
minutes), the astronaut opened the pouch and consumed the contents. Rehydra-
table beverages were packaged in a similar container fitted with a drink spout
instead of an opening to allow a spoon to enter. Thermostabilized beverages
were packaged in drawn aluminum cans fitted with a drink spout. Thermosta-
bilized foods were packaged in drawn aluminum cans fitted with full-panel, pull-
out lids or in flexible laminated aluminum foil plastic pouches opened with
scissors. Thermostabilized foods were consumed with a spoon.

The last Apollo flight was the Apollo/Soyuz docking mission in 1975. Menus
included approximately 80 different food items including bread and cheese. To
facilitate preparation and eating, a food tray was provided. Food packages were
restrained with springs and Velcro, and were secured to the crew member's leg
during meal time.

SKYLAB

The unmanned Skylab spacecraft was launched into earth orbit in May 1973. This
unmanned vehicle contained most of the foods for life support of the nine
astronauts who later rendezvoused with it and lived in it for 500 man-days
during the next i0 months. The Skylab food supply had to have long-term
stability and safety, and yet accurately and adequately provide nutrition for
the astronauts during their epic expeditionary voyages.

All the Skylab foods, other than beverages, were packed in drawn-aluminum cans
fitted with full-panel, pull-out lids. At meal time, cans were assembled into
meals and inserted into a food warmer/serving tray. In this way, the astronauts
warmed their food and consumed it (using conventional tableware) directly from
the opened cans that were held in the warmer/serving tray. This tray provided
the first capability to heat foods during a U.S. space flight. The heaters were
electrical resistance wires designed to heat to a maximum of 69.4°C. Higher
temperatures had to be avoided to prevent food from boiling and expelling
particles in null-gravity. Boiling would have occurred near 72.2°C in the
Skylab, which was approximately one-third atmosphere total pressure.

In the Skylab program, one of the basic objectives was to learn more about human
physiology in null-gravity. Before longer journeys into space were attempted,
it was necessary to determine the long-term effects of extended periods of
weightlessness. To study the effects of the space environment on human
physiology, a metabolic balance study was conducted in-flight.

The nutritional constraints for the metabolic balance study are presented in
Table i. The menus also complied with the Recommended Dietary Allowance and met
the expected in-flight energy demands of each individual.

25
 TABLE 1

NUTRITIONAL CONSTRAINTS FOR SKYLAB METABOLIC BALANCE STUDY

Nutrient Constraint (mg)

Protein 90-125 ± i0
Calcium 750-850 ± 16
Phosphorus 1,500-1,700 ± 120
Sodium 3,000-6,000 ± 500
Magnesium 300-400 ± I00
Potassium 2,740 minimum, no maximum,
no range

The scope of the Skylab food system is revealed by the list presented in Table
2. This was the first time frozen foods were used in the U.S. space program.
Refrigerators were also available for chilling food after rehydration.

SPACE SHUTTLE

The Space Shuttle is equipped with a modular galley which features hot and cold
water dispensers, a pantry, an oven and food serving trays. Food requiring
heating is placed in a forced air convection oven. The maximum temperature of
the oven is 82°C and can maintain food temperatures at 65°C. The oven is
compatible with containers of different sizes and shapes.

The Space Shuttle menu features more than 70 food items and 20 beverages.

A new concept has been introduced in the Space Shuttle food system. A fresh
fruit and vegetable tray (apples, bananas, carrots and celery) has been provided
for the initial days of the flight.

26
 TABLE 2

SKYLAB BASELINE FOOD LIST

Ham sandwich spread (T) Pineapple (T)

Butterscotch pudding (T) Lobster newberg (F)
Tuna sandwich spread (T) Turkey and gravy (T)
Lemon pudding (T) Hard candy (W)
Dry roasted peanuts (W) Grape drink (B)
Vanilla ice cream (F) Applesauce (T)
Dried apricots (W) Hot dogs (T)
Orange crystals (B) Potato salad (R)
Sugar cookie wafers (W) Peaches (T)
Grapefruit crystals (B) Pears (T)
Cheddar cheese crackers (W) Biscuits (W)
Mints (W) German potato salad (R)
Sausage patties (R) Cocoa-flavored instant
Ham and cheese crackers (W) breakfast (B)
Sugar-coated cornflakes (R) Shrimp cocktail (R)
Scrambled eggs (R) Cheddar cheese sandwich
Bacon wafers (W) spread (T)
Mustard (T) Turkey rice sour (R)
White bread (F) or (I) Rice krispies (R)
Catsup (T) Chicken and rice (R)
Filet mignon (F) Creamed peas (R)
Asparagus (R) Chicken and gravy (R)
Lemonade (B) Cocoa (B)
Pre-buttered rolls (F) Pork and scalloped
Salmon salad (R) potatoes (R)
Pork loin with dressing and Orange drink (B)
gravy (F) Mashed sweet potatoes (R)
Strawberries (R) Black coffee (B)
Vanilla wafers (commercial Beef hash (R)
cookie) (W) Stewed tomatoes (T)
Ham (T) Cream style corn (R)
Canadian bacon and Tea with lemon and sugar (B)
applesauce (R) Sliced dried beef (W)
Coffee cake (F) Prime rib of beef (F)
Mashed potato (R) Peach ambrosia with
Peanut butter (T) pecans (R)
Chili with meat (T) Fruit beverage (B)
Cream of tomato soup (R) Veal and barbecue sauce (R)
Fruit jam (T) Spaghetti and meat sauce (R)
Pea soup (R)

(T) = Thermostabilized; (W) = Wafer or bite-slzed or natural state; (F) =

Frozen; (R) = Rehydratable; (B) = Beverage; and (I) = Irradiated

27
SPACE STATION

As we look towards the future and the Space Station food system, several items
could be considered.

Irradiation

Irradiation can be used to extend the shelf life of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Application of appropriate packaging techniques coupled with an irradiation
treatment and refrigeration could extend the shelf life of many fruits and
vegetables for the projected Space Station mission length. The Proposed Rules
for "Irradiation in the Production Processing and Handling of Food" were
published in the Federal Register dated 14 February 1984.

Controlled Atmosphere

The shelf life of many fruits and vegetables could be extended with controlled
atmospheres (bulk or unit packages).

Bulk Packaging of Food

Bulk packaging and serving of food needs to be investigated as a means of

improving packaging efficiency.

Microwave Heating

Microwave heating needs to be investigated as a comblnation/alternative method

of heating and baking. Appropriate microwave-compatible packages and restraints
need to be developed.

Prepared Bread Doughs

The use of prepared bread dough (ambient, refrigerated or frozen), which is

available commercially, needs to be investigated for the Space Station food
system. Frozen baked bread was a popular item on Skylab. Minimal preparation
involvement, such as baking bread, may offer some relaxation and a break in a
work schedule.

Ice Cream

Ice cream could be provided in the hardened form as it was on Skylab. An

alternative method would be the preparation of an ice cream on board with a dry
mix - water - ice combination in a blender. Preparation time, however, should
be minimal.

Plant Growth Experiments

Sprouting seeds as a potential "fresh" food source was investigated on the Space
Shuttle and should be explored further. NASA has several contracts with
scientists through the CELSS program involving plant growth experiments.
Experiments with lettuce (performed by Dr. Mitchell of Purdue University) need
to be evaluated in the Space Shuttle program and could be thoroughly evaluated
on the Space Station.

28
Cleaning and Sanitizing of Utensils and Equipment

This is a definite food safety issue; appropriate methods need to be developed

to effectively clean utensils and containers.

Summary

There are some significant challenges to be met in designing a food system for
the Space Station. The food system will undoubtedly be an extension of the
sequential development that occurred during Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab and
the Space Shuttle programs, yet it should allow the introduction of some new and
exciting technological advances. The end result will be a system providing crew
members with appetizing, safe, nutritious and convenient food which is
compatible with the mission.

29
 ALTERNATIVE FOOD PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES, NEW TECHNOLOGY IN FOOD
PREPARATION AND APPROPRIATENESS OF FOOD SUPPLY FOR
THE PERMANENTLY MANNED SPACE STATION

Richard H. Whelan
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA

Alternative food preservation techniques are defined as unique processes and

combinations of currently used processes for food preservation. Basically, food
preservation is the extension of the useful shelf-life of normally perishable
foods (from harvest to final consumption) by controlling micro-organisms,
enzymes, chemical changes, changes in sensory characteristics and the prevention
of subsequent recontamination. The resulting products must comply with all
applicable good manufacturing practice regulations and be safe.

Most of the foods currently used in both space and military feeding are
stabilized either by dehydration or the use of a terminal sterilization process.
Other available options would be formulation to reduce water activity, the
refrigeration and freezing of perishable foods, chemical addition, and physical
treatment (ionizing or non-ionizing radiation or mechanical action).
Additionally, in the commercial sector significant use is made of controlled
atmosphere storage for extending the shelf-life of bulk commodities and, more
recently, in unit packages at the retail level. Many alternative processes
and/or combinations of processes offer promise for feeding in a permanently
manned space station, where resupply estimates currently range from 14 days to 6
weeks. Additionally, due to the small number of people in a permanently manned
space station (at least in the near-term) some processes which might not receive
regulatory approval for broad public usage may be acceptable for use in space
feeding (i.e., broad range irradiation sterilized foods).

Alternative food preservation techniques, as we mentioned earlier, can either

involve the use of one process or the synergistic effects of combinations of
these processes. Table 1 lists some of these typical processes. Some processes
which depend on fumigants, chemical bleaching or stabilizing agents are now
considered endangered processes (i.e., sulfiting and fumigation with EDB and
ETO). Safer physical treatments, such as using the Entoliter for disinfestation
of flour or using ionizing radiation disinfestation or pasteurization of grain,
citrus fruits and spices, are envisioned as replacements.

Recently it was reported that the shelf-life of both cook-chill entrees and
packaged fruits and vegetables was extended up to three months by careful
pre-preparation (sanitization or pasteurization), appropriate packaging in
selectively permeable casings and subsequent refrigeration (28 to 30°F) under
carefully controlled conditions. Small quantities of entrees, and fresh fruits
and vegetables could reasonably be made available in the menu cycle at various
times through a three-month space station assignment, depending on the amount of
space available for storing refrigerated perishable foods.

Other food preservation/preparation technologies are evolving. Partial pre-

preparation (searing of meat, partial blanching of vegetables and the nearly
finished par-frying of potatoes) prior to freezing in a cooking container
enables microwave thawing and finish cooking in a few minutes. The initial
processing can be altered to allow for different degrees of doneness, etc.

30
Products also could be frozen in ovenable sleeves for rethermalization in any of
a number of cooking appliances ranging from microwave ovens to radiant heating
devices. This is just one of a number of "unique" package/process combinations
which may go a long way toward providing at least occasional meals equivalent to
home/scratch cooked.

For any of the food preparation modes, other than warming or adding hot water to
a closed system, great care must be taken to minimize the impact on the space
station's internal environment. Even the use of electric convection or
microwave ovens results in quantities of water, odors and other cooking effluent
products being given off during the cooking operation. Thus, consideration of
food service systems for a space station should include a complete evaluation of
the potential environmental impacts of the cooking process and of any effluents
from cleaning and sanitization which might result from the use of reusable
eating utensils.

We have discussed a number of food preservation and preparation techniques which

are either commercially available or may be practical in the foreseeable future.
Now we will discuss the application of these foods to space station feeding.
Currently, the foods used in the shuttle are mostly dehydrated or thermosta-
bilized. While there is nothing inherently wrong with these classic foods,
longer-term missions may well reveal shortcomings of this limited variety. They
tend to lack some of the textural contrast of a standard five to six week cycle
menu normally used in institutional or military garrison feeding. Also, at the
R&DA meeting last week in Chicago, there was some concern because of long-term
consumption of the military operational ration (the Meals Ready-to-Eat, MRE) has
resulted in weight losses in some studies. It is not understood exactly what
caused this; however, because of the similarity of the MRE and current shuttle
foods, the integration of supplemental types of either fresh or more nearly like
fresh foods into the food system should be considered. Of course, any new foods
or food preservation techniques must assure equivalent food safety and should
not cost significantly more on initial purchase, storage or preparation.

The overall charge to the space station food system is to provide appropriate,
nutritious, and safe beverages, snacks and meals to the crews. This is
certainly a challenge. The food system's impact on the space station
environment and the overall mission must be assessed before any changes could be
made. The degree of closure of the environmental control system could have a
significant impact on the types of food available as well as the cost of
providing water and nutrients. Additionally, it is possible water recycling
will become necessary in longer-term space station missions. If a closed or
partially closed ecological life support system is envisioned, the possible
generation of foods by sprouting seeds and/or hydroponic culture of simple
vegetables) may reduce food storage requirements. Additionally, due to the
current problems with waste handling related to the single-service packaging of
thermostabilized and dehydrated foods, it may become desirable to move toward
the use of reusable/cleanable dishes and eating utensils to reduce packaging
waste and permit bulk packaging of certain food items.

31
 Table i

SYNERGISTIC PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES

o Blanching and Freezing

o pH Adjustment and Water Activity Adjustment

o pH Adjustment and Spices and Herbs with Natural Inhibitors

o Dehydration and Controlled Atmosphere (Bulk or In-Package)

o Sanitization, Clean Room Packing and Controlled Atmosphere Packaging

o Thermal Pasteurization and 28-30°F Chill

(Extended Refrigeration Shelf Life _ 3 Months)

o Irradiation Pasteurization and Refrigeration

o Thermal Process and Irradiation (Shelf Stable)

o Thermal Process Food/Irradiation Process Packaging

32
 USE OF IRRADIATED FOODS

Ari Brynjolfsson
Science & Advanced Technology Laboratory
US Army Natick Research & Development Center
Natick, MA

Recently there has been growing recognition of the safety of irradiated foods.
In the Fall of 1980 the joint FAO/IAEA/WHO Expert Committee on the Wholesomeness
of Irradiated Food met at the World Health Organization Headquarters in Geneva,
Switzerland to consider the wholesomeness of food processed by irradiation. The
Committee reviewed the toxicological, microbiological and nutritional data
collected by a great many laboratories around the world and concluded that
irradiation of any food commodity up to an overall average dose of 1 Megarad
presents no toxicological hazard so toxicological testing of foods so treated
was no longer required. The Committee further concluded that irradiation up to
an overall average dose of 1 Megarad introduces no special nutritional or
microbiological problems.

Since then, studies on the effect of sterilizing doses (2 to 7 Megarads) in the

United States and abroad have corroborated the conclusion that food treated with
sterilizing doses is safe.

This recognition is gradually leading to appropriate guidelines and regulations

for processing irradiated foods. The highly respected Codex Alimentarius
Commission has developed "General Standard for Irradiated Foods" in
international trade. This General Standard and a corresponding "Code of
Practice for the Operation of Radiation Facilities Used for Treatment of Foods"
applies to foods treated with doses up to an overall average of 1 Megarad.
Presently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preparing regulations
for foods irradiated up to 0.I Megarad. I believe that in this decade, the FDA
will approve foods treated with sterilizing doses.

The wholesomeness question is very important. I will reflect, therefore, on

some of the changes in food when it is irradiated. First, no radiation remains
in the food, nor is any induced activity produced, because the energy of the
radiation used is below the threshold energies required to induce activity. The
wholesomeness question, therefore, primarily concerns the possible toxicity of
radiolytic products formed in the food when it is irradiated.

Scientists in this field recognized early that while animal feeding studies are
highly relevant they are not very sensitive for testing or measuring possible
toxicity, although most of what we know about wholesomeness of other food
processes is based on animal feeding studies. Therefore, the scientist in
charge of these studies sought to supplement the animal feeding studies with
analyses to identify the radiolytic products formed in the food when it is
irradiated. These studies consisted of:

i. Theoretically analyzing formation of radiolytic products from the

different components of foods,

2. Extracting the many categories of radiolytic products using extraction

techniques appropriate for each category of products,

33
 3. Analyzing and identifying these products with the help of gas
chromatographs, high pressure liquid chromatographs, electrophoretic
methods, mass spectrometric methods and other methods,

4. Studying radiolytic product formation in the food and in model systems

using electron spin resonance (in continuous and pulsed irradiation),

5. Studying model systems using pulse radiolysis methods,

6. Studying the product formation as a function of temperature, dose

rates and concentrations of many environmental components, and

7. Checking and rechecking the theoretical estimates to establish a

consistent reaction mechanism. The results of these chemical analyses
were then turned over to qualified toxicologists who evaluated the
toxicological significance of the radiolytic products.

In summary, we learned that the radiolytlc products consist mostly of oxidation,

hydrolyses and decomposition products commonly found in fresh and processed
foods. The amount of decomposition products is generally much less than that
produced by cooking and by heat sterilizing the food. The amount of energy
needed to irradiation sterilize food (4 Megarads) corresponds to an energy
absorption of about i0 calories per gram or to the heat absorbed when we heat
food I0 to 12°C.

To kill the microorganisms we must always produce chemical changes. Any method
that kills or inactivates the microorganisms in the food must necessarily
produce some chemical changes in the food.

Radiation is dangerous to all life forms, including microorganisms, parasites

and insects. We can, therefore, destroy these pests in the food without causing
many chemical changes or much damage to the food. This may be best understood
in light of the "target theory". _ The DNA molecule in the bacteria may have an
atomic weight on the order of i0° (or even 10v). To inactivated bacterium we
must hit its DNA about i0 times. That is about one "hit" per molecule with the
molecular weight of I00,000. An amino acid, carbohydrate unit or fatty acid
unit has an atomic weight on the order of 150 to 300. While killing the
bacterium we would decompose or change less than one molecule per every 300
molecules (or 0.3 percent) of amino acid, carbohydrate, or fatty acid. This is
much less than the decomposition caused by heat sterilization, where on the
order of 1 out of every I0 molecules would decompose or be significantly
altered.

Further, to preserve the quality of food much more is needed than just to free
it from harmful microorganisms and parasites. We also must prevent oxidations
or rancidity and we must inhibit or halt enzymatic breakdown (self-digestion) of
the food. In the early days of food irradiation the microbial problem was
usually the main concern. Other factors, such as oxidation and enzymatic
decomposition, were often ignored, often leading to misunderstandings. For
example, some of the off flavors produced by oxidation or self-digestlon were
thought to be produced by irradiation.

Today when we irradiate meat, the meat is first enzyme inactivated by mild
cooking, at about 71°C (=160°F), then it is vacuum packed in cans or in plastic
aluminum laminated foils that serve as oxygen barriers and prevent recontamina-
tion after irradiation. Processed this way the meat and fish items are shelf

34
stable at room temperature for several years. Several items prepared this way
were found highly acceptable by the astronauts who have used them in some of the
space flights.

Low irradiation doses (less than 0.I Megarad) can be used to delay ripening of
fruits such as bananas, and to prevent sprouting of potatoes and onions.
However, fresh fruits and the potatoes treated this way are alive, breathing,
and susceptible to microbial attack. Therefore, they still require good storage
conditions.

Food irradiation processing is not a panacea for all problems in food

preservation, but properly used, usually in combination with other treatment, it
may serve us well.

35
 EQUIPMENT FOR HOT-TO-SERVE FOODS

Donald P. Smith
President
Enersyst, Inc.
Dallas, TX

Textures, odors and flavors of foods change with temperature, making serving
temperature very important to appreciation. However, serving temperature alone
will not provide the delightful but fugitive taste, texture, and odor of freshly
browned meat or the crisp crust over the tender moist interior of freshly baked,
grilled or fried foods.

So-called "microwave" penetrating radiation can heat foods quickly. It illus-

trates that serving many foods at proper temperature enhances appreciation, but
it also illustrates that both primary and reheating of steaks, hamburgers,
breads, crisp-crust pizzas and many other foods requires something more.

This requirement led to development of a family of relatively new patented

surface heating devices with a much faster air-to-solid heat transfer rate than
previous air ovens.

The Food Finisher oven prototype was made from a microwave oven modified to
apply jets of recirculating air to both top and bottom surfaces of a product.

Figure 1 illustrates separat_y controlled center heating by microwave and rapid

surface heating by Jet Sweep_impingement air. ._e oversize, tasteless biscuits
were baked with only microwave. Rapid Jet Sweep surface heating alone bakes a
thin, tasty crust, but the center is still cold. When the microwave and the
jets of hot air are combined, the biscuits were baked in two minutes instead of
the usual eight to ten minutes.

The accelerated surface heating can brown, sear or crisp much more rapidly than
in conventional ovens so that partially prepared foods can be finished quickly
and tastefully immediately before serving. The crisp, freshly browned surfaces
result from the faster heat transfer which does not dry out the food.

Recirculating air in convection ovens is widely applied to give clean, easily

controlled heat transfer and the new developments extend this usefulness. As
shown in Figure 2, updraft natural convection air moves around the edges of a
flat product with air prockets on the windward and leeward sides. Forced
convection, usually more parallel to the surface, reduces air pockets and moves
the air faster. However, the less dense, lower viscosity hot air moves around
the colder boundary layer close to the colder product.

As shown in the lower diagram of Figure 2, localized jets of hot air directed
perpendicularly to the surface disperse the insulating boundary layer and give
much faster heat transfer.

The effects of the Jet Swee_ impingement air-to-solid heat transfer can be
illustrated by photographs of pizza crusts. Figure 3 shows how a flat object is
heated most around the edges if air is blown directly at the surface. This
condition occurs as air rises around a product in a natural convection oven.

36
 The pizza shell shown in Figure 4 shows the intense localized heating effect of
multiple air jets. Figure 5 shows the even heating obtained when the multiple
air jets are caused to sweep separately over a surface.

An Untended Meal Server (Figure 6), built for U.S. Army Natick Research and
Development Laboratory stores containers of frozen foods in stacks. When a meal
is desired, an entree, a vegetable and a starch can be selected (Figure 7).
Each portion is retrieved from the freezer and placed into one of the three Food
Finisher compartments. It is thawed by microwave at a low power level, then the
microwave can heat it rapidly. If browning and crisping is desired, the hot air
jets automatically open the shrink film overwrap and project into the box to
crisp and brown the portion. With proper partial food pre-preparation and
program selection foods, this unit can supply very fine meals from frozen
portions.

The Jet Swee_impingement principle uses lower temperatures and still bakes
much faster than most ovens. This tolerance of operation finds application in
self-timing, conveyorized pizza ovens for restaurants.

The jet air principle is also applied to give very uniform and faster commercial
baking (Figure 8). In contrast, the small counter top Impinger oven (Figure 9)
starts commercial distribution this month. The smaller conveyorized ovens
facilitate rapid heating for food preparation or finish heating before serving.

The Progressive Food Finishe_ (Figure I0) heats chilled foods to serving
temperatures for distribution in insulated trays to hospital patients. It
applies individually programmed heating in ten successive microwave component
units to give each meal its proper finishing. This unit has run about two
million meals in about four years in the United Hospitals in St. Paul,
Minnesota. Each meal is manually programmed so that a full meal or a side order
is properly heated.

A later model Food Finisher (Figure Ii) was installed less than six months ago
at University Hospitals of Cleveland. This unit receives a meal which is plated
according to a patient's menu request. It heats the plate with jet impingement
air so that it does not take heat from the food. The food is heated by pulses
of microwave as it moves through the 10 compartments. An infra-red, non-
contacting sensor "looks" at the plate in alternate cavities and sets the proper
heating cycle. This sensing and heating is automatically repeated until the
food reaches the desired temperature.

In use, the platers fill the plates with chilled food which is held in refrig-
erated compartments. The meals travel through the Finisher and the heated
finished meal is placed on the tray for delivery to the patient (Figure 12).

These Enersyst Progressive Food Finisher_illustrate proven concepts which can

be adapted for rapid repetitive food preparation and for finishing partially
prepared foods for excellent serving quality.

_REGISTERED TRADEMARK

37

.............. [
Figure i. - Biscuits center heated by microwave
and rapidly surface heated by impingement air.

38
 tt t
Natural Convection

Forced Convection

__,tr

"Jet Sweep" Impingement

Figure 2. - Comparison of air movement by natural

and forced convection and Jet Sweep impingement.

39
 Figure 3. - Natural convection oven

heating of flat object.

Figure 4. - Localized heating effect

of multiple air jets.

Figure 5. - Even heating of multiple

air jets sweeping separately over

a surface.

40
Figure 6. - Meal server.
Figure 7. - Selection of an entree, vegetable,
and starch from a meal server.

42
Figure 8 . - Commercial baker which u s e s jet a i r p r i n c i p l e .
Figure 9. - Counter top impinger oven.

44
 I
P_
P_
o
2
ill
°M
0
0
ell
_r4
0
1.1
!
d
1,5
F i g u r e 11. - P r o g r e s s i v e F o o d F i n i s h e r , M o d e l PFF-2.
 NUTRITIONAL CRITERIA FOR MILITARY RATIONS AND EFFECTS OF PROLONGED
FEEDING ON ACCEPTABILITY

LTC David Schnakenberg, Ph.D.

H.Q. Department of Army
Washington, DC

In the Department of Defense, The Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG) of the
Army is responsible for establishing nutritional allowances and standards for
male and female personnel of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines. These
allowances and standards are based upon the familiar Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDA's) of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research
Council. As noted in Table I, the military recommended allowances are adjusted
to reflect the differences in nutrient demands of moderately active male and
female personnel in the age group 17-50 years. The recommended allowances are
used by menu planners to develop and evaluate the menus served in military
dining halls. In contrast, the nutritional standards are criteria used in the
development and procurement of our operational rations such as the individual
packaged combat ration, the Meal, Ready-to-Eat (MRE).

The OTSG has also established broad nutritional policies for operational rations
which are designed to insure that the nutritional content of the rations served
to our troops will sustain their combat effectiveness. These policies include
the following:
o Rations must satisfy OTSG nutritional standards at time of
consumption.
o Ration developers must compensate for projected nutrient losses during
food processing, expected storage conditions, and food preparation.
o If fortification is necessary, the required nutrients are to be
formulated into menu components and are not to be provided in the form
of vitamin/mineral pills.
o Operational rations must be tested under conditions of intended use to
determine if troops will consume sufficient quantities to prevent
unacceptable body weight loss.

It has been long standing Army policy that individual combat rations (such as
the "C" ration) should not be fed as the sole source of subsistence for more
than ten consecutive days. There was concern that these rations, although
nutritionally complete, would become monotonous because of limited variety
causing nutrient intakes to decrease and body weight losses to occur with
possible adverse effects on morale and combat effectiveness. Whenever possible,
troops are now fed one or two hot meals per day containing fresh foods and a
much greater variety of foods than are available in packaged rations.

Recently, the Army has been looking at opportunities to reduce the logistical
burden needed to support troops which must be capable of rapid deployment to hot
spots around the world. One consideration was to have troops subsist solely on
packaged rations for periods of up to 90 days without the support of field
kitchens and associated cook personnel. Accordingly, the US Army Natick
Research and Development Center recently conducted a laboratory and a field test
to evaluate the effects of prolonged feeding of the MRE ration. The laboratory
test was conducted with student volunteers and it was found that students eating
MRE's three times per day for 45 consecutive days were able to maintain body
weight.

4_
A 34-day test was conducted at an isolated training area on the Island of
Hawaii. One company of troops was fed three MRE's per day and a control
company was fed one MRE and two hot "A" field rations per day. The preliminary
data reported to date indicate that the company eating three MRE's per day lost
an average of about i0 ibs., whereas, the control company lost an average of
4-1bs. over the 34-day period. It would appear that the MRE company ate only
about two-thirds of the calories provided. These factors include: (a) lack of
defined "meal time" when hot meals are not served; (b) hassles with menu
component packaging systems; (c) time required to rehydrate selected items; (d)
insufficient variety of drinks; and (e) too many calories in the form of
desserts.

The Army's recent experience with prolonged feeding of MRE's may be very
applicable to those planning food service for the Space Station missions of up
to 90 days in duration. Acceptability of food items in space may depend as much
upon the degree of ease of preparing and eating the food as on the taste,
texture, and aroma of the food. it will be very important to determine which
foods are highly acceptable throughout a 90-day mission and which foods,
although acceptable, are tolerated only infrequently. Every effort should be
made to validate in space any Earth-bound preference and acceptance
methodologies. The Army's recent studies have suggested that preference and
hedonic ratings of food items may not always satisfactorily predict actual food
consumption in the field.

48
 NUTRITION IN SPACE FLIGHT: SOME THOUGHTS

Philip C. Johnson, Jr., M.D.

NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX

We know that going into space will cause physiological changes related to
microgravity and on which nutrition has a bearing. Some examples are: muscle
atrophy-protein; bone atrophy-calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D; space sickness-
fat; cardiovascular deconditioning-sodium, water, potassium. In the following
discussion, I will touch on these and some others which relate to living in
space.

Any trip into space, whether for two days or a week, will result in a 2% body
weight loss even with an isocaloric diet and adequate water-salt intake.
During longer missions, an increase in caloric intake greater than eaten on
Earth can decrease this weight loss. The U.S.S.R. has increased the caloric
intake of its crews during long-term flights. The U.S. did it in Skylab IV
(84 days). What happens, however, is not very desirable for an athletic
astronaut. He continues to lose muscle mass as is usual for space flight but
replaces it with fat as a result of the extra calories. What is a surprise
about living in the microgravity of space is the amount of calories required.
NASA originally believed that a lower number of calories would suffice in
space flight just as it had learned that bed rested subjects fed an isocaloric
diet gain weight during the bed rest period. Experience in space flight
operations proved that this was not the case and that to maintain a normal
weight, it is necessary to feed the crewman about the same number of calories
in orbit as he eats before the flight.

Skeletal atrophy is the biggest medical problem NASA will face in space
station crews. Our knowledge about the skeletal changes of microgravity is
based on Skylab data which is now over i0 years old. Since that era, the
U.S.S.R. has had longer missions but no metabolic balance study has been
performed, and therefore, the U.S.S.R. studies do not tell us whether or not
their crewmembers are losing calcium at the same rate as found in Skylab
crews.

You may recall in Skylab, there were three missions with three people each.
The first mission lasted 28 days. The second mission lasted approximately two
months, and the third, three months. The numbers represent only nine indivi-
duals at the beginning and only three at the end of three months. Thus, the
entire world data on the subject are very scanty. If these data turn out to
be representative of the general population, then Skylab will have been a
great contributor to the knowledge base of what happens to the bones when you
live in a microgravity environment. The Skylab results indicate that after
the first week or so, each crewman lost about 0.5 of his skeletal calcium each
month. In some areas, like the weight-bearing skeleton, the loss may have
been as high as 5% per month. All crewmembers lost calcium and this loss
continued through the mission.

NASA studies have shown that if a subject is placed at bed rest, some of the
physiological responses simulate space flight because gravity effects on the
length of the supporting skeleton are removed. Bed rest will produce bone

49
atrophy similar to that found in Skylab crews. After returning to normal
living conditions, the subject's calcium balance returns to near normal. But
the subject's skeleton contains less calcium than it would have if the subject
had not been placed at bed rest.

The calcium loss of space flights poses no problem if you are a gung-ho
astronaut who goes up once, gets the Congressional Medal, meets the President,
and then resigns to go into industry. It will be different in the space
station era when a worker is trained to work in space, goes up for 90 days,
comes back for 90 days, goes back, and so on for many trips. Would the worker
retire at the end of his life's work in serious jeopardy as far as his skeleton
goes? In a way, he is somewhat like the worker exposed to radiation. What is
the allowable lifetime loss of calcium before NASA as an employer should call
a halt?

There is not much known about calcium and the skeletal changes over a lifetime.
There have been several studies, but they are flawed because the researchers
have not followed a single individual over several decades. What they do is
rely on measuring a group of 50-year olds, a group of 40-year olds, etc. _en
this is done, the average calcium of a person at 50 is less than in a 40-year
old which in turn is less than in a 30-year old and it is less than in a
20-year old. Skeletal calcium is maximal around 20 to 25 years of age in a
male and female, and from then on calcium decreases gradually at a rate of
about 5%/decade. There is a certain skeletal density below which a person
will become very prone to stress or traumatic fractures. A woman starts out
at a maximum skeletal calcium at age 20, but this is somewhat less calcium
than a male because her skeletal size is smaller. During the reproductive
years, her calcium loss is at the same rate as a man, although losses might
increase some during pregnancies and breast feeding. When she goes through
menopause at age 50 to 55, the calcium loss is equivalent to about three
decades of loss prior to that. Thus, by the time she goes through menopause,
her calcium loss is equivalent to a man 30 years older. Thus, starting with
less calcium and losing it faster, women have more trouble at ages 70, 80, and
90 with fractures than males of the same age. We can predict then, if a man
spent a lifetime occupation in space flight losing calcium at 0.5% per year,
he would probably have a problem with his skeleton at age 70 or 80 like some
women, and a woman astronaut would have trouble earlier. The big unknown at
this time is how to stop the crew's calcium loss.

Various ideas come to mind on how to stop the calcium loss: One, we could
increase the calcium in diet. If we ingested more calcium, would it preserve
calcium in the bone, would the calcium loss level off sooner? The answer
tested in bed rest studies says yes it does, but the effect lasts only for
about 12 weeks. Other things have been tried. High phosphorus in diet may
help decrease urinary calcium. Certain nutrients have been tried as pharma-
ceuticals. Fluoride will probably be of some benefit. Phosphanates which are
a detergent-like compounds will stop calcium loss. A high protein diet
increases the rate of calcium loss. Should the diet be low in protein?

The bones in a human are trabecular or cortical. Trabecular areas are con-
stantly being remade and torn down and remade--constantly remodeled. Bones
trabeculae are changed in thickness and number depending on physiological
need. In space flight, we believe but have not yet proven, that the remodel-
ing, even if it proceeds under the influence of a therapy, would probably be

50
in the wrong spots. For example, as I stand here, I stress my femur which is
a bone that responds to remodeling. As I move around, I am stressing it and
it may take up more calcium. Jogging and hitting the heel on the pavement may
induce stress fractures. When it does, the body may increase the calcium
supplied to that area. In space there is no gravity, there is no pull;
therefore, any calcium added to the skeleton might be distributed indiscrimi-
nately. For example, calcium might be added to the skull near openings where
nerves come out. These openings could be made smaller resulting in pressure
on the nerves. In space flight it is important not only to prevent the loss,
but if bone remodeling is going to go on, to find a way to make the remodeling
meet the body's requirements for living on Earth.

The urinary calcium increases immediately after exposure to weightlessness

since the body starts to unload calcium in the first few days. This means the
kidney has to increase calcium excretion up to a maximum of about 500 milli-
grams. With further loss of bone calcium, less food calcium is absorbed by
the intestines. Increased urinary calcium could result in renal stones.
Would dietary modification decrease this health hazard? Would increasing the
dietary phosphorus decrease this? Would an acid-produclng diet help?

There are many studies that have been done to try to determine what causes the
calcium loss. Today we really do not have a good understanding of its cause.
Hormones do not seem to change a lot, the level of phosphate and calcium in
the blood goes up, and protein stays about the same. There is not much we can
say about it other than that lack of stress and strain on the bone causes the
bone to lose calcium. NASA hopes that by the time the space station is
developed that it will have found a therapeutic measure. Perhaps it will be a
food additive. There are some interesting sidelights in NASA data. For
example, just because a person is a jogger during adult life does not neces-
sarily mean that he or she has more calcium in the skeleton. Studies have
shown that runners can have low calcium or high calcium skeletons depending on
factors other than exercise stress.

When an astronaut is exposed to weightlessness, unpleasant symptoms develop.

The most unpleasant is space sickness. Space sickness is somewhat similar to
car sickness or air sickness. Nutritionists might help astronauts by finding
foods which tend to decrease the symptoms of space sickness. Shortening
gastric emptying might help. Fatty foods slow stomach emptying. Therefore,
should NASA reduce fat in the diet during the first few mission days?
Vomiting in space is not a retching type of vomiting often associated with
food poisoning. It is more like, "Oh my golly, it happened," type of
situation. One of the most useful drugs to combat space sickness is a
combination of a centrally acting anticholinergic and a stimulant to overcome
the soporific effects of the anticholinergic drug. Anticholinergic drugs dry
the mouth and the stimulant decreases appetite; both undesirable effects for a
crewmember. Even if they have had no problem in airplane spinning and on
merry-go-rounds it does not mean that an individual will not be sick in space.
Terrestrial motion sickness does not correlate with space sickness.

We know there is a fluid shift on entering space, and maybe the fluid shift is
one of the causes of space sickness. If the individual's extracellular wster
is high, or if there is edema of the legs it might help to reduce it before
launch by eating less salt and drinking less water. Some astronauts try to
dehydrate themselves before they go up to decrease the rate of urine formation

51
during launch and to postpone urination in early orbit. It is not much fun to
have to urinate while waiting on the launch pad.

The astronauts sometimes do not want to drink the water offered while in
orbit. The water often comes out of the spicket containing excess gas because
it is a by-product of the fuel cells and can contain uncombined oxygen and
hydrogen. The gas bothers them, and they prefer to avoid drinking gas-filled
water. However, on reentry, if the body's fluid content is too small, there
is a tendency to faint, to have a lower blood pressure, and to excrete more
adrenalin. If the crewman increases his salt-water intake just before he
comes back, he feels better. They do that by taking a liter of isotonic
saline solution. This is made up in the stomach by eating 8 salt tablets and
drinking i liter of water.

There is an old wives tale that the astronauts used to believe that Gatorade
had significant amounts of salt in it. For a while they took Gatorade instead
of the salt tablets because people remember getting sick after taking salt
tablets on Earth. It took a while before the flight surgeons convinced crews
that Gatorade is mostly sugar and almost no salt, and that they could drink it
as a personal preference beverage but could not use it for the countermeasure.

Muscle mass in the calves, thighs, and back needs to be maintained during
orbital living. Protein intake may have to be increased to do this during
long missions, along with administration of anabolic steroids. Red cell loss
of 10% occurs in space flight. We do not know how to prevent it. After
return to Earth, the individual will need a little more iron and definitely
need more folic acid to regenerate the lost red cells. It may also be desir-
able to decrease cholesterol and carbohydrates in the diet since on return,
high density lipoproteins (HDL) are decreased for a period of time predisposing
the individual to increased cholesterol deposition in the blood vessels.

The toilet facilities on the spacecraft are not a lot of fun. During long
missions, we might want to increase the fiber content of the diet to aid
evacuation. A higher fiber diet might help reduce intestinal gas pains which
are unpleasant.

We will have to guard against vitamin deficiency. The processed food for a
space diet may be five or more years old, and therefore, may lack some vitamins
and nutrients. We should by all means plan to use fresh foods whenever
possible. The caloric intake should be planned to be as on Earth and should
not be decreased even though it appears that astronauts floating around in
space would not be working so hard. During extravehicular activities (EVA)
very high metabolic rates have been recorded. Most of this occurs because the
astronaut does not have experience with this type of activity, so in a sense,
he is clumsy. He does not know how to pull on a bolt without flying off in
the opposite direction, and trying to hold on, he uses more energy than is
needed. By the time the space station is built, astronauts will be trained to
work effectively in space suits. Their caloric use or metabolic rate when
they are working in EVA should not be any greater than it would be on Earth
except that if the space suit is not functional and pleasant to wear, calories
will be used to move around in the suit and to endure the discomfort. In
present space suits, using the hands causes pain from the glove. With a
better suit and especially better gloves, training, and experience, working in
space should be like any other job.

52
 FOOD SERVICE AND NUTRITIONAL NEEDS

,Joseph Kerwin, M.D.

Director, Space and Life Sciences Directorate
NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX

I really did not come here to pontificate on the food system, although being a
former member of the crew I will wind up doing so no doubt. Some of the people
here know how the food system has developed and how it got to where it is now.
It struck me that on the very first few flights in the manned space program the
food system presented no problem whatsoever because there did not have to be one
when Alan Shepard was up for 15 minutes and Gus Grissom after him, and even John
Glenn, when he flew for 5 hours. It really was not a big deal, but from then
on, as we began to fly for 8 hours and then 24 hours and then 32 hours and then
8 days or bust on Gemini, it began to be a big deal. The name of the game has
been nutrition and packaging all the way along. Although nutrition was the
unknown area, packaging has been a big problem. We have had our nutritional
problems and from the Skylab point of view I can reminisce about some of those.
The original Skylab food plan was to give all the astronauts 2400 calories a day
whether they wanted it or not. This resulted in Deke Slayton writing his famous
memo saying that his crews were not goose livers and he would not stand to see
them stuffed. From there we got into the plan where each of us ate test meals
for two six-day periods, as I recall, and every scrap that we ate and every
scrap that we left was measured. They figured out what our caloric requirements
were on the ground, subtracted 300 calories from that and then gave us that
package for Skylab. It was that or nothing. The potassium, calcium, sodium,
magnesium and a number of other things were all rigidly specified. We bad pills
to eat each day should we fail to consume some of our food, which we often did
if it was asparagus, peas, or some of those favorite things. The next day we
would report to the ground, "I didn't eat my peas." "Tomorrow you take two
white pills and one brown pill and you'll be all right."

On Apollo we had the famous potassium flap. I believe it was Apollo 15 with
Dave Scott, AI Worden, and Jim Erwin. They came back from a very vigorous pair
of excursions on the surface of the Moon substantially dehydrated, and they had
some cardiac arrythmia during the return flight to Earth, which scared everybody
a bit. They had their body potassium estimated after they got back and it was
like a 15 percent loss on a i0- or ll-day flight. Potassium was the buzz word
for awhile. John Young complains to this day that the cause of his diarrhea and
stomach upset on Apollo 16 was all the potassium that was put in the orange
juice. I guess bananas were not ready yet.

So there have been things like that as we went from tubes to bags to cans and
dealt with crumbs and spiIls and all the packaging constraints, and now on the
Shuttle we have a system that works. The food is nicely packaged and there is a
good selection. The crew is still edging toward a bit more individual
selection, rather than a standard menu, but on a 7-day flight you can pretty
well eat what is available in the cafeteria and it works very well.

53
The difficulty is that as we go into the Space Station world, the cost, effort,
hardware, food trash, and food waste that the food service system will generate
(which is quite tolerable on a 7-day mission), probably will be intolerable on a
90-day Space Station mission. The challenge for Space Station, and this is
strictly a personal guess, will not be the nutrition. There are certainly some
nuances; we are in a closed system, the food you bring is what you get, and we
are going to have to be careful not to forget any trace elements, vitamins, and
the nutritional things that we need. However, by and large, we understand that
the needs of the human being in weightlessness are at least qualitatively much
the same as they are on the ground.

The challenge in the food service supply is not so much packaging but systems
engineering. It is a very interesting system but the big constraints are in the
supply pipeline. The average owner of a four-star restaurant can go out and get
supplies from wherever he gets them any time he wants; he can use all the water
he wants in his food preparation and his cleanup. He is not constrained, except
for cost constraints, of course. The Space Station will be extremely limited in
the weight and the volume of supply that is allowed to be brought up to it
because each launch will cost $I00 million and one space Shuttle worth of cargo,
which may approach 60,000 pounds, has to resupply everything including new
crewmen. We are going to have to be very, very careful. For example, in the
clothing system it has been estimated that if we do not get smart and figure out
some way to wash the clothes or clean them and reuse them in flight, there will
be a 3,000-pound weight bogey when the Shuttle comes up to resupply every 90
days. That is very, very expensive clothing, no matter where you get it. The
same analogy applies to the food system. That is why we have to think about
bulk packaging and cooking in a meal style rather than individual packaging.

These constraints impose a very interesting new set of tradeoffs. For one
thing we have been able to control individual nutrition rather accurately in a
system that packages each food item individually and gives a crewman a
combination of those items which meet his nutritional requirements. This system
is available today. Of course, Deke Slayton was right; you do not have to eat
the food. Some of it has come back uneaten, but, again, during seven days that
is not a big deal. One of the things we want to figure out is how big a deal it
is in 90 days. However, if we go to group meals we will have less control
because we will not have control over the portion size. It will be more like at
home where you are presented with good nourishing food and a well-balanced diet
but you do not have to eat it if you do not want to.

From an efficiency standpoint, will there be less waste if we bring up the food
in bulk and cook it and allow the crew to waste 20 percent of it as plate waste?
Should we go back to individual packaging, or is there some combination of the
two, such as bulk cooking and serving into individual packages in measured
amounts? If there is such a combination, which is certainly feasible in
principle, what is the capital cost, weight of the equipment, power drainage,
and all the other factors that have to be considered in a tradeoff study so that
we can figure out what to do?

I suppose palatability would be affected by these choices. It certainly would

be affected by the choice of eating what is on a menu or selecting individual
items. At this point, I want to mention our experience with the German potato
salad. The way we did it at Skylab was to have rigidly specified diets. We

54
were allowed individual choice during the menu selection phase but the
individual items were then balanced to produce set meals. We ate the same
breakfast every sixth day. We had a six-day cycle, so the food was very well
set, but there was a pantry--a big locker downstairs--in which excess food was
stored to provide for contingencies such as spoilage. There was a little candy
that we could eat if we wanted to, there was extra coffee and there was some
German potato salad. The German potato salad was quite spicy, and on the ground
most of us did not select it very often so it did not occur in our meals. When
we got up there we found that the very best thing in the world was German potato
salad, and I must shamefully confess that by the end of Skylab i, our flight,
there was no German potato salad left in the pantry. The second and third crews
just had to make do with what they selected. Of course, they could not change
their minds because the food items were launched in Skylab and they were up
there waiting for them--the asparagus, the green peas and the irradiated bread.
Even with peanut butter it was pretty bad stuff. I am not knocking the food
system, a lot of the food was very good. Once the missions proceeded, we began
to exercise more and finally had a little bit of a breakthrough from the medical
experimenters who agreed that yes, if the crew was hungry and they did not want
to eat just candy, they could eat extra nourishment, extra protein, extra
carbohydrate and extra fat. The upshot of this was that the third crew, which
was up three times as long as the first crew came back with only about one-third
the weight loss, stronger in the lower extremities, and with less muscle loss.
Their caloric intake per day had increased.

Bill Thornton had a wonderful chart which showed the weight loss as a function
of time related to the nutritional input in calories per pound. It is a
straight line across the three missions, with the last one being very close to
baseline. This is why I say that the nutritional environment in weightlessness
is not quite as strange as we thought it was when we embarked on the space
program.

It is a new ball game, a very interesting ball game and a very challenging
systems engineering job. Creative contributions will be required. We need to
solve the tradeoffs and give the crew a sense of control over their destiny in
terms of being able to modify their diet, even if it is only adding condiments
or changing the day's menu a little bit. I know, from having been up there,
that one way to keep the crew off your back is to dump the problem on their
shoulders. They will be much more cooperative and will have a better time.

55
 PSYCHOBIOLOGY AND FOOD PERCEPTION

Anne Neilson
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA

Psychobiology is a scientific discipline which encompasses the phenomena known

to be important as regards nutrition and food consumption in space.
Specifically, it includes those areas of biology which are clearly related to
behavior, human subjective experience and problems of coping and adapting to
stress.

TASTE AND ODOR PERCEPTION

All five senses of taste are important. These are the sensations perceived on
the tongue and smell, which are those sensations perceived in the olfactory
center behind the bridge of the nose. Also important are the sense of sight
which perceives color and shapes of foodstuffs and lends identification and
expectation; the sense of hearing, which helps in distinguishing fresh or crisp
from stale and soggy, and the sense • of feel, which perceives textural
differences.

Flavor is a term generally used to encompass the interaction of the perceptions

of the senses of taste, smell, and mouth and nose feel. These perceptions are
caused by chemical stimuli. The tongue has four groups of taste buds that react
to water soluble chemicals to produce sweet, sour, salty and bitter sensations.
Generally, there are more sweet taste buds on the tip of the tongue and more
salty and sour taste buds on the sides toward the back. Most bitter taste buds
are on the rear of the tongue.

Volatile chemicals from foods are warmed in the nose and mouth and impinge on
the olfactory center, either through sniffing or through chewing and swallowing.
Any congestion in the nose will reduce the number and intensity of the aromatics
perceived, thus leading to distorted or suppressed "flavor". If the sight,
shape and textural quality is correct, the senses of sight, sound and hearing
will frequently compensate for loss of smell, thereby making foods appear to
taste more normal.

PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TASTE AND ODOR PERCEPTION

There are indications that changes in both taste and odor perception occur
during missions reported by U.S. and USSR astronauts. Evidence for these
changes is mostly in the form of anecdotes. There is no concrete evidence of
the types and degrees of change. The greater the change, however, the more
likely the possibility that consumption will decrease and that cravings for
spicier or "different" foods will increase. This has implications for provision
of sufficient variety to maintain interest and proper nutrition.

There is more positive documentation of the buildup of background odors during

missions. Astronauts probably become "fatigued" or adapted to these odors, but
the odors probably contribute subliminally to decreased appetite and
consumption, and can promote changes in acceptance and active dislike of
specific foods.

56
PERCEPTION - KNOWLEDGE GAPS

There needs to be a much greater understanding of the degree of changes in taste

and odor perception, if indeed these occur, and then an increased understanding
of the causes. In addition, a study should be made of consumption patterns in
past missions to correlate acceptance with perception and perceptual change. As
perceptual change may be, or may become, a function of duration, flight
correlations should be made with this factor as well.

PERCEPTION - NEEDS

A means for training astronauts to recognize the four specific tastes, and a
group of 20 to 50 aromatics and their intensities should be developed. Several
excellent training mechanisms are available, the most noted being the Flavor
Profile Method developed by Arthur D. Little, Inc., which is used worldwide.
Astronauts would be trained on earth, calibrated with a professional panel and
then asked to perform similar experiments in space. It is of utmost importance
that adequate reference standards be used so that there is no confusion as to
the descriptions and scaling of the perceptions. Establishing this common
vocabulary and rating scale will take approximately 16 hours, but it is
essential to the success of the experiment.

Once correlation as to perceptions in space versus those on Earth has been

established by the astronauts using appropriate statistical techniques, it will
be possible to use a professional (non-astronaut) panel to predict the sensory
effects of future menus.

FOOD PREFERENCE AND MENU SELECTION

The problems that have been observed with past mission menu selections include
satiety; lack of flavor variety; lack of fresh fruit, meat and vegetables;
boredom; and a build-up of dislike. It is important that food research groups
address these and other problems to ensure the effectiveness of the space
station missions. One objective is to select those foods that create the
sensation of being well fed without leading to a "stuffed" feeling. In trying
to extend flavor variety it might be possible to create protein or carbohydrate
substrates with many different flavors for snacking or quick nourishment. By
changing shapes, textures, sizes and fiber content it is possible to vary
entrees, pasta, desserts, etc. without affecting nutritional content but
decreasing possibility of boredom. Lastly, a group of acceptance curves should
be developed for meats, vegetables, desserts and beverages served on missions in
order to determine "wear out" or onset of dislike.

OTHER POINTS

In addressing problems of choosing the most acceptable diets it should be

remembered that about one-third of the crew will be discriminating and will
react more strongly positively or negatively. Another one-third will probably
not pay much attention to the food except when it is really inconvenient or
unpleasant. The remaining third will fluctuate. It is important to define a
means for isolating and then testing the more discriminating two-thirds for
preference/acceptance ratings of potential menu items.

There is a great need for flexibility in the diets. This can be added by using
spices so some entrees will be "hot" and some mild.

5?
When measuring like/dislike and preference, it is important to measure
consumption in flight and not to rely on replies to questionnaires.

Use of colors, shapes, garnishes, and portion control to present meals is

extremely important to a pleasurable eating experience and should be considered.
Also, the color of the packaging, the shape and weight of the utensils, and
visual display of the trays should be considered and tested for most acceptance.

Lastly, time and energy should be expended on creative approaches rather than
"force fitting" concepts and ideas that appear not to work.

58
 PACKAGING'S CONTRIBUTION FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
SPACE STATION'S FOOD SERVICE OPERATION

Bernard A. Rausch, Director Business Research

Corporate Planning and Development Department
Signode Corporation
Glenview, IL

It is obvious that storage limitations will have a major effect on space station
food service. For example:
o Foods with low bulk density such as ice cream, bread, cake,
standard-type potato chips and other low density snacks, flaked
cereals, etc. will exacerbate the problem of space limitations.
o Package containers are inherently volume-consuming and refuse-
creating.
o Refuse and waste need to be accommodated.

The useful observation of Joe Stillwell of Arthur D. Little that the optimum
package is no package at all leads to the tentative conclusion that the least
amount of packaging per unit of food, consistent with storage, aesthetics,
preservation, cleanliness, cost and disposal criteria, is the most practical
food package for the space station.

This conclusion suggests that a series of trade-offs may have to be made to

arrive at the most appropriate package design for a particular type of food
taking all the criteria into account. Some of these trade-offs are:

o SINGLE SERVE VS. BULK

COMPARISON OF SINGLE SERVE VS. BULK FOOD SERVICE SYSTEMS

Single Servin_ Bulk

ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES:

- Simple preparation equipment. - Higher bulk density.

- More flexible preparation: - Better aesthetics if
Conventional oven or microwave kitchenware is used.
depending on package design

DISADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:

- Greater total volume/unit of food. - Less personal choice.

- More packaging material to be - Special dispensing systems
disposed of. needed.
- If kitchenware is used, a
cleanup system is required.

It is of course possible to supply both types of systems. Work will have to be

done to determine which mode provides the highest level of benefits for each
specific food item or type.

59
O CONVENTIONAL OVEN VS. MICROWAVE OVEN

The use of packages that permit hot food preparation in two major ways: by
heating in a microwave oven or a conventional oven.

COMPARISON OF MICROWAVE VS. CONVENTIONAL OVEN PREPARATION

Conventional Oven Microwave Oven

ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES:

- Some prefer oven flavor. - Short preparation time.

- Can cook several different - Simplicity of use; can be
items at once. programmed for best conditions.

DISADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:

- Lower energy efficiency. - Flavor not always preferred.

- Longer preparation time. - Cooking may be uneven.

New container systems now available commercially will permit the prepared food
package to be heated in either a microwave or conventional oven. These packages
must be stored in a freezer or refrigerator and have shelf-life limitations.

o NONMETALLIC ASEPTICALLY- VS. NON-ASEPTICALLY PACKAGED FOODS

It is now possible to package microwavable and ovenable foods in specially-made

containers that have relatively short or relatively long shelf-lives. The
options available are:
o The use of standard packing techniques with plastic or aluminum trays and
aluminum foil lids. Refrigeration (limited shelf-life) or freezer storage
(extended shelf-life) are required.
o The use of special multi-layer barrier plastic containers and lids with
standard filling techniques and retorting of the plastic package at about
250°F for 15-45 minutes to achieve relatively unlimited shelf-life without
freezing or refrigeration.
o The use of special multi-layer barrier plastic containers together with
aseptic filling techniques now being perfected to achieve relatively
unlimited shelf-life without freezing or refrigeration. The less drastic
aseptic treatment used in this case should result in better food quality.

60
 COMPARISON OF ASEPTIC VS. NONASEPTIC FOOD PACKAGES

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Metal - Ease of production. - Refrigeration or freezer

Nonaseptic - Technologies well known storage needed.
- Containers available. - Limited shelf-life one
month to four months.
- Not microwavable without
transfer to nonmetal.

Plastic - Relatively easy to produce. - Refrigeration or freezer

Nonaseptic - Containers recently available, storage needed.
- Microwavable or ovenable. - If pouch, difficult to
- Lower cost. handle.
- Better aesthetics for package
if made in tray form.

Metal - Well-known technology. - Cylindrical shape wastes

Aseptic - Tastes are well-established, space.
- Can be stored under ambient - Costly.
conditions. - Bulk of food is over-
cooked during retorting.
- Hard to dispose of.
- "Fresh" taste is lacking.

Plastic - Better taste than metal - Packages not yet widely

Asepticized aseptic, available.
by Retorting - Containers can be shaped as - Not as "home made"
required, tasting as nonretorted
- Package technology close to plastic package.
commercialization.
- Can be stored under ambient
conditions.
- Microwavable or ovenable.
- Food can be eaten directly
out of dish- or tray-shaped
package.

Plastic - Best taste of all options; - Packages not yet widely

Asepticized closest to "home-made". available.
Without - Containers can be shaped - Technology for filling
Retorting as required, needs to be further
- Can be stored under ambient developed.
conditions
- Microwavable or ovenable.
- Food can be eaten directly out
of dish- or tray-shaped
package.

61

.......... Fr--r
In order to capitalize on the latest technological innovations in the packaging,
preparation, and storage of food, some of the evaluations that need to be made
include:
o Refrigerator and freezer storage volume to be available on the
station.
o The effect of conditions in space on food products that have been
packed in microwavable/ovenable packages and then retorted for
preservation.
o The effect of conditions in space on food products that have been
packed in microwavable/ovenable packages under aseptic conditions.
o The formulation of foods that will be palatable under the packaging
conditions described above.
o The effect of conditions in space on the type of plastic packaging
materials chosen for use in retorted or aseptic food preservation
systems. There are numerous types of multi-layer systems available
whose suitability needs to be verified for space station use.
o The selection of foods that, considering all the circumstances, should
be supplied in bulk and those where single servings made the most
sense.

62
 PACKAGING FOR FOOD SERVICE

E. Joseph Stilwell
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, MA

For package design purposes, the principle concerns of food packaging for the
space station can be considered the same as traditional concerns of food
packaging for more conventional environments. These are containment, preser-
vation, cleanliness, storage, delivery, presentation, and disposal. The
differences lie in the ranking of these concerns. Major concerns would seem to
be disposal and presentation. On the minor end of the spectrum would be
preservation. The rest fall in between. Preservation is of less concern
because shelf life requirements are relatively shor_ when compared to most food
packaging.

PREMISE--OPTIMUM PACKAGE IS NO PACKAGE

When considering the mechanics of storage and disposal in space, the cost of
delivery, and the cost of low volume preparation of foods for delivery, it
becomes apparent that the least packaging is the best packaging. Thus the task
of the workshop was to seek out the materials and techniques that will allow us
to achieve traditional packaging functions while approaching the "optimum
package" as closely as possible.

The format for discussion of packaging for representative food types was:
o Categorize foods by:
- form.
- essential preservation requirements.
- mechanics of production.
o Describe preferred preparation mechanics.
o Describe delivery systems.
o Describe preferred presentation.
o Describe achievable disposal systems.
o Identify alternative package approaches.
o Identify available materials and technology.
o Identify technology or materials voids.

Three food forms were discussed: fresh foods, liquids and whole processed or
semiprocessed foods. The following summarizes significant points brought out in
discussion.

FRESH FOOD FORMS

Astronauts with past experience aboard orbital flights expressed a strong desire
for fresh fruits and vegetables. It was illustrated by photo and discussion
that fresh fruits and vegetables can be consumed in space vehicles, although
some require more dexterity and concentration than others. It was determined
that:
o Applicable spectrum of preservation techniques could include
refrigeration, gas flush and surface treatments such as irradiation,
coatings and edible films.
o Efforts should be made to acquire produce as close to harvest as
possible in order to maximize shelf life.
o Fresh produce was considered bulk food in terms of packaging and

63

........... r r
 delivery--cube being the principle restraint.
o Psychology of presentation was considered important with fresh fruit.
The perceived quality of a fruit would be enhanced if it was presented in
conventional or familiar form.
o Certain produce could be semi-prepared to reduce the amount of discard
and thereby reduce impact on the space station disposal system.

It was concluded that packaging of fresh food should be minimized to eliminate

packaging where possible. System design efforts should be directed toward bulk
delivery and storage, i.e., tray designs, storage for trays, easy accessibility,
inventory control, identification and encapsulation to accommodate controlled
atmosphere preservation, if this technique is to be employed.

LIQUID FOOD FORMS

The beverages discussed included fruit juices, soups and milk; carbonated
beverages and alcoholic beverages were not considered. Two forms of
presentation were discussed as part of a meal and as a single serving drawn out
anytime as a snack. The bag-in-box for bulk liquids was discussed briefly. It
was determined that:
o The principal elements to be preserved were essential oils, vitamins,
etc. in juices, and flavor in milk.
o The favored method of production was dehydration or freeze drying for
later reconstitution aboard the space station. Concentrates and whole
liquid food forms also were discussed.
o Reconstitution of powdered drinks is an acceptable way of consuming
liquids in today's society. Presenting drinks from a dehydrated form
through a multi-use dispenser could provide a broad selection of hot or
cold beverages.
o Concentrates would require greater microbial control than powder--
different critical preservation techniques. However, the engineering of
a dispensing system to dispense concentrates would be simpler than
dispensing powders in space.
o In the reconstitution process a container would have to be supplied in
the form of a cup or some other device to accommodate consumption. This
would increase waste disposal requirements unless it was a washable
container for reuse.

The dehydrated or freeze dried concept for later reconstitution aboard the space
shuttle seemed to be the preferred approach throughout the discussion. However,
the use of concentrates or bulk liquid food forms was not discarded. The final
selection of package forms will depend greatly on the preferred presentation and
the selected preparation mechanics, as well as the selection of foods to be
presented. Proven packaging approaches currently exist for all of the
alternatives discussed.

WHOLE PROCESSED OR SEMIPROCESSED FOODS

This form includes the widest spectrum of foods and the widest spectrum of
presentations--from prepared entrees through vegetables and breads to desserts
and snacks. Certain of these food forms will require a high degree of
preservation to be supplied by the package in terms of barriers to gas, moisture
and microbial attack.

Due to the wide spectrum of foods in this category, packaging selection will
depend greatly on the preferred preparation mechanics. The perceived desire for

64
"home cooking" was discussed. It was resolved that all methods of preparation
could be available. However, great care would need to be exercised in control-
ling the cooking effluent, which could contaminate the atmosphere in the living
compartments. The vending machine concept was also discussed. It would provide
pre-portioned foods for consumption in a modular fashion from a tray, allowing
selection by preference to form a meal. It was heavily stressed that quality
should not be sacrificed for this convenience. The presentation of bulk foods
for portioning and rethermalizing in a reuseable container (i.e., dinnerware
instead of package) also was discussed. This would require a mechanism for
washing and reusing utensils and dinnerware. Freezer storage seemed to be the
preferred method of preservation aboard the spacecraft. Maintaining foods at
low temperature extends shelf life and reduces the barrier demands placed on the
package.

It was concluded that the selection of packaging approaches must be coupled

closely with the selection of preparation mechanics and preferred presentation
aboard the space station. Packaging materials currently exist to achieve all
the requirements discussed. However, there will likely be innovative design
required in creating package forms that will meet design requirements imposed by
the selected feeding system. In the course of package development, the need to
interface with the mechanics of production should not be overlooked.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Several of the points discussed were universal to all food forms:

i. The space station, unlike the space shuttle, will not generate water
as a by-product of its power generation system; therefore, water must
be supplied.

2. The group perceived that the astronauts desire for fresh or conven-
tional food forms was really the desire for acceptable food forms.
Where a freeze dried food such as hash brown potatoes or dehydrated
orange drink is an acceptable form in today's society, it also would
be quite acceptable aboard the space station.

3. A market survey among astronauts with experience in space, as well as

others currently considered for the program, should be conducted to
determine acceptable foods and preferred methods of presentation.

4. It was suggested that during the space shuttle flights and other
orbital flights the astronauts maintain "camp-out" thinking concerning
housekeeping, principally because of the limited duration of the
flights. Since the space station will be in flight for about ten
years, with crews changing every 90 days and replenishment space
shuttles arriving every 30 days; it was determined that housekeeping
should be a major concern in food selection and packaging.

5. Packaging will have a great impact upon the waste disposal system
selected. The systems discussed were compactors and wet oxidation--
both coupled with shredding. Flame oxidation techniques are not
allowed.

65
6. Sanitation and cross-contamination were also points of discussion. Concern
was expressed for the degree to which a disposal system could be isolated
from the rest of the living compartments. Past experience with orbital
flights could provide direction in food selection based on its performance
in disposal environments.

7. If freezer space is available for the preservation of foods, then as

food is drawn out of the freezer, waste could be packaged and placed
in that freezer space for return to earth on the replenishment
shuttle. This would require close control to avoid
cross-contamination.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

This discussion covered most of the key areas of concern in packaging the three
principle food forms for the space station. It can be generally concluded from
this discussion that there are no significant voids in packaging materials
availability or in current packaging technology. However, it must also be
concluded that the process by which we make packaging decisions for the space
station feeding program will be very synergistic. Packaging selection will
depend heavily on the preparation mechanics, the preferred presentation and the
achievable disposal systems. It will be important that packaging be considered
as an integral part of each decision as these systems are developed.

66
 SHUTTLE OPERATIONAL TEST AND SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

John C. Stonesifer
Assistant to the Director for Shuttle Support
NASA, Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX

One of my jobs is to be the interface between the Life Sciences Organization and
the Shuttle Program Office. If there's something we in the scientific world
want to do on board the shuttle I help usher the paperwork through the system
and try to keep things in order and make sure we meet all the right schedules.

What I would like to talk about is something that you have been talking about --
the Detailed Test Objectives (DTOs) and Detailed Supplementary Objectives
(DSOs). What are they and how do we meet them with on-board experiments?

Each shuttle mission has a primary objective, such as delivering satellites into
orbit or taking a large scientific package up for Earth or planetary
observations. Along with this primary objective there usually are a collection
of secondary objectives. One type of secondary objective are experiments which
may be performed either in the cargo bay or in the orbiter cabin. Other types
of investigation which are not as formal, rigorous, or as complex as scientific
experiments, are classified as DTOs and DSOs.

The DTO originated as a test or measurement made to verify the function of a

vehicle system for certification of a vehicle system (Figure i). At the start
of the shuttle program about seven or eight orbital test flights were planned,
but a schedule acceleration cut that number to four. As a result of a reduced
flight test program, some system testing and verification continued into the
operational flight phase. These tests are DTOs. Other examples of DTOs are
tests of the thermal protective system, avionics, landing gear and vehicle
aerodynamics.

The DSO is a demonstration or test that has a lower priority than a DTO. It is
not a mandatory task and is usually a scientific or medical measurement or
observation (Figure 2). A DSO also may be a test of prototype flight hardware
or checkout of an operational procedure. Examples of DSOs include the microbial
sampling performed on several flights, especially flights on which animals were
flown, and is the prototype plant growth chamber, which was tested prior to
actual use in support of a full scientific experiment. Often, from the results
of prototype testing, we can save money and time in the design of the actual
flight hardware.

The major DSO emphasis presently is on investigations related to space motion

sickness. They are our highest priority DSOs, so if they are submitted in a
timely manner they are routinely approved, provided stowage space and planned in
the crew time line. To date all DSOs have been performed in the orbiter or in
the cabin. A review system establishes DSO priorities, by category, if there is
not enough time to perform all of them on any given flight.

A handbook should be available shortly describing the required procedures for

submitting a DSO proposal, the formats, the reviews and available assistance.

Figure 3 indicates the approval criteria that internal NASA review boards use in
judging a DSO proposal. Is there some procedure, technique or measurement to be

6?
performed that can contribute significantly to upcoming flights? The space
motion sickness related DSOs are in the operational urgency category and
therefore are readily approved. Most of these DSOs also directly relate to
solving a known problem.

DSOs involving tests of prototype equipment should be designed to gain technical

information that cannot be obtained during tests in a one-g earth environment.
The DTO and DSO proposals can be very competitive -- often from a scientific
viewpoint, certainly from an equipment stowage volume and crew time viewpoint.
Therefore, it is important that the expected results are worthwhile and not in a
"nice to know" category. A DSO sponsor can expect the review boards to ask many
questions and he should be prepared to "sell" his proposal.

Let me walk you through a DSO proposal. A brief overview of the review cycle is
shown in Figure 4. The first step is to prepare the proposal and present it to
the Science Management Review Board (SMRB) as a concept. The SMRB is chaired by
Dr. Joseph Kerwin, Director of Space and Life Sciences. Members of the board
are personnel from Dr. Kerwin's organization. The SMRB will review the proposal
and decide whether more work is required or whether, in their Judgment, the
proposal is ready for flight. Usually suggestions are offered that will improve
the concept or assist in the preparations for flight. The lead time for concept
proposals can be from one or two years prior to a desired flight. The type of
information to be submitted is listed in the figure and will be amplified in the
handbook previously mentioned. Typical information required is equipment weight
and volume, supporting studies, ground based tests, which space tests will
supplement existing information and the description of the hardware. Questions
include: Where is the hardware coming from? Is it off-the-shelf? Is it to be
modified? Is it to be designed from scratch? Where are you in the design
procedure?

Provide some scope of the procedures to be used in space. Will the procedure
take 15 minutes or more or less time? Does it involve one or two crew members,
or all of them? This information is very important because we will take it and
coordinate it with the crew and the mission planners that must approve the DSO.
We must get support from several organizations; therefore, we want to understand
the concept before NASA resources are committed to a project. It is of
considerable help in these projects to find someone in NASA who can be a
co-sponsor or associate to help you through the system, to understand the
terminology, to understand the procedures and to understand the documentation
requirements.

When a proposal is determined to be ready for flight and a specific flight can
be targeted, the proposal is reviewed again by the SMRB, this time to hear an
update on the planning and to determine its overall readiness to fly. Following
this SMRB review we can go to one of the Space Transportation System's control
boards and ask that this DSO be included in the planning for an upcoming flight.
If we have done our job correctly internally we would have completed our
coordination with the mission planners, the crew representatives, stowage
planners, safety office and organizations in the program office.

Let me tie the proposal process to a schedule. As mentioned, the concept

milestone should be at least a year or two before flight and will depend a great
deal on the DSO complexity and the amount of preparation required for flight.
The flight proposal should occur from six months to a year before flight time in
order to meet the program office crew activity "freeze point" of launch minus

68
five months (L-5). The crews are in their final phases of flight training by
that time and must be familiar with all the procedures required in the DSOs.

The primary emphasis is to start your activity with NASA early. Get people
thinking about your ideas; seek help in preparing your proposal.

Proposing an experiment is a bit more formal, but because it is more formal it

also has some guarantees. An experiment is considered to be more complex than a
DSO and to have more shuttle interfaces. The DSO might be considered a
mini-experiment or some portion of an experiment. The experiment must be
proposed through NASA Headquarters on a standard NASA Form I00 and will receive
an internal NASA review as well as an outside peer review. If the experiment
proposal is approved by Headquarters it will be scheduled for a specific flight.
Once scheduled, a "manifested" experiment carries a higher priority than a DTO
or a DSO. The formality for experiment approval is a little more rigid, but
once approved it is guaranteed to be flown.

69
 Flight Planning

Development Test Objective (DTO) - A test or measurement made to verify the function or
capability of a vehicle system or subsystem.

• Designed to complete STS verification and for continued development

• Examples - Ascent performance data collection

- Thermal protective system evaluation

-_
o - Crosswind landing performance

- EMU/EVA evaluation

• STS-5 - 47 DTO's and DSO's scheduled

Figure i
 Flight Planning

Detailed Supplementary Objective (DSO) -Tests, demonstrations, or investigations that are

not mandatory to achieve mission objectives or
systems verification.

• Includes scientific medical tests/investigations, hardware prototype tests, television and

photo documentation

• Examples - Microbial sampling

__ - Plant growth chamber
- Space motion sickness investigations

• Performed in the orbiter

• Priorities established-A- B- C

Figure 2
 Detailed Supplementary Objective

Approval Criteria -

• Operational urgency

• Solve a known problem

• Gain equipment/technical information (design/procedural information - "can't be done

---1
on the ground")

• Man/system safety/operation

• Not - "nice to know"

Figure 3
 Detailed Supplementary Objective

Proposal Process

I Concept
I _
i SMRB*

t I
, _
j STSProgr
Control Board

I
-..q General Approach Verification of Readiness Review and Approval
and Plan for Flight
• Review of Approach and Plans
• Objective • More Details • Mission Planners

• Justification • Crew Reps

• Resources • Stowage Planners
• Support Studies • Program Office
• Hardware
• Procedures

• Management
• Schedule

*Science Management Review Board

Chairman - Director of Space and Life Sciences

Figure 4
 SL_%RY OF DISCUSSIONS ON DETAILED SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIVES

FOR FUTURE SPACE SHUTTLE EXPERIMENTS

by

Workshop Participants

DETAILED SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIVES (DSO)

FOR SPACE SHUTTLE EXPERIMENTS

An important objective of the Workshop was to discuss and formulate DSOs which
would provide information to guide the development of food service systems and
nutrition for a space station. The subjects presented in the informal talks, as
summarized in the these Proceedings, were designed to provide information to the
Workshop participants as a foundation for discussions of the DSOs.

The DSOs cover the following major areas and represent the creative inputs of the
participants:

I. Food Acceptance

2. Integrated Food Preparation, Presentation and Consumption Systems

3. Multipurpose (Re)Thermalization Appliance

4. Food Preservation

5. Waste Disposal and Sanitation

6. Environmental Control

The participants recognized that each DSO deserves further study and elaboration
so that meaningful space shuttle experiments could be devised. The DSOs are
indicative of the knowledge gaps which will need to be addressed at an early
stage of the space station development program. Meeting the DSOs by conducting
appropriate space experiments, will not only provide results applicable to space
station activities, but also will benefit terrestrial activities, pertaining to
food service systems and nutrition.

74
 Food Acceptance

I. Rationale

Maintain adequate nutrition, morale and performance by providing

appropriate meals, snacks and beverages for the crew.

II. Knowledge Gaps

The following knowledge gaps will need further investigations:

I. Is there altered taste and flavor perception in the space station

environment and if so, does it result from micro-gravity effects
and/or long-term fatigue?

2. What are existing menu patterns and how acceptable are they to the
current astronaut population?

3. How would these patterns have to change to be acceptable during

extended space station missions?

4. What degree of menu individualization is possible to meet

individual crew preferences during extended missions, and how
should this be accomplished?

5. What are preferred methods for preparing protein matrices?

III. STS Experiments

The following are STS experiments which could assist in closing the
existing knowledge gaps:

i. Perform experiments designed to train a space station crew to

identify sensory effects and use them to determine whether
perceptual changes take place.

2. Correlate food acceptance with odor and flavor characteristics of

foods using trained personnel. Determine how changes in perception
(if they occur) affect acceptance.

3. Undertake market research with past, present and future STS crew
members to correlate sociological, physiological and psychological
responses with acceptance of food items consumed during STS
missions.

4. Develop and test approaches to monitor consumption (rather than

like or dislike) as a basis for establishing food acceptance and
nutritional delivery.

5. Obtain feedback from crew members on use of condiments to

individualize basic menu items.

75
IV. Expected Results

The following are expected results of STS experiments:

I. A data base on food acceptance and perception which correlates

micro-gravity with Earth-normal perceptions. This data base could
be used to guide food system development in an Earth-normal
environment including menu selection, food item preparation, flavor
development and secondary effects of waste disposal.

2. The data base could be the basis for specifying menu items, food
service systems and preparation methods acceptable to crew members
in a space station.

3. Information on acceptability of protein matrices.

76
 Integrated Food Preparation, Presentation
and Consumption Systems

I. Rationale

Improve habitability through functional food service systems, meet

aesthetic criteria for food presentation and achieve health and safety
requirement.

Create desirable living conditions to maintain morale, assure that food

preparation will be convenient and meet time-line constraints, provide a
congregate atmosphere for food consumption which will be appreciated as
a recreational period, and enhance enjoyment associated with all aspects
of food service systems.

II. Knowledge Gaps

What are the most effective approaches to pre- and post-preparation of

food items to achieve desirable living conditions and how should these
conditions be defined?

i. What will be the acceptance of:

o Bulk vs. individual servings

o Dispensing and mixing
o Participation in food preparation tasks

2. How can food production and food preparation be accomplished

effectively?

3. How can aesthetic appeal of food items be improved through

presentation including:

o Methods of packaging and serving

o Serving temperatures
o Flavor, texture and color
o Variety of food attributes
o Physical environment (color, noise, lighting)?

4. How can functionality of food consumption be improved through:

o Design of dinnerware and utensils by choosing most appropriate

configurations for ease of manipulation and reuse, e.g.,
chopsticks, scoops, drink cages and straws.
o Design of eating facility to provide pleasant surroundings and
congregate atmosphere?

III. STS Experiments

The following are suggested STS experiments:

i. Develop and test how foods (liquids, wet solids and powders in
suspension) in bulk or individual servings should be portioned,
dispensed and mixed.

77
 2. Develop and test different designs for dinnerware and utensils
to handle solids, wet foods, liquids and food preparation.

3. Evaluate desirable levels of participation in food production and

preparation tasks.

4. Develop and design approaches for a dedicated eating facility and

test selected components.

5. Develop, test and survey acceptance of food production and

presentation methods.

IV. Expected Results

The following are expected results of STS experiments:

I. Selection of configurations for dinnerware and utensils.

2. Data leading to the design of a congregate eating facility.

3. Improved methods of food presentation to achieve aesthetic appeal.

4. Methods for and degree of participation in production and

preparation of food items.

78
 Multipurpose (Re)Thermalization Appliance

I. Rationale

Increase food acceptability and variety and broaden food system options
by using more effective and versatile methods for reheating and/or
cooking.

II. Knowledge Gaps

I. What heating methods can be used in the space station environment

consistent with criteria for crew safety, energy conservation,
mission compatibility and human factors?

2. How might specific heating methods influence food acceptance?

3. How should food items be packaged to be compatible with preferred

reheating and/or cooking methods?

III. STS Experiments

The following are steps towards STS experiments:

i. Conceptualize, design and test prototype methods to heat or cook

pre-prepared or partially pre-prepared foods including: baking,
jet pulse heating, broiling and fluid immersion techniques, in the
Earth-normal environment for adaptation to space flight use.

2. Select the most effective/preferred heating method(s) and design

and construct a multipurpose appliance.

3. Evaluate multipurpose appliance performance in Earth-normal and in

STS mission environment use.

4. Evaluate effectiveness and compatibility of selected food packaging

methods and materials.

IV. Expected Results

The following are the expected results of STS experiments:

I. Definition of a preferred multipurpose (re)thermalization

appliance.

2. Specifications of parameters for reheating and/or cooking of foods.

3. Specification of preferred food packaging methods and materials.

79

---I .......
 Food Preservation

I. Rationale

Assure food acceptability, crew health and safety, and optimize food
shelf-life.

II. Knowledse Gaps

i. How can controlled atmosphere storage be used for maintaining fruit

and vegetable freshness and control ripening process?

2. How much refrigeration will be required to maintain food items at

required conditions?

3. What are the tradeoffs between controlled atmosphere and

refrigerated storage?

4. How can "fresh baked" product quality be provided?

5. How will the different food preservation techniques enhance food

acceptance criteria?

6. How can deterioration of stored foods be detected?

III. STS Experiments

Perform STS experiments to provide data on the preferred method for food
preservation:

i. Develop and test methods which could ensure fresh-baked product

quality.

2. Select and test flavor, color and texture additives if required to

improve food acceptance after preservation for extended periods.

3. Develop and test food preservation techniques in the space

environment based on food refrigeration, irradiation, controlled
atmospheric storage and aseptic packaging.

IV. Expected Results

The expected results of STS experiments are:

i. Definition of food preservation techniques and equipment to assure

food acceptance Consistent with mission constraints.

2. Selection of food additives to improve food preservation and

acceptance.

3. Selection of packaging materials to reduce requirements for active

food preservation techniques.

80
 Waste Disposal and Sanitation

I. Rationale

Reduce waste generation and disposal and enhance sanitation to meet

health and safety requirements.

II. Knowledse Gaps

The following are current knowledge gaps:

i. What methods could be used to dispose of waste?

2. How could waste generation be minimized?

3. How could sanitary conditions be maintained?

III. STS Experiments

STS experiments could be designed to achieve the following:

i. Develop and test systems to determine waste disposal requirements

based on processes such as:

--Shredding
--Heating (including treatment of off-gases)
--Wet Oxidation
--Dry Oxidation (including treatment of off-gases)
--Compacting

2. Develop and test alternative materials for:

--Edible and digestible packaging

--Bulk service of food items
--Alternative packaging methods
--Reusable food preparation and service equipment dinnerware and
utensils

3. Develop methods and test their effectiveness to:

--Sweep particulates and aerosols with controlled airflow

--Decontaminate food equipment to meet sanitary requirements
--Dispose of used sanitizers and cleaners

IV. Expected Results

STS experiments could provide information on:

i. Definition of waste disposal methods.

2. Definition of waste avoidance materials and methods.

3. Acceptable sanitizers and cleaners.

81

..... I ....
 Environmental Control

I. Rationale

Assure crew health and safety, increase habitability and crew morale.

II. Knowledse Gaps

The following are specific knowledge gaps:

i. What is the existing level of environmental control pertaining to

byproducts of food supply service systems and the crew reaction to
it?

2. What contaminants will be generated during food production,

preparation, service and disposal?

3. What are the background odors and their levels? What is the crew
perception of these odors? How do they affect performance and/or
well-being?

4. How could odors be eliminated or masked?

5. How could contaminants (e.g., particulates and aerosols) be

controlled and/or removed from the environment?

III. Crew Training

Crew members could be trained to provide feedback on the effectiveness

of environmental controls:

i. Train selected crew members to describe their sensory reactions

based on odor, taste and flavor descriptors.

2. Design and develop dose/response sensory measurement system.

IV. STS Experiments

The following STS experiments could provide needed information:

i. Develop and test chemical or physical means to eliminate or reduce

odors.

2. Develop and test materials to mask or ameliorate odors.

3. Develop and test methods to measure and define effectiveness of

environmental controls.

82
V. Expected Results

The expected results of STS experiments are:

I. Definition of environmental control requirements.

2. Definition of materials and methods to achieve add maintain

desirable control conditions.

83
 Appendix A

AGENDA

WORKSHOP ON FOODSERVICE AND NUTRITION FOR THE SPACE STATION

sponsored by

National Aeronautics and Space Agency

at
Nassau Bay Hilton Hotel
Houston, Texas

Tuesday, April 10

9:00 • Introduction Richard Sauer

Program Manager, Food Systems
NASA, Johnson Space Center
• Workshop Objectives Peter E. Glaser
Workshop Chairman
Vice President
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
• NASA Plans for Space Station Clark Covington
Space Station Program Manager
NASA, Johnson Space Center
Break

10:30 Foodservice and Nutrition: Issues,

Problems and Knowledge Gaps
I. Foodservice Discussion Leaders
• Food Service Management Clinton Rappole
Summary Results of Previous Study; Issues in Associate Dean
Organization of Food Service System Conrad N. Hilton College of
Hotel and Restaurant Management

• Food Acquisition David W. Wheat

Food Ingredients; Raw Materials, Supply Sr. Consultant, Agribusiness Unit
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
• Preparation Methods: Clayton S. Huber
Past and Potential Methods of Food Professor, Food Science
Preparation for Space; Portions; and Nutrition
Safety Issues Brigham Young University
• Alternative Food Preservation Techniques: Richard H. Whelan
New Technology in Food Preparation; Food Service Specialist
Appropriateness of Food Supply Arthur D. Little, Inc.
for Space Station

• Food Systems Engineering: Donald P. Smith

Food Preparation, Equipment Sr. Consultant, Food
and Techniques EngineeringEquipment
Enersyst, Inc.
84
12:00 Lunch

• Experience with Food Preparation Major Brewster Shaw, Jr.

and Consumption in Space STS.9 Astronaut

1:00 Tour

• STS Food Facility Richard Sauer

Program Manager, Food Systems
NASA, Johnson Space Center

3:00 II. Nutrition

• Menu Selection: David Schnakenberg

Nutritional Requirements Under Stress; Nutritional Consultant
Long-Term Acceptability Conditions H.Q. Department of Army
• Calcium Metabolism; Phillip Johnson, M.D.
Other Metabolic Problems; Chief, Space Adaptation
Nutrition in Space Syndrome Branch
NASA, Johnson Space Center

5:00 Adjournment

6:00 Reception Arthur D. Little, Inc.

7:00 Dinner

• Foodservice and Nutritional Needs Joseph Kerwin, M.D.

Director, Space and Life
Sciences Directorate
NASA, Johnson Space Center

9:00 Group Meeting

• Concepts for Detailed Peter E. Glaser
Test Objectives Workshop Chairman
Vice President
Arthur D. Little, Inc.

85

T ........
Wednesday, April 11

Breakfast Reports on Results of Group Meeting

8:30 III. Psychobiology and Food Perception

• Taste and Odor Perception: Anne Neilson
Changes in Taste and Odor Perception Sr. Consultant,
in Space Food & Sensory Science
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
• Menu Selection:
Food Preference and Menu Value Issues
Resulting from Flavor Perception Changes

9:30 IV. Packaging Technology

• Traditional Functions: E. Joseph Stilwell
Containment, Cleanliness, Sr. Consultant, Package Engineering
Presentation and Delivery Arthur D. Little, Inc.
• Design of Package Assuming Optimum
is No Package

10:30 Break

10:45 Detailed Test Objectives (DTOs) Discussion Leader

• Development of Specific DTOs Peter E. Glaser
Workshop Chairman
Vice President
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
• Priorities for Implementation

12:00 Lunch

1:30 DTOs, Continued

Workshop Results: Peter E. Glaser
Follow-up Activities, Action Items,
Issues List, Specific Recommendations,
Future Development Plans

4:00 Adjournment

86
 APPENDIX B: WORKSHOP ATTENDEES

Dr. Howard E. Bauman Dr. Nabil E1 Hag

Vice President of Science and Manager, Technical Licensing &
Regulatory Affairs Contract Research
The Pillsbury Company General Foods Corporation
Research and Development Laboratories 250 North Street (T 12-i)
311 Second Street S.E. White Plains, NY 10625
Minneapolis, MN 55414 914-335-6112 or 335-6119

Clayton S. Huber
Mr. Michael Fo Boyle Professor, Food Science
Nutrition & Quality and Nutrition
American Can Company Brigham Young University
American Lane 2218 SFLC
Greenwich, CT 06830 Provo, UT 84602
203-552-2000
Philip Johnson, M.D.
Dr. Charles T. Bourland Chief, Space Adaptation Syndrome
Ms. Connie Stadler Branch
Mrs. Beverly Perryman NASA, Johnson Space Center
Technology Incorporated Houston, TX 77058
Life Sciences Division
P.O. Box 58827 Joseph Kerwin, M.D.
Houston, TX 77258 Director, Space & Life
Sciences Directorate
Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson NASA, Johnson Space Center
Research Physicist Houston, TX 77058
U.S. Army R&D Center
Natick, MA 01760 Mr. Paul M. Kleis
Vice President Operational Services
Mr. Clark Covington Saga Corporation
Space Station Program Manager One Saga Lane
NASA, Johnson Space Center Menlo Park, CA 94025
Houston, TX 77058 415-854-5150 x 640

Mro Palmer Derby Ms. Sandra Louvier

Vice President University of Houston
Director, New Business Analysis 4800 Calhoun
Raytheon Company Houston, TX 77004
141 Spring Street 713-749-2482
Lexington, MA 02173
617-862-6600, x 2214 Ms. Anne Neilson
Sr. Consultant
Dr° Richard Dougherty Food Sensory Science
Vice President Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Ogden Food Products Corporation Acorn Park
365 West Passaic Corporation Cambridge, MA 02140
Rochelle Park, NJ 07662
201-368-9450 Mr. Fred C. Newman
Director, Special Prospect Technology
Dr. Peter E. Glaser Continental Packaging Company
Workshop Chairman 51 Harbor Plaza
Vice President Stamford, CT 06904
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 203-964-7476
Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140

87

r ....
Mr. Robert Pras Lt. Col. David Schnakenberg
Executive Vice President Nutritional Consultant
Corporate Procurement & H.Q. Department of Army
Fairfield Farm Kitchens DASG - RD2, Room 3E 474
Marriott Cororation Washington, DC 20310
I Marriott Drive
Washington, DC 20058 Dr. H. William Scheld
202-897-9000 Director of Research
Phytoresource Research, Inc.
Dr. Paul C. Rambaut P.O. Box 972
Manager, Biomedical Research College Station, TX 77840
NASA Headquarters 409-693-8606
Washington, DC 20546
Major Brewster Shaw, Jr.
Ms. Rita Rapp and STS-9 Astronaut
Dr. Malcolm Smith, ret. Mail Code CB
NASA, Johnson Space Center NASA, Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058 Houston, TX 77058

Clinton L. Rappole Dro Ronald Simpson

Associate Dean Vice President Nutrition
Conrad No Hilton College of Hotel and Quality
and Restaurant Management Flexible Packaging Division
University of Houston Nabisco Brands, Inc.
Houston, TX 77004 15 River Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Mr. Bernard A. Rausch 201-762-2500
Division of Business Research
Corporation Planning & Development Mr. Donald P. Smith
Signode Corporation Sr. Consultant
3600 West Lake Avenue Food Engineering/Equipment
Glenview, IL 60025 Enersyst, Inc.
312-724-6100 2051 Valley View
Dallas, TX 75234-8910
Dro Norman Roth
Director_ R&E Systems and Mr. E. Joseph Stilwell
Special Projects, and Sr. Consultant, Package Engineering
Mro Robert Wheaton Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Director of Technical Planning Acorn Park
and Applied Technology Cambridge, MA 02140
Whirlpool Corporation
Research & Engineering Center Dr. Jurgen Strasser
Monte Road Central Research
Benton Harbor, MI 49002 Del Monte Corporation
616-926-5200 P.O. Box 9004
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Mr. Richard L. Sauer 415-933-8000
Program Manager Food Systems
NASA, Johnson Space Center Dr. Andrew J. Sullivan
SEC 3 Director, Food Science and Technology
Houston, TX 77058 Campbell Institute of Research
and Development
Campbell Place
Camden, NJ 08101
609-342-4948

88
John C. Stonesifer
Assistant for Shuttle Support
Space and Life Sciences
Directorate
NASA, Johnson Space Center
Mall Code SA2
Houston, TX 77058

David W. Wheat
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140

Mro Richard H. Whelan

Food Service Specialist
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140

89

r m
 Appendix C

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS' VIEWS

The views of the Workshop participants were obtained on a number of issues

of importance to food service system and nutrition in a space station.
Figure I shows the guidelines for rating knowledge gaps, Table 2, the
ratings of existing knowledge and Table 3, the ratings of areas of interest.

These views indicate the broad range of interests of the participants and
the assessment that there are considerable knowledge gaps which will have to
be bridged before effective food service systems can be developed for use in
a space station.

90
 GUIDELINES FOR RATING KNOWLEDGE GAPS IN FOOD SERVICE
AND NUTRITION FOR A SPACE STATION

SUBJECT: NAME:

ORGANIZATION:

A. EARTH KNOWLEDGE

How well understood is this subject in Earth conditions?

3. Poorly

2. Somewhat

I. Fairly well _7

0. Extremely well

? Don't know _7

B. HOW WELL UNDERSTOOD IS THIS SUBJECT IN A SPACE STATION?

3. Poorly

2. Somewhat

I. Fairly well

0. Extremely well _7

? Don't know

C. IMPORTANCE

How important is this subject to the success of the space station?

3. Extremely important

2. Important _7

I. Somewhat important _7

O. Not important

91
D. SPACE EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENTS

Are space experiments required to resolve knowledge gaps?

Food Service Nutrition

3. Essential _7 _7

2. Desirable _

I. Limited usefulness _7

0. Not required _7 _7

E. PARTICIPATION IN SPACE EXPERIMENTS

Food Service Nutrition

3. Very interested _7 _7

2. Interested _

i. Mildly interested _7 _7

0. Not interested _7 _7

F. SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST

List by DTOs according to level of interest

(3 highest - 1 lowest)

£Z7

£117

£117

Date:

92
 Table 2

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS' RATINGS OF EXISTING KNOWLEDGE

>

0 _ _ u

0 0 0 _

A. EARTH KNOWLEDGE 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

B. SPACE STATION KNOWLEDGE 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1

C. IMPORTANCE 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3

D. SPACE EXPERIMENT REQUIREMENTS 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 0 3

E. PARTICIPATION IN EXPERIMENT 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 2 0 2

NOTE: 0 3
Low High

93

...... r .........
 Table 3

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS' RATINGS OF AREAS OF INTEREST

RATING

HIGH MEDIUM LOW

AREAS OF INTEREST 3 2 i

Baking and Food Finishing X

Refrigerated Storage of Bulk Foods X

Variable Portion Dispensing X

Survey of Astronauts X

Storage of Irradiated Foods X

Food Acceptance X

Taste/Perception Changes X
Controlled Atmosphere Preservation X
Preservation of Ice Cream X

Irradiated Foods X

Microwave Oven X

Convection-Conduction Oven X

Ice Cream Freezer X

Coffee Machine X

Menu Cycles X
Market Research X

Materials Interaction/Compatibility X

Food Processing X
Sanitation X

New Packaging Techniques X

Aseptic Packaging X

Consumption Monitoring System X

Preservation of Fresh Foods X

Thermalization Equipment X

94
 _. Report No. 2. Government AccessionNo. 3. Recipient's CatalogNo.
NASA CP-2370
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Food Service and Nutrition for the Space Station April 1985
6. PerformingOrganizationCode
199-99-00-00-72

7. Author(s) 8. PerformingOrganizationReport No.

Richard L. Sauer, Editor S-541

10. Work Unit No.
9. PerformingOrganizationNameand Address
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, Texas 77058 11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Reportand PeriodCovered

12. SponsoringAgency Nameand Address Conference Publication

National Aeronautics and Space Administration AgencyCode

14.Sponsoring
Washington, DC 20546

15. SupplementaryNotes
Dr. Peter E. Glaser: Workshop Chairman

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140
16. Abstract

This document contains the proceedings of the Workshop on Food Service and Nutrition for
the Space Station which was held in Houston, Texas, on April i0 and ii, 1984. The
workshop was attended by experts in food technology from industry, government, and
academia. Following a general definition of unique space flight requirements, oral
presentations were made on state-of-the-art food technology with the objective of using
this technology to support the space flight requirements. Numerous areas are identified,
which in the opinion of the conferees, would have space flight application. But additional
effort, evaluation, or testing to include Shuttle inflight testing will be required for
the technology to be applied to the Space Station.

17. Key Words(Suggestedby Author(s)) 18. Distribution Statement

Space flight feeding Irradiation Unclassified - Unlimited
Nut r it ion Packaging
Pr e serr ing
Food processing
Dehydrated foods Subject Category 54

19. Security Classif.(ofthis report) 20. SecurityClassif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 98 A05

Forsaleby the NationalTechnicalInformationService,Springfield,Virginia 22161

NASA-Langley, 1985
National Aeronauticsand THIRD-CLASS BULK RATE Postage and Fees Paid
Space Administration National
Space Aeronautics
Administration and

Washington, D.C. NASA-451

20546
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300 "

POSTMASTER:
If Undeliverable
Postal Manual) Do(Section
Not Return
158