DOCSLIB.ORG

Space Medicine in Project Mercury

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Space Medicine in Project Mercury NASA SP-4u03 RECE~VED SEP 29 1965 AED LIBRARY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION NASA SP-4003 SPACE MEDICINE IN PROJECT MERCURY By Mae Mills Link OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT Scientific anJ Technical Information Division 1 9 6 5 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C.. 20402 - Price $1.00 Foreword OR CENTURIES MAN HAS DREAMED of exploring .the universe. FFinally an expanding rocket technology brought with it a rea­ sonable expectation of achieving this dream, and man was quick to accept the challenge. Project Mercury was an organized expres­ sion of man's willingness to face the risks invol ved in exploring the new frontier of space, and of his confidence in our Nation's ability to support him technically and professionally in this ex­ citing adventure. Project Mercury is now legend. The story of its many activi­ ties is an important chapter in the history of our times. Its spot­ less record of successes is a tribute to all those who made up the Mercury team. Not the least of the groups composing the Mercury team was that charged with responsibility for the health of the astronauts. This select biomedical group discharged ,dtll near perfection a variety of tasks involved in choosing and training our Nation's first space voyagers, monitoring their medical status during each flight, and finally assessing their condition after the flight. In this volume the author sets forth a chronological account of a unique medical support program. Flavored with personal glimpses of the individuals making up this global medical orga­ nization, the chronicle portrays the manner in which scientists and technicians drawn from the three military medical services, from other agencies of the Federal Government, and from the civilian community at large were welded into a smoothly func­ tioning team. Led by a small group of NASA physicians, the members of this team performed their tasks in a way that makes it difficult to believe that they were drawn from such widely di­ vergent sources. Cast aside were all personal considerations and the parochialism so often found in members of traditionally com­ petitive groups, particularly competitive professional groups. Indeed, their performance and singleness of purpose, their dedi­ cation and professional excellence, should give pause to those who sponsor ideologies other than the ones which form the basis for our democratic way of life. Only in a society of free men could one III IV FOREWORD hope to find such an example of people banding together volun­ tarily to support a national goal. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is proud to have provided the vehicle for this demonstration of democracy in action. HUGH L. DRYDEN Deputy Administrator National Aeronautic8 and Space Administration Author's Preface ROJECT MERCURY WAS THE FIRST American laboratory in which Pman was able to test his physiological capabilities to withstand the hostile forces of the extraterrestrial environment for longer than a few seconds. Weightlessness, severe g-forces, combined stresses, radiation, potential disorientations, and toxic hazards in spacecraft were among the problems about which earthbound re­ search had been able to supply only limited information. Indeed, from the viewpoint of environmental medicine as an applied sci­ ence, Project Mercury marked the swift transition from what had come to be known as aviation medicine to what is now recognized as space medicine. Beyond the inclusion of man as an effective system in rocket­ propelled space vehicles, Project Mercury also offered the tremen­ dous challenge of the newly available space environment to basic biology itself. From the beginning, therefore, NASA manage­ ment was concerned with the entire spectrum of the life sciences, extending far beyond the biotechnology of Project Mercury. This included ecology and exobiology as well as the definition and projected application of space medicine. The fuller history remains to be written. Also to be written is a comparative study of the American astronaut experience and that of the Soviet cosmonauts. The present study aims to pro­ vide a building block for a future life-science history recounting man's conquest of nature beyond the planet Earth. In the preparation of this volume the author has received splendid cooperation wherever she turned. It is impossible to mention each person who gave generously of time and effort. However, special appreciation must go to Dr. Robert R. Gilruth and the Project Mercury Space Task Group; to former Surgeon General Oliver K. Niess, USAF (Ret.) , and his staff, particularly Brig. Gen. Don C. Wenger (MC) and Col. Karl H. Houghton (MC) (Ret.); to the bioastronautics staff at the various centers and laboratories of the Air Force Systems Command; to Maj. Gen. Leighton I. Davis, DOD Assistant for Project Mercury, and his bioastronautics staff; to Capt. Ashton Graybiel, USN (MC), v VI AUTHOR'S PREFACE Director of Medical Research, U.S. Navy, and his staff; to Dr. Randolph Lovelace II and his staff at the Lovelace Foundation, particularly Dr. A. H. Schwichtenberg; and to Dr. Sam F. Seeley, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Spe­ cial thanks go also to Brig. Gen. Don Flickinger, USAF (MC) (Ret.) ; to Dr. Sherman P. Vinograd, Dr. Jefferson F. Lindsey, and WaltBr B. Sullivan, Jr., NASA Division of Space Medicine; and to NASA historians Dr. Eugene M. Emme, Dr. Frank W. Ander­ son, Jr., and James M. Grimwood. This project, initiated under the joint sponsorship of Brig. Gen. Charles H. Roadman, USAF, then Director of the Office of Life Sciences, NASA, and General Niess, was brought to completion under Dr. George M. Knauf, Acting Director, Space Medicine, Office of Manned Space Flight. The author wishes to express appreciation for the fact that they all supported her efforts to the fullest, and none ever attempted to modify her independent inter­ pretations or conclusions. Responsibility for omissions or errors must rest wholly with the author. Comments and additional in­ formation are invited to complete the story oogun in the present monograph. MAE MILLS LINK Marnh 1965 Contents FOREWORD by Hugh L. Dryden___________ _____ III AUTHOR'S PREFACE_________________________ v INTRODUCTION by W. Randolph Lovelace IL__ IX I SPACE MEDICINE: A CRITICAL FACTOR IN MANNED SPACE FLIGHT_________________ 1 II AVIATION MEDICINE: TAP ROOT OF SPACE MEDICINE_ _ ________ ____ __ ____ _______ ____ _ _ 10 III PRE-MERCURY HERITAGE IN BIOTECH­ NOLOGY_ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ 22 IV NASA LONG-RANGE LIFE SCIENCES PRO­ GRAM__ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 31 V MEDICAL ASPECTS OF ASTRONAUT SELEC­ TION AND TRAINING____________ ___ _____ _ 44 VI BIOMEDICAL ASPECTS OF LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ 64 VII BIOMEDICAL PLANNING FOR LAUNCH, TRACKING, AND RECOVERY__ _____ _______ 8.') VIII THE SEASON OF CRISIS: 1961_______________ 112 IX SPACE MEDICINE IN 1961-62_______________ 126 X MERCURY MEDICAL OPERATIONS_________ 135 XI THE END OF THE BEGINNING_____________ 169 Appendix A: MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES LISTED ON CHART 1________________________________ _____ 171 Appendix B: AEROMEDICAL MONITORING PERSONNEL_ 176 BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 180 INDEX_________________________________________ 183 VII Introduction HE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES in 1958 to initiate a manned T space flight program was based upon the confident assumption that technology could provide the life-support systems necessary for human survival in the hostile space environment. Primary responsibility for developing these flight systems obviously would rest with physical scientists and engineers. Bioastronautical ex­ perts, including flight surgeons who had long worked as a -team with aeronautical engineers, believed from experience with con­ ventional aircraft that man could sustain the combined stresses of space flight. It was believed that extension of the principles of traditional aviation medicine could provide the key to man's sur­ vival in the relatively short periods of space flight envisaged for Project Mercury. Thus, space medicine would represent basically an extension of aviation medicine. Both inside and outside the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration, some scientists were concerned about specific biomedical problems of early manned space flight. De­ finitive biological experimentation had not yet laid a solid basis for such a mission, even though it was recognized that Project Mercury would be but a first step and would not involve the ob­ viously novel biological hazards of extended space flight. En­ gineers could cope with the hardware required for orbital flight, but the astronaut was more than a mere component of a system. He also had become a symbol of the hope that man himself could perform in extraterrestrial space. The confidence of the aerospace medical community and the skepticism of the biological scientists were to come together in the working out of the first U.S. manned space flights. NASA was charged by the President of the United States with carrying out a twofold mission in manned space flight. As a high national priority, ranking second only to national defense, NASA must at the earliest feasible time launch a man into space, pro­ vided with an environment in which he could perform effectively, and recover him safely. This was Project Mercury, with its rela- IX x INTRODUCTION tively limited goal. Concurrently, NASA physical scientists and engineers, with the support of the Nation's leading life scientists, must develop a capability for extended manned space flight.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model For
    A QUANTITATIVE HUMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL FOR ASSESSING CREW ACCOMMODATION AND UTILIZATION by CHRISTINE FANCHIANG B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2017 i This thesis entitled: A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization written by Christine Fanchiang has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Dr. David M. Klaus Dr. Jessica J. Marquez Dr. Nisar R. Ahmed Dr. Daniel J. Szafir Dr. Jennifer A. Mindock Dr. James A. Nabity Date: 13 March 2017 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Fanchiang, Christine (Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization Thesis directed by Professor David M. Klaus Crew performance, including both accommodation and utilization factors, is an integral part of every human spaceflight mission from commercial space tourism, to the demanding journey to Mars and beyond. Spacecraft were historically built by engineers and technologists trying to adapt the vehicle into cutting edge rocketry with the assumption that the astronauts could be trained and will adapt to the design. By and large, that is still the current state of the art. It is recognized, however, that poor human-machine design integration can lead to catastrophic and deadly mishaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Asen 5016 Space Life Sciences
    January 15, 2019 ASEN 5016 SPACE LIFE SCIENCES Spring 2019 Tues/Thurs 2:0-3:15 pm ECCS 1B28 Instructor: Dr. David Klaus telephone: (303) 492-3525 email: [email protected] This course is intended to familiarize engineering students with factors affecting living organisms (ranging from single cells to humans) in the reduced-gravity and increased radiation environment of space flight, including orbital, lunar and Martian surface conditions. Unique insight will be gained regarding engineering design requirements for spacecraft habitats, life support systems and spacesuits, as well as space biology payloads. Life support needs, as they relate to basic human survival requirements, are covered initially. Next, the lectures turn to more detailed descriptions of the physiological adaptations that occur to people in space, with pertinent background information presented for each topic. Corresponding biomedical countermeasures used to maintain crew health for long duration missions will also be discussed. Finally, the underlying biophysical mechanisms affected by gravity, along with experiment design criteria, will be addressed. Current events within NASA’s research and exploration mission programs and the emerging commercial human space flight sector are reflected throughout the lecture topics. To further elaborate on the lecture material discussed in class, a series of integrated homework tasks provides a practical introduction to the process of journal article publishing and research proposal writing, including the anonymous peer review process used for each. The assignment involves writing a short journal article on an approved topic of your choice, your participation as a peer reviewer for the editor, revising your draft per the review comments you receive back, and resubmitting a final manuscript with a corresponding summary of changes made.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer”
    Book Tribute to George Low –“The Ultimate Engineer” The Ultimate Engineer: The Remarkable Life of NASA's Visionary Leader George M. Low by Richard Jurek Foreword by Gerald D. Griffin From the late 1950s to 1976 the U.S. manned spaceflight program advanced as it did largely due to the extraordinary efforts of Austrian immigrant George M. Low. Described as the "ultimate engineer" during his career at NASA, Low was a visionary architect and leader from the agency's inception in 1958 to his retirement in 1976. As chief of manned spaceflight at NASA, Low was instrumental in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Low's pioneering work paved the way for President Kennedy's decision to make a lunar landing NASA's primary goal in the 1960s. After the tragic 1967 Apollo I fire that took the lives of three astronauts and almost crippled the program, Low took charge of the redesign of the Apollo spacecraft, and helped lead the program from disaster and toward the moon. In 1968, Low made the bold decision to go for lunar orbit on Apollo 8 before the lunar module was ready for flight and after only one Earth orbit test flight of the Command and Service modules. Under Low there were five manned missions, including Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing. Low's clandestine negotiations with the Soviet Union resulted in a historic joint mission in 1975 that was the precursor to the Shuttle-MIR and International Space Station programs. At the end of his NASA career, Low was one of the leading figures in the development of the Space Shuttle in the early1970s, and was instrumental in NASA's transition into a post-Apollo world.
    [Show full text]
  • Society of U.S. Army Flight Surgeons & USAAMA Awards Life Sciences and Biomedical Engineering Branch Awards
    Society of U.S. Army Flight Life Sciences and Biomedical Engineering Branch Awards Surgeons & USAAMA LSBEB A. Howard Hasbrook Awards Award John A. Plaga Theodore Lyster Award MAJ Joseph B. Eddins This award, presented to Mr. John A. United States Army Medical Evacuation Plaga, Senior Research Aerospace Engineer Proponency Directorate, Fort Rucker, AL in the USAF’s Human Systems Integration The Theodore C. Lyster Award is named Directorate of the 711th Human Performance for BG Theodore Lyster, the Father of Aviation Wing at Wright Patterson AFB, OH, recog- Medicine, who created the occupational spe- nizes an individual who has provided note- cialty of the flight surgeon, the first aeromedi- worthy data or design with respect to safety, cal research laboratory, and promulgated the survivability, or crashworthiness relevant to first military aeromedical standards while aircraft or space vehicles. It is sponsored by serving as the first Chief Surgeon of the Oregon Aero. Aviation section of the Army Signal Corps. Mr. John Plaga has made significant con- The Society of U.S. Army Flight Surgeon’s an- tributions in the fields of safety and crash- nual Theodore C. Lyster award is given to the worthiness in his career in the U.S. Air Force. flight surgeon or aeromedical physician assis- His efforts were critical LSBEB PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE--Bill tant who has made the most outstanding con- in addressing critical Ercoline (left) receives the Professional tributions toward Aviation Medicine. shortfalls in test Excellence Award from Don White (right), manikin Data Acqui- LSBEB President. sition Systems (DAS). Spurgeon Neel Award of years. It is sponsored by Eagle Applied COL Salvador P.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical History of the Environmental Control System for Project Mercury
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19670029737 2020-03-24T01:19:15+00:00Z NASA TECHNICAL NOTE -NASA L_-TN D-4126 cp. \ LO KI TECHNICAL HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR PROJECT MERCURY by Frank H, Samonski, Jr. Manned Spacecrafi Center Hozcston, Texas NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. OCTOBER 1967 ?" TECH LIBRARY KAFB, "I I llllll lllll1llll lllll Hlll IYH lllll Ill1 Ill 0330793 NASA TN D-4126 TECHNICAL HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR PROJECT MERCURY By Frank H. Samonski, Jr. Manned Spacecraft Center Houston, Texas NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ~~ For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTl price $3.00 I ABSTRACT This report presents a technical history of the environmental control system for Project Mercury. Significant system changes and flight experience with the environmental control system are described. Attention is also given to the structure of test pro- grams employed to satisfy the mission objectives. ii CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY .................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............ 2 Pressure-Suit Subsystem .......................... 2 Cabin Subsystem ............................... 5 SYSTEM CHANGES ............................... 7 Oxygen-Supply Filler Valve ......................... 7 Pressure- Switch Deletion .......................... 7 Oxygen Flow Sensor ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6.Qxd
    CHAPTER 6: The NASA Family The melding of all of the NASA centers, contractors, universities, and often strong personalities associated with each of them into the productive and efficient organization necessary to complete NASA’s space missions became both more critical and more difficult as NASA turned its attention from Gemini to Apollo. The approach and style and, indeed, the personality of each NASA center differed sharply. The Manned Spacecraft Center was distinctive among all the rest. Fortune magazine suggested in 1967 that the scale of NASA’s operation required a whole new approach and style of management: “To master such massively complex and expensive problems, the agency has mobilized some 20,000 individual firms, more than 400,000 workers, and 200 colleges and universities in a combine of the most advanced resources of American civilization.” The author referred to some of the eight NASA centers and assorted field installations as “pockets of sovereignty” which exercised an enormous degree of independence and autonomy.1 An enduring part of the management problem throughout the Mercury and Gemini programs that became compounded under Apollo, because of its greater technical challenges, was the diversity and distinctiveness of each of the NASA centers. The diverse cultures and capabilities represented by each of the centers were at once the space program’s greatest resource and its Achilles’ heel. NASA was a hybrid organization. At its heart was Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory established by Congress in 1917 near Hampton, Virginia, and formally dedicated in 1920. It became the Langley Research Center. Langley created the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory at Moffett Field, California, in 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael R. Barratt (M.D.) NASA Astronaut
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 August 2020 Michael R. Barratt (M.D.) NASA Astronaut Summary: Dr. Michael R. Barratt was selected by NASA in 2000. Board certified in Internal and Aerospace Medicine, he has participated in two spaceflights. In 2009, Dr. Barratt served as Flight Engineer for Expedition 19/20. This marked the transition from three to six permanent International Space Station crew members. During this time, he performed two spacewalks. He also flew on STS-133, which delivered the Permanent Multipurpose Module and fourth Express Logistics Carrier. Currently, Dr. Barratt serves in the Mission Support branches providing medical and human factors expertise to multiple spaceflight programs. Personal Data: Born on April 16, 1959 in Vancouver, Washington. Considers Camas, Washington, to be his home town. Married to the former Michelle Lynne Sasynuik. They have five children. His mother, Donna Barratt, resides in Camas, Washington. Personal and recreational interests include sailing, boat restoration and nautical history, carpentry, writing, cooking good food in austere places, family and church activities. Education: Graduated from Camas High School, Camas, WA, 1977. Bachelor of Science in Zoology, University of Washington, 1981. Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) from Northwestern University, 1985. Completed a three-year residency in Internal Medicine at Northwestern University in 1988. Completed Chief Residency year at Veterans Administration Lakeside Hospital in Chicago in 1989. Completed residency and Master’s program in Aerospace Medicine at Wright State University in 1991. Board certified in Internal and Aerospace Medicine. NASA Experience: Dr. Barratt came to NASA JSC in May 1991 employed as a project physician with KRUG Life Sciences, working on medical systems for Space Station Freedom.
    [Show full text]
  • International Space Medicine Summit 2018
    INTERNATIONAL SPACE MEDICINE SUMMIT 2018 October 25–28, 2018 • Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy • Houston, Texas INTERNATIONAL SPACE MEDICINE SUMMIT 2018 October 25–28, 2018 • Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy • Houston, Texas About the Event As we continue human space exploration, much more research is needed to prevent and/or mitigate the medical, psychological and biomedical challenges spacefarers face. The International Space Station provides an excellent laboratory in which to conduct such research. It is essential that the station be used to its fullest potential via cooperative studies and the sharing of equipment and instruments between the international partners. The application of the lessons learned from long-duration human spaceflight and analog research environments will not only lead to advances in technology and greater knowledge to protect future space travelers, but will also enhance life on Earth. The 12th annual International Space Medicine Summit on Oct. 25-28, 2018, brings together the leading physicians, space biomedical scientists, engineers, astronauts, cosmonauts and educators from the world’s spacefaring nations for high-level discussions to identify necessary space medicine research goals as well as ways to further enhance international cooperation and collaborative research. All ISS partners are represented at the summit. The summit is co-sponsored by the Baker Institute Space Policy Program, Texas A&M University College of Engineering and Baylor College of Medicine. Organizers Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy The mission of Rice University’s Baker Institute is to help bridge the gap between the theory and practice of public policy by drawing together experts from academia, government, media, business and nongovernmental organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Engineering Research Centers: Purposes, Goals, and Expectations
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 315 272 SE 051 142 TITLE The New Engineering Research Centers: Purposes, Goals, and Expectations. Symposium (District of Colombia, April 29-30, 1985). INSTITUTION National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, DC. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. SPONS AGENCY National Science Foundation, Washington, D. REPORT NO ISBN-0-309-03598-8 PUB DATE 86 GRANT NSF-MEG-8505051 NOTE 213p.; Prepared by the Cross-Disciplinary Engineering Research Committee. AVAILABLE FROM National Academy Press, 1201 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20418 ($25.95). PUB TYPE Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021) -- Viewpoints (120) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Engineering; *Engineering Education; *Engineering Technology; *Research Administration; Research and Development; *Research and Development Centers; Research Directors; Research Proposals; Scientific Research IDENTIFIERS *Engineering Research Centers ABSTRACT The aympoisum was held to describe the roots and future plans of the Engineering Research Center's (ERC's) concept and program. The first section of this symposium compilation describes the national goals that the ERCs represent. The second section presents the point of view of the National Science Foundation on the ERCs--the concept behind them, their goals, selection criteria, and mechanisms for support. The next section provides the plans and programs of the six existing centers:(1) Systems Research Center; (2) Center for Intelligent Manufacturin3 Systems;(3) Center for Robotic Systems in Microelectronics; (4) Center for Composites Manufacturing Science and Engineering; (5) Engineering Center for Telecommunications; and (6) Biotechnology Process Engineering Center. Two of the presentations were on exchange methods among the centers and the relationship between engineering.education and research.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode 2: Bodies in Orbit
    Episode 2: Bodies in Orbit This transcript is based on the second episode of Moonstruck, a podcast about humans in space, produced by Dra!House Media and featuring analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Aerospace Security Project. Listen to the full episode on iTunes, Spotify, or on our website. BY Thomas González Roberts // PUBLISHED April 4, 2018 AS A DOCENT at the Smithsonian National Air & Space But before humans could use the bathroom in space, a Museum I get a lot of questions from visitors about the lot of questions needed to be answered. Understanding grittiest details of spaceflight. While part of me wants to how human bodies respond to the environment of outer believe that everyone is looking for a thoughtful Kennedy space took years of research. It was a dark, controversial quote to drive home an analysis of the complicated period in the history of spaceflight. This is Moonstruck, a relationship between nationalism and space travel, some podcast about humans in space. I’m Thomas González people are less interested in my stories and more Roberts. interested in other, equally scholarly topics: In the late 1940s, American scientists began to focus on Kids: I have a question. What if you need to go to the two important challenges of spaceflight: solar radiation bathroom while you're in a spacesuit? Is there a special and weightlessness.1 diaper? Aren't you like still wearing the diaper when you are wearing a spacesuit? Let'sThomas start González with radiation. Roberts is the host and executive producer of Moonstruck, and a space policy Alright, alright, I get it.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    National Space Biomedical Research Institute Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Nulla lectus mi, sodales ac, consectetuer sed, luctus sit amet, risus. Mauris tempusSociety quam sit amet mi. Mauris of sagittis Fellows augue nec augue. Fusce ipsum. Quarterly Newsletter Information for First Award Fellows Winter 2015 Cool Research Corner Measuring Intracranial Pressure aboard the Weightless Wonder VI Justin Lawley, Ph.D. 2013 NSBRI First Award Fellow In August of 2014, NSBRI investigators took to the sky in order to help identify the reason for visual impairments in astronauts. The current working hypothesis is that microgravity causes pressure inside the brain to increase, which causes deformation of the optic globe and thus changes in vision. To answer this question, Dr. Benjamin Levine of the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at UTSouthwestern Medical Center and his First Award Fellow, Dr. Justin Lawley, performed experiments onboard NASA’s C-9 aircraft (Weightless Wonder VI). Continued on Page 4 Thoughts from the Top: Interview with Dr. Jeffrey Sutton ……………… 2 2014 Summer Bioastronautics Institute Recap …………………………… 5 In This Issue: Fellow Spotlights: Allison Anderson and Julia Raykin ………………….. 7 Space Fun: Orion EFT-1 Quiz ……………………………………………. 10 Thoughts from the Top Interview of Dr. Jeffrey Sutton by 2013 NSBRI First Award Fellow Torin Clark, Ph.D. QN: Students and postdocs always wonder what the CEO does. Describe your “average day” at work. Dr. Sutton: The CEO is responsible for leading the development and execution of NSBRI’s strategy, in accord with our NASA cooperative agreement and to the benefit of all stakeholders. As CEO, I have daily management decisions, oversee the implementation of our plans, and am authorized to move funds, including those from the lead consortium institution (Baylor College of Medicine) to >60 recipient institutions in support of our science, technology, career development, and outreach programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing the 787 - Effect on Major Investigations - and Interesting Tidbits
    Introducing the 787 - Effect on Major Investigations - And Interesting Tidbits Tom Dodt Chief Engineer – Air Safety Investigation ISASI September, 2011 COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 1 787 Size Comparison 767-400 787-8 777-300 ~Pax 3-Class 245 250 368 ~Span 170 ft 197 ft 200 ft ~Length 201 ft 186 ft 242 ft ~MTGW 450,000 lbs 500,000 lbs 660,000 lbs ~Range 5,600 NM 7,650 NM 6,000 NM Cruise Mach 0.80 0.85 0.84 COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 2 By weight 787 777 - Composites 50% 12% Composite Structure - Aluminum 20% 50% Other Carbon laminate Steel 5% Carbon sandwich 10% Fiberglass Titanium 15% Composites Aluminum 50% Aluminum/steel/titanium pylons Aluminum 20% COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 3 COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 4 787 Wing Flex - On-Ground On-Ground 0 ft COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 5 787 Wing Flex - 1G Flight 1G Flight ~12 ft On-Ground 0 ft 1G Flight COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 6 787 Wing Flex Ultimate-Load ~26 ft 1G Flight ~12 ft On-Ground 0 ft Max-Load COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 7 787 Static Load Test @ Ultimate Load COPYRIGHT © 2010 THE BOEING COMPANY Smith, 7-April-2011, ESASI-Lisbon | 8 Investigations with Composite Materials • Terms: Composites Aluminum disbond fatigue delaminate beach marks inter-laminar shear striation counts water absorbsion corrosion fiber architecture metallurgical prop.
    [Show full text]