NASA Technical Memorandum 58247

NASA-TM-58247 19820025085

STS-3 Medical Report

•-:_ "- ,z ...... " " "-'_""'_- "~- o -4;_-*_"

August 1982

LIBRARYP_/
SEP16 1982
LANGLEYRESEARCHCENTER
-'" LIBRARY,NASA
: HAMPTON, VIRGINIA

NASA
NationalAeronautics and
SpaceAdministration _.•
kyndon B. JohnsonSpace Center
Houston,Texas
NASATechnical Memorandum58247

STS-3 MEDICAL REPORT

Edi ted by: .....

Sam L. Pool, M.D., Philip C. Johnson, Jr., M,D.
and John A. Mason

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas ,
I

"r
 FOREWORD

The Space Transportation System Three (STS-3) was the third of the four
planned orbital flight tests (OFT) of the Space Shuttle Program. This mis-
sion, though longer than planned due to weather conditions at the landing
site, was successfullycompletedon March 30, 1982. The mission demonstrated
for the first time the eight-daycapabilitiesof a reusable space vehicle.

The Commander of the mission was Jack R. Lousma, Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps,
and the Pilot was C. Gordon Fullerton,Colonel, U.S. Air Force.

• The primary objectiveof the OFT program is to evaluate and demonstrateunder

progressively demand1"hgconditions the safe ascent, on-orbit operation and
return of the Orbiter and crew. In addition to the aerodynamicevaluations,a
scientific payload (OSS-1), several experiments (ElectrophoresisEquipment
VerificationTest, Monodisperse Latex Reactor, and Plant Growth Engineering
Test) and the first Get-Away Special (GAS)were included in this mission. The
medical operationsteam continued to test and evaluatemedical support logis-
tics and evolve concepts for a standardizedprogram to be utilized during the
mature STS operations.

The STS-3 mission presentedthe NASA medical team with a series of operational
problems associated with the symptoms of initial vestibular responses to
weightlessnessand alteredwork/rest cycles.Medication,altered crew activity
plans, and modified f_uid and food consumptionregimenwere prescribedas sup-
portive health maintenance procedures. All phases of the mission required
real-time re-evaluation,identificationof potential impact on pre-existing
medical constraints, and development of appropriate recommendations and
solutions. These activities required significant coordination among the
differentmedical operationsand mission control teams.

This report is intended to be a detailed medical evaluation of the STS-3

mission.

Arnauld E. Nicogossian,M.D.
Manager, OperationalMedicine
Life Sciences Division
NASA Headquarters
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction v

Evaluationof Crew Health 1

Craig L. Fischer, M.D. and James M. Vanderploeg,M.D.

Inflight Observations : 3
Michael W. Bungo, M.D.

Shuttle OrbitalMedical System 5

James M. Vanderploeg,M.D.

EmergencyMedical Services System (EMSS) 6.

Norman Belasco
o

Validationof PredictiveTests and 8

Countermeasuresfor Space Motion Sickness
Jerry L. Homick, Ph.D.

Crew CardiovascularProfile 11
Michael W. Bungo, M.D.

Biochemistryand EndocrinologyResults 12
Carolyn S. Leach, Ph.D.

Hematologicaland ImmunologicalAnalyses 15
Gerald R. Taylor, Ph.D.

Medical Microbiologyof Crewmembers 17

Duane L. Pierson,Ph.D.

Food and Nutrition 19

RichardL. Sauer and Rita M. Rapp
The Potable Water 22
RichardL. Sauer

Shuttle Toxicology 25
WaylandJ. Rippstein

RadiologicalHealth 28
Robert G. Richmondand B.L. Cash

EnvironmentalEffects of Shuttle Launch and Landing 30

AndrewE. Potter,Ph.D.

iii
 INTRODUCTION

The Space TransportationSystem Three (STS-3)was launched on March 22, 1982,

at 15:59:59:785G.M.T. from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, for a planneddura-
tion of seven days. The mission was originally planned for a landing at
Edwards Air Force Base, California,but due to adverse (wet) lake bed runway
conditions, the primary landing site was moved to White Sands, New Mexico.
Again, adverse weather conditions changed the plan. This time blowing dust
caused the delay of landing by one day. The Orbiter landed satisfactorilyon
; the eighth day at 16:04:46 G.M.T., March 30, 1982. The crew for this third
orbital flight test was Colonel Jack R. Lousma, Commander and Colonel C.
Gordon Fulletrton,Pilot.

The major activitiesof the STS-3 flight were the thermal testing and remote
manipulator system (mS) testing which also had thermal aspects to it. The
major thermal testing consisted of placing the Orbiter in four central atti-
tudes for extended periods of time to determine the thermal responses of
specificareas. These attitudeswere tail-to-sunin orbital rate, nose-to-sun
twice orbital rate, top-to-sun solar internal, and passive thermal control.
Temperaturesin the tail and nose-to-sun attitudes were maintained within
required rangewith heater duty cyclesless than predictedbecause of slower
thermal responses as demonstrated on STS-I and 2. All payload bay door
closure during the various attitudes were successful except during the
tail-to-sun attitude. This situation was cleared after reorienting the
Orbiter to the top-to-sunattitude for approximately15 minutes followedby a
shortperiod of passive thermal control.

Approximately48 hours of RMS testingwere completed during STS-3. The major

compromiseto the RMS tests was caused by the loss of the wrist TV camera.
This loss prevented the developmentof the induced environmentcontamination
monitor (ICEM), therefore the plasma dynamics package (PDP) was used in the
IECM's stead. The PDP weighs about 500 pounds less than the IECM, thus
reducing the effectivenessof the dynamic data.

All spacecraft systems operated satisfactorilythroughoutthe STS-3 mission

with only minor problems that did not impact the conduct of the mission.

v
 EVALUATIONOF CREW HEALTH ;
; ,_ _-

Craig L. Fischer, M.D. and James M. Vanderploeg,M.D.

PRE-FLIGHTINTERVAL

The F-30, F-IO and F_ pre-flight physical examinationswere conducted on

schedule and were essentially normal. The only pre-flightmedical problem
presented was an apparent upper respiratoryinfection,•experiencedby one of
; the crewmen.

From a laboratoryperspective,this crewman exhibitedan absolute neutropenia

and relative lymphocytosison F-IO, associatedwith a minimal rise in the ZSR.
By F-2, the absolute neutropeniawas remitting. These laboratorydata, plus a
negative throat culture for bacterial pathogens, when integrated with the
presenting clinical symptoms of mild nasal congestion, injected throat and
afebrile state strongly suggest a viral etiology,for the upper respiratory
infection. Other pre-flightlaboratorydata of this crewman were remarkable
with respect to the Alk-Phos and SGOT (AST) results. These enzymes showed a
minimal and transientrise on F-2, unassociatedwith changes in the SGPT (ALT)
and GGTP values. In addition, no increase in the slow zone LDH isoenzyme
activity (liver related)was noted during this interval. Because of the small
magnitude of the Alk-Phos and SGOT enzyme elevationsand their disassociation
with other sensitive hepatobiliary and liver parenchymal enzyme markers,
statisticalvariationsrather than clinicalliver disease must be implicated.

On flight morning, both the Commanderand Pilot were in excellentphysical and

mental status.

POST-FLIGHT INTERVAL

Because of weather conditions,the landing was moved to Northrup Strip, New

Mexico. The Crew Physicianentered the Orbiter approximately10 minutes after
wheel stop. Upon entering the mid-deck, specificnotice was made of any odors
emanating from the spacecraft. There were none. The atmospherewithin the
Orbiter was odorless.The Crew Physicianascended the ladder from the mid-deck
to the flight deck and found both Commander and Pilot sitting, with helmets
off, in their respective seats. Both men were smiling and in no obvious
distress. Their comments were spontaneous and appropriate. The Commander
then egressed his seat and at the surgeon's request checked all the switch
positions and associatedconnectorsof the bio-med sensors. No anomaly was
found. He then descended,without difficulty,to the mid-deck. He stated he
felt "heavy and had light-headedness",but upon questioningthe lightheaded-
ness was more an unsteady sensation and was unassociatedwith clinical symp-
tomology. He did not experience vertigo at any time. The Commander also
stated he was somewhat warm and thirsty. He was offered an oral electrolyte
solution and drank approximately 700 cc over a period of 2 minutes while
standing on the mid-deck.

By this time the Pilot had descended the ladder from the flight deck to the
mid-deck and the Commandermoved to the white room just outside the Orbiter's
hatch. The Pilot mentionedhe was also thirsty and consumed an estimatedlO0
cc of the oral electrolytesolutionover a period of one minute. Subsequently,
the Commander and Pilot walked down the steps from the Orbiter to the desert
floor without assistanceor difficulty. Once inside the crew van, the suits
were doffed and no evidence of excessive perspirationwas found in any of the
garments. The ride from the Orbiter to the medical examining facility was
short and no significant medical problem was encountered. Once inside the
medical exam facilities,the crewmen were debriefed according to plan. The
physical examinations,includingthe stand tests, were unremarkable. Follow-
ing the examinations,the crew consumedmore of the oral electrolytesolution,
with the Commander drinkingan overall total of 816 mls and the Pilot 203 mls.
These totals include the amount consumed on the Orbiter.

The post-flightlaboratory data revealed an expected, absolute neutrophilia

demonstratedby both the Commanderand Pilot. This findingreverted to normal
range by the L+3 examinationand may be attributedto an epinephrineresponse.
The Commander and Pilot both showed minimal elevations in serum creatinine,
unassociatedwith an increasedBUN or uric acid. The Pilot exhibiteda modest
increase in Alk-Phos post-flight,which was unassociatedwith an increase in
the GGTP,therefore suggestingbone origin. This modest post-flightincrease
returned toward normal by L+3. The Pilot also showed a transientand minimal
elevation of the total LDH at L+O which slowly fell towards normal by L+IO.
Review of the Pilot's pre-flight LDH data reveals near equality and actual
reversal of the LDH 1:2 ratio during the pre-flightinterval. The post-flight
data showed no major departure from the previouslyestablished pattern. No
significantalterations in the CPK totals or isoenzymespatterns were recog-
nized in any time interval.

In summary, no significant health problem was detected in the post-flight

interval.

2
 -2-

INFLIGHTMEDICALOBSERVATIONS

MichaelW. Bungo,M.D.

The approach to inflightmedical assessmentand care for STS-3 was the same as
that described for earlier Shuttle flights in documents similar to this one.
In short, a private medical conferencewas held daily between the crew and the
Mission OperationsControl Room (MOCR) Surgeon.

; Launch occurred at 16:00 GMT on March 22, 1982. The first private medical
conference (PMC) was held 7 hours and 20 minutes into flight. At that time,
the pilot (PLT) reported he was "feeling great". The commander (CDR), how-
ever, reported that he began to have space motion sickness symptoms at the
time of OMS-1 (about 19 minutes into the flight). He took a Scope/Dexcapsule
at_that time and a second dose 4 1/2 hours into the flight. Within 1/2 hour
after this second dose and having been moving around for suit doffing, he
experiencednausea and vomited once. He was asked to continue motion sickness
prophylaxis (Scope/Dex) one capsule approximatelyevery 4 hours while awake
and continuing through the second day. The CDR reported that even though his
food intake was reduced, he was especiallyconsciousof continuingto consume
fluids. Waste water tank levels seemed to be consistentwith reasonableout-
puts. When the PMC was held on the second day, it was obvious that both crew-
men were not feelingwell. First, they had been awakened multiple times during
the night because of static in their headsets as they passed over certain
regions of Asia. Secondly, the CDR's appetite was depressed although he had
not experiencedfurther episodes of vomiting. Thirdly, the PLT had developed
symptoms of loss of appetite and had additionallydevelopedsome low back pain
which, on further questioning,appeared to be musculoskeletalin origin and
similar to problems encounteredon prior space flights.

The Mission Control Center flight team subsequentlyrearrangedthe crew acti-

vities plan (CAP)to switch tasks on mission day 3 for tasks scheduled for
mission day 4. This provided an easier day for the crew earlier in the mis-
sion so that they might have time to recover from the space motion sickness
syndrome. In addition,they were allowedan extra hour of sleep time. Unfor-
tunately, the cabin was reported to be "chilly" during the night which was
probably due to the scheduled tests being performed to characterize the
Orbiter'stemperatureresponse to differentattitudes.

The third PMC (24 March 1982, 20:20 GMT) found both crewmen still having symp-
toms of anorexia and lassitude,but both were improvingtheir functionalcapa-
cities.

Minor system problemscontinuedto plague the crew such as cool cabin tempera-
tures, drink bottles which had the filling stems broken and jamming of the
waste collection system slinger by an emesis bag. On day 6 of the flight
(March 27), both crewmen used the passive treadmill supplied for their
exercise. Only brief tryout periodswere utilized,but they reported promise
in its functionalcapabilities.

During day 7 of flight, the crew was obviously in excellent spirits with no
medical residual from their previous symptoms.

3
Entry was scheduledfor the morning of March 29, 1982. As part of the prepa-
ration for landing, both crewmembersconsumed 1000 cc of an electrolytesolu-
tion as a means of increasingtheir blood volume. On the last revolution of
the Earth, however, it was obvious that sand storm conditionswould prevent a
landing at Northrup Strip, New Mexico, therefore the entry procedure was
delayed for 24 hours.

A PMC held the eveningof this wave-off day revealed the crew to be asymptoma-
tic and in good spirits. The followingmorning, they purposely drank addi-
tional fluids but no longer had any specific "entry beverage"as they had on
the precedingday.

The anti-g suits were prophylacticallyinflatedby both the PLT and the CDR at
entry interface minus 6 minutes. No discomfort from the suits or from g
forces was reported by the crewmembers. Electrocardiographicdata were
obtained on the CDR but not the PLT. The cause of this malfunction is not
clear as satisfactorydata had been obtained from both crewmen during the
launch phase and during the aborted landing phase one day earlier.

Touchdownoccurred at 16:05 GMT on March 30, 1982. The crew egressed the
Orbiter39 minutes later.

4
 -3-

SHUTTLE•ORBITAL MEDICAL SYSTEM

James M. Vanderploeg,M.D.

The ShuttleOrbiter Medical System (SOMS-A)is an outgrowthof onboard medical

kits which have been in use throughoutthe history of manned space flight.
The STS-1Medical Report contains a brief summaryof previousmedical kits and
training.

; SOMS'A was designed for use during the Orbital Flight Tests to provide treat-
ment capability for life-threateningemergenciesand to permit diagnosis and
treatment of many less severe illnessesand injuries. The inventory of the
SOMS-A is intended to sustainthe medical needs of a two-man crew for up to 14
days.

The total system is composed of the Medicine and Bandage Kit (MBK), the Emer-
gency Medical Kit (EMK) and the Medical Checklistof the Flight Data File. A
descriptionof the organizBtionof the two medical kits can be found in the
STS-1 and STS-2 Medical Reports. The basic organizationof the kits was
unchanged for STS-3. The Medical Checklist was modified by making the alpha-
betical and usage lists of the kits' contents a Flight Supplement. This
allows changes in medicationsfor the particularrequirementsof a crew to be
made without having to change and reprint the Medical Checklist sections on
Emergencies,LaboratoryMedicine and Illustrations. '

The evaluationof an individualastronaut'ssensitivityto any of the drugs

present in the medical kit has been a part of premissionpreparationthrough-
out the history of the space program. Knowledgeof _ny •allergicreaction or
undesirable side effects to the medical kits contents is imperative for
effective health care by the Mission OperationsControl•Room (MOCR) Surgeons
and Crew Physicians.

As was done in the past, a drug sensitivityevaluationwas conducted prior to

the STS-3 flight. This evaluationwas carried out in two segments. First,
the health record of each crewmemberwas reviewed and every medication which
he had received either for a clinical indicationor for previous drug sensiti-
vity testing was recorded. Any rep.ortedreactions or side effects were also
recorded.

The second segment of this evaluationinvolvedtestingof each crewmemberwith

thosemedications which were felt to have a high likelihoodfor use in flight
This testing was scheduledin such a way that no flying was undertakenfor 24
hours followingthe ingestionof any medication. Most of the tests were done
in conjunctionwith flight simulationexercises. Sedativeswere taken at home
in the evening to evaluate sleep inductionas well as alertnessthe following
day. Prior to being issued any medication the crewmemberwas briefed on pos-
sible side-effectsand allergicmanifestationsand on the procedureto follow
to obtain emergencymedical attention,if needed. _

The information gained from the drug sensitivity evaluation was checked
against the contents of the SOMS-A. Thus, the physiciansmade certain that no
medicationswere carried on board to which a crewman was unusuallysensitive.
 EMERGENCYMEDICALSERVICESSYSTEM(EMSS)
NormanBelasco

Planning

Planning for the STS-3 Emergency Medical Services (EMSS) utilized an updated
STS-I format. The most significantchange implementedfor STS-3 was transfer-
ring the responsibilityof EMSS Coordinator at the Mission Control Center
(MCC) from the Chief of the Medical Sciences Division to each Mission Opera-
tions Control Room (MOCR) Surgeon on shift. Assignmentsfor EMSS Flight Sur-
geons at the participatingsites were:

*KSC Crew Physician Dr. Fischer

Deputy Crew Physician Dr. Vanderploeg
EMSS Coordinator . Dr. Buchanan
Helo Flight Surgeons Dr. Bagian
Dr. Vanderploeg
Departmentof Defense (DOD) Flight
SurgeonBackup

*DFRF/EAFB Crew Physician Dr. Fischer

Deputy Crew Physician Dr. Vanderploeg
EMSS Coordinator Dr. Hadley (Dr. McBride, alt.)
Helo Flight Surgeons Dr. Seddon
Dr. Thagard •
DOD Flight Surgeon Backup

*NS AlternateCrew Physician Dr. LaPinta

EMSS Coordinator Dr. Bergman
Helo Flight Surgeons Dr. A. Fisher
Dr. W. Fisher
DOD Flight Surgeon Backup

*CLS Search and Rescue (SAR) Rescue forces,local availability

DOD Site ResponsibleMedical Officer - EMSS Coordinator

*Kennedy Space Center, Dryden Flight ResearchFacility/EdwardsAir Force Base,

Northrup Strip, ContingencyLanding Site.

Since the STS-3 landing site changed from DFRF to NS and considerationfor
change again to KSC was being made in real time, the remainderof the related
planning aspects are discussed under Results.

Training

In preparationfor STS-3, EMSS oriented training was conducted by participa-

ting in joint NASA/DOD rescue exercises at KSC, DFRF, and NS. Simulations
were held with each of the contingencylanding sites (CLS's) located at Rota,
Spain; Hickham AFB, Hawaii; and Kadena AFB, Okinawa.

6
At DFRF and NS the rescue exercises included aided egress modes at landing,
for both on-runway and off-runway contigencies (on land). At KSC the exer-
cises included aided egress modes for a landing mishap on the runway and a
landing mishap off the runway (in water). For the rescue exercises,detailed
scenarioswere appropriatelycoordinated,and live subjects (as planned) were
used at KSC for the on-runway landing mishap and for the water rescue. Con-
tact with CLS needed improvement at Rota and Kadena AFB. Hickham AFB
responded flawlessly,as required,with all assignmentscarried out in accord
with the initial contact procedures and overall knowledge of communications
protocol,although DDMS took action to improve both site's responsiveness.
Resultsand Discussion ......

Because of a weather problem and unacceptablelakebed landing conditions at

EAFB/DFRF,the decision was made prior to launch to land at NS, End of Mission
(EOM).

For EMSS landing coverage, it was decided to deploy the Crew and Deputy Crew
Physicians(after launch and Return to Launch Site, RTLS) from KSC directly to
NS, positioningDr. Fischer (Crew Physician) in the convoy crew vehicle and
Dr. Vanderploeg (Deputy Crew Physician) at the strip dispensary where:the
postflightcrew physicals are conducted. Helo Flight Surgeons who were in
place at DFRF and NS were to remain, as were the Helo Flight Surgeon and DOD
Backup Flight Surgeon at KSC (who replaced the Deputy Crew Physician after
launch). The EMSS Coordinatorfor NS remained on station throughoutat buil-
ding 300, WSMR, where the STS-3 EMSS communicationconsole is located. Once
the EOM Medical Operationscomplementwas in place at NS, a decisionwas made
for the alternate Crew Physician to remain at NS in position at the strip
OperationsCommunicationCenter (OCC). The above deploymentchanges went very
smoothly. Additionally,the Holloman AFB Hospital and the William Beaumont_
Army Medical Center Definitive Medical Care Facility (DMCF) were alerted to
the NS landing plan. .

Shortly before the planned EOM time at NS, high winds forced a mission exten-
sion and possiblelanding changes that includedconsiderationsof a landing at
KSC on the hard surfaced Shuttle LandingFacility (SLF).

AcCordingly,arrangementswere made to support the EMSS adequatelyshould the

landing be at KSC. On the 9th day of the mission, EOM occurred at NS as a
nominallanding with unaidedegress and without need for EMSS implementation.

The ability to redeploy EMSS teams went smoothly and without significantinci-
dent attesting to a satisfactoryaccommodationof required flexibility. All
Participantswere cooperativeand responded in a professionalmanner.

It is apparent that EMSS at landing sites is heavily dependentupon the inclu-

sion of FOD and DOD personnel. At present,within the Medical Sciences Divi-
sion alone, there is not a sufficientnumber of qualifiedFlight Surgeons to
staff all the EMSS positions in supportof landings when EAFB, NS, and KSC are
primary, backup, and secondarysites.

7
 -5-

VALIDATIONCF PREDICTIVE
TESTS AND COUNTERMEASURES
FOR SPACEMOTIONSICKNESS

Jerry L. Homick, Ph.D,

Backgroundand Purpose

Experiencefrom previousmanned space flight indicatesthat the space sickness

syndrome represents a potential threat to the operational efficacy and
physical well being of future space flight crewmembers. Because of its
complexity and uniqueness this biomedical problem cannot be resolved solely
with ground based research. To obtain final and valid solutions it is essen-
tial that data be collected systematically on individuals who fly Space
Shuttlemissions.

A Flight Supplementary Objective (FSO) was developed to initiate this data

collectionprocess with the STS-1 and STS-2 missions. A nearly identicalFSO
($343)was implementedfor the STS-3 mission.

A primary purpose of this FSO was to conduct inflight observations,supported

by a series of preflight and postflightdata collectionprocedures,on STS-3
crewmembers in an effort to validate ground based tests which may be predic-
tive of susceptibilityto the space motion sickness syndrome. An additional
objective was to implement crew testing procedureswhich would enable acqui-
sition of data to be used in validatingmotion sicknesscountermeasures.

Test Description

Preflight

Part of the required crew preflightactivitywas based on guidelinesset forth

in NASA's medical operationspolicy for the prophylaxisand treatmentof space
motion sicknesswith anti-motion sickness drugs. This policy states in part
that astronautswith a positive history of space sickness or with no space
flight experiencewill be premedicatedwith a properly selected anti-motion
sickness drug. The policy further states that astronautswhohave flown in
space with no symptoms of space sickness are not required to be premedicated.
Any individual who experiences space motion sickness will be administered
appropriate inflight treatment with anti-motion sickness drugs. The policy
requires preflight side effects screening and efficacy testing with one or
more anti-motionsicknessmedications.

During the preflight period (at approximatelyF-180 days) each crewmembercom-

pleted a questionnairedesigned to elicit pertinentinformationregarding past
experienceswith various types of motion environmentsand responses to those
environments.

Between approximatelyF-180 and F-160 days, both crewmembers conferred with

the STS-3 Flight Surgeon to select a preferred anti-motion sickness medica-
tion. The selected medication was administered to them to determine the
possibility of any adverse reactions. The drug screening was done under
operationalconditions(e.g., Shuttle simulatortraining)and verbal reporting

8
 by the crewmemberswas relied upon. Each crewmember'spast experienceswith
anti-motion sickness medications were also Considered in selecting the
preferredmedication for STS-3,

At approximatelyF-175 days, the crewmemberswere each tested one time for

susceptibilityto experimentallyinduced motion sickness in the JSC Neuro-
physiologyLaboratory. The standard Coriolis Sickness Susceptibility Index
(CSSI) test was used. This procedure requires the performanceof head move-
ments while rotating at a constant velocity in a servo-controlledchair. The
test was terminated when the crewmembers reached the Malaise Ill level (8
' symptom points) of motion sickness or performed150 head movements,whichever
occurred first. During this test, session_thecrewmemberswere instructedon
. the self-recognitionand reporting of motion sickness symptoms. They were
also instructedon the use of the microcassetterecorder and inflight symptom
checklist.

Two weeks after the laseline CSSI test, the CSSI test was repeated on each
crewmember to determine the efficacy of orally administeredscopolamineplus
dexedrine (Scope/Dex) in preventingmotion sickness. A second anti-motion
sickness drug efficacy test involving transdermallyadministeredscopolamine
was conductedwith the PLT two months after the Scope/Dex efficacy test. The
scopolamineskin patch was administered16 hours prior to testing.
Inflight

A microcassette tape recorder and symptom checklist was stowed onboard the
Shuttle Orbiter. The two flight crewmenwere required to use the recorder and
checklist during a designated time (pre-sleep period) each mission day to
debrief on any motion sickness symptoms or vestibularsensationsthat had been
experienced.

Postflight

Questions pertainingto motion sickness and vestibular sensationswere asked

of each crewman on L+O and during the postflightmedical debriefing. Two
additionalmotion sickness susceptibilitytests were also required postflight.
These are the off-vertical rotation test and the sudden-stoptest, both of
which were to be performedonce .oneach crewman during the L+IO to L+90 time
period.
Test Results

The preflightmotion experiencequestionnaireindicatedthat both crewmembers

had a minimal history of terrestrialmotion sickness susceptibility. Adequate
preflight baseline CSSI test data were obtained on both crewmembers. The
results indicatedthat both crewmemberswere moderatelyresistant to the ves-
tibular stress induced by the CSSI test. Oral Scope/Dex was judged to be
effective for both crewmembers,particularly for the CDR. The scopolamine
patch was relativelyineffectivefor the PLT and producedmore noticeableside
effects than Scope/Dex.

In accordance with the medical operations policy for the prophylaxis and
treatmentof spacemotion sickness,both crewmen took one oral Scope/Deximme-
diately after the OMS-1 maneuver.

9
Shortly after the OMS-2 maneuver, the CDR egressed from his seat and began to
move about on the flight deck and mid-deck of the vehicle. The CDR reported
that the movement induced a generalmalaise includingmild nausea. At about 4
1/2 hours into the mission, the CDR took a second Scope/Dex. Approximately
one-half hour later, increased movement associatedwith removing his flight
suit, caused the CDR to experiencemore severe nausea which quicklyculminated
in a•single episode of vomiting. The CDR continued to experience a general
malaise and decreased appetite the remainderof mission day 1 and restricted
his head and body movements. The feeling of malaise persistedthroughmission
day 2 and gradually subsided by the end of day 3. By mission day 4 the CDR
reported feeling normal and had a good appetite. Additional Scope/Dex was
used by the CDR onmission days 2 and 3. "

It is significantto note that the STS-3 CDR was also the PLTof the 59-day
Skylab 3 mission. On that flight he experiencedrelativelysevere symptomsof
space motion sickness which persisted through the fifth day of flight. The
CDR reported that his symptoms on STS-3 were not as severe or as long lasting
as his symptomson Skylab 3.

Following orbital insertionthe STS-3 PLT remained in his seat for a slightly
longer period of time than did the CDR. When the PLT first began to move
about in the vehicle he experienceddizzinessand a vague uncomfortablesense
of disorientation. The PLT reported that the sensationwas aggravatedsome-
what by head movements and thereforemoved cautiouslyduring most of mission
day 1. On mission day 2 and 3 the PLT's overall feelingof well being worsened
slightly. He reported having no appetite,a lack of energy and had to force
himself to work. On mission day 4 his appetite improved with increased food
intake he rapidly improved. The PLT reported that vigorous head movements did
not aggravate his lack of well being after mission day 1. In addition to
three Scope/Dexcapsules taken on mission day 1, the PLT used two Scope/Dexon
mission day 2 and one on mission day 3.

10

\
 -6-
CREW CARDIOVASCULARPROFILE

Michael W. Bungo, M.D.

As in previous Shuttle missions, cardiovasculardata were obtained purely in

an operationallyorientedmode. Simply stated, these data consistedof a pre-
and postflight"stand test". This methodologyhas been describedin the STS-1
Medical Report but in short, is a measure of heart rate and blood pressure
, response as a result of change in orthostatic position. In addition, heart
rate data from ECG monitoringwas obtained on both crewmen during:thelaunch
phase of flight, and heart rate data on the commander (CDR) was obtained
during the entry phase of flight. Entry heart rate data on the pilot (PLT)
was not obtained because of mechanicalfailure of the biomedical harness
connector.

Ascent heart rates were similar to those reported for previous Shuttle mis-
sions and do not warrant numerationin this report. Unique to this flight was
that the crew inflatedtheir anti-g suits approximately6 minutes before entry
interface (at least 30 min before touchdown). Because of decreasedcalf size
occurring as a result of adaptation to microgravity,the suit may not have
delivered its set compression pressure. Certainly,the effect of g forces
clearly indent the heart rate profile data: however, no cardiovascularsymp-
toms Were experiencedby either crewman.

Similaritiesbetween the F-12 and L+3 stand were readily apparent suggesting
that readaptationwas likely functionallycomplete by the third day or sooner
postflight. Immediatelypostflight,however, cardiovascular"deconditioning"
was in evidence. In spite of volume loads given to both crewmen, the accel-
erationof heart rate upon standingwas obvious. Although the blood pressure
responses of each crewman differed, they neverthelessresponded in a manner
similar to the two groups that have been seen in prior flights. One crewman
reacted as a "rigid pipe" system in that the volume deleted state caused both
his systolic and diastolic pressure to fall as the standing posture was
assumed. The second crewman, on the other hand, narrowed his pulse pressure
with a similar drop in systolic pressurebut an increase in diastolicpressure
to what might be considered"hypertensive"levels.

Cardiovascularprofiles similar to previous Shuttle flights were observed in

the crew of STS-3. "Stand test" results evoked different responses in each
crewman but were consistentwith prior experience. There were no clinical
symptoms of o_thostatic intolerance. The use of the anti-g suit did not
preventthe influenceof gravity from affectingthe heart rate profile. This
latter finding may be explainedby inappropriatemechanics of the garment or
perhaps only a partiallyprotectiveeffect was observed.

11
 -7-

BIOCHEMISTRYAND ENDOCRINOLOGYRESULTS

CarolynS. Leach,Ph.D.

The studies conducted in biochemistryand endocrinologywere to provide data

which, when integratedwith informationfrom other medical disciplines,permit
an objectiveassessmentof the individualcrewman'shealth. Additionally,the
data collected during the preflight phase of the Shuttle mission provided
baseline informationfor the medical team in detectingand identifyingphysi-
ological changes which may have resulted from exposure to the space flight
environment. The results of these tests not only helped in the clinical
assessmentof the crewman but also provided data to compare with previously
acquired results on men returningfrom 8 days in space.

Methods and Materials

Analyses were performed on venous blood three times before the mission: 30,
12, and 2 days before lift-off (F-30, -12, -2). Postflightblood was drawn as
soon possible (ASAP) after landing (L+O), 3 days later (L+3), and 10 days
later (L+IO). All blood sampleswere obtained fastingexcept the L+O sample.

During the preflight and postflight periods, the crew consumed the diet of
their choosing but followed the provided Shuttle diet during flight. Fluids
were available when desired.

Analyses of the blood (plasma or serum) samples included: glucose (Glu),

cholesterol (Chol), glutamic oxaloacetictransaminase(ALT), glutamic pyruvic
transaminase (AST), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), inorganic phosphate (P04),
bilirubin total (Bili T), creatinine (Creat), total creatine phosphokin_se
(CPK) and isoenzymes,total lactic dehydrogenase(LDH) and isoenzymes,osmo-
lality (Osmol), sodium (Na), potassium (K), chloride (Cl), triglycerides
(Trigly), gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase(GGTP), adrenocorticotrophichormone
(ACTH), angiotensin I (ANGLO I), aldosterone (ALDO), and cortisol. Twenty-
four hour urine samples were collected 30 days before flight and on landing
day. The samples were analyzed for volume, osmolality, sodium, potassium,
chloride, calcium, magnesium, phosphate, uric acid, creatinine, cortisol,
aldosterone,antidiuretichormone,epinephrineand norepinephrine.

The data are given for each crewman. The preflight (PM) and standard devia-
tion (SD) are given as the best preflight control values. Each postflight
value obtained is given. The methods and established normal range for each
parameter studied are given in the STS-1 Medical Report, NASA Technical
Memorandum58240.

Results and Discussion

The results show postflight decreases below preflight findings for choles-
terol, osmolality, Na, and K, for both crewmen. Postflightincreases above
preflight values were observed in calcium, angiotensin I, aldosterone,
insulin, T4, and ACTH. Alk phos., GGTP and LDH were slightlyincreasedin the
PLT postflightsamples. Several parametersfor the two crewmen did not change

12
consistently. However, _theseare all in areas Which indicate degree of
stress,state of hydration, and the immediatepostflight activity prior to
blood samples being acquired.

The postflighttwenty-fourhour urine results showed decreasesin osmo, Na, K,

Cl, Mg and uric acid. Increases in excretion of cortisol, aldosterone,
antidiuretichormone and epinephrinewere observedwhen the preflight value is
compared to the first postflight value. Norepinephrine and inorganic
phosphateresults differed for the two crewmen.

The test results of STS-3 crewmen were similar to the-findingson recoveryof

previous space flight crews. Table I shows the percent differences of the
STS-3 crew's postflight findings compared to preflight values; the percent
differenceof the post- to preflightcomparisonfor the STS-1 and STS-2 crews;
the postflightfindings on the Apollo crewmen who spent an average of 12 days
in space compared to their preflightvalues;and the blood values for infli_ht
days 3, 4 on the Skylab crewmen. This comparisonleads one to the concluslon
that the most dramatic changes occur and were measured within the first days
of exposure to space flight. Furthermore,these findings on the Shuttle crew-
men support the •hypothesisthat the changes in fluid and electrolytemetabo-
lism probably occur within hours of reaching orbit as have been shown in
ground simulation.

. • . . .

13
 TABLE I

Apollo Immediate SL Inflight STS-1 Immediate STS-2 Immediate STS-3 Immediate

Postflight Day 3,4 Postflight Postflight Postflight
% from Preflight % from Preflight % from Preflight % from Preflight % from Preflight
Parameter Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

Osmolality -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 5.0 -1.2

Na -0.4 -1.5 -1.0 -1.0 -2.1
K -7.3 3.6 -6.8 -12.8 • -6.2
Cl -0.6 -0.9 -1.0 3.0 0.5
Ca 1.0 6.5 1.8 6.8 6.6
Mg -5.0 -2.5 :4.8 8.4
PO4 0 11.7 12.5 1.9 17.2
BUN 11.9 25,5 1.7 6.3
Creatinine 8.3 4.3 9.3 10.7 11.6
Glucose 9.8 4.2 1.0 2.6 64.2
Triglycerides -24.3 -31.0 -32.0 9.3
Cholesterol -6.0 -3.0 17.0 -7.5
•- Uric Acid -14.8 •-22.0 12.0 -10.4
Total Bilirubin 12.5 -12.5 113.0 -14.6
Alkaline Phosphatase 2.8 1.3 ; 18.0 13.7
GGTP 19.1 33.8 16.0
Lactic Acid Dehydrogenase -10.1 5.3 , 27.0 13.8
SGOT (AST) -4.2 -14.3 -55.0 -2.0
SGPT (ALT) 0 5.9 •-28.0
Creatine Phosphokinase -11.3 -6.0 61.0 -6,8
AngiotensinI 488.0 135.3_ 80.0 275.0 252.7
Cortisol -27.0 -7.5 -11.0 92.0 -17.5
Insulin 32.0 -9.1 81.0 362.0 355.1
T3 -1.0 3.3 -5.0 9.5
T4 12.0 11.5 31.0 17.4
TSH -2.3 59.9 10.9
HGH 304.0 52.1 5.5 30.0 -25.0
ACTH -24.0 -58.3 54.8 -24.0 98.9
Aldosterone -4.7 54.8 59.9 80.1
 HEMATOLOGICALAND IMMUNOLOGICALANALYSES

Gerald R. Taylor, Ph.D.

Hematological and immunologicalanalyses wereconducted on the primary and

backup cre_members of STS-3 so that body-functionvalues necessary for_the
objective assessment of the health status of the crew before launch and
immediatelyafter flight could be evaluatedby the medical staff.

Materials and Methods

Blood samples were collected by venipuncturefrom the two prime crewmembers

30, 12, and 2 days before flight (F-30, F-12, F-2 respectively);within 2
hours after landing (L40); and 3 and 10 days after landing (L+3, L+IO). The
backup crew was sampled35, 11, and 3 days before flight (F-35, F-11, F-3).
Cellular immunology analyses were conducted on blood collected with sodium
heparin whereas Ethylene Diamine Tetra-aceticAcid (EDTA) was the anticoagu-
lant of choice for the cellular hematologymeasurements. Humoral evaluations
were conducted on serum from standard clot tubes. In all cases, Vacutainer
(TM) tubes were used for blood collection.

Results and Discussion

The resultsof analyses conductedon the cellular blood componentsdemonstrate

that for the one month period preceding the flight, there were no unusual
variationsin the cellular blood componentsof the four crewmembers. However,
there were important alterations in both of the primary crewmembers after
flight.

Evaluationof these data demonstratethat for the one month period preceding
the flight there were no unusualvariationsfrom the norm with any of the four
crewmembers.

The immediate postflight values for both crewmembers indicate a loss (about
8%) in erythrocytenumber when compared with the preflightmean. This should
translate into a 4% change in the hematocrit which was the case with the
Pilot. The postflightdecrease in the hematocritof the Commanderwas not as
marked, owing to the greater increase in the size of the erythrocytes, as
illustratedby a greatermean corpuscularvolume (MCV). These data show that
there was a postflight:

1) Absolute loss of erythrocytenumber

2) Increasein erythrocytevolume
3) Stable hydration/dehydrationstate
4) Increasein corpuscularhemoglobincontent (MCHC)

As has been reported for previous Shuttle flights there was a marked increase
(113-116%)in the postflightwhite cell count. As there was no evidence of a
fluid shift, this can be considered an absolute change. As with previous

15
 7,

flights, this increase in peripheralblood neutrophilsis regarded as part of

the "stressresponse". However, unlike other flights there was essentiallyno
postflightchange in the number of peripherallycirculatinglymphocytes.

Lymphocytes extracted from crew blood samples were reacted with the mitogen
Phytohemagglutinin(PHA) to assess the competence of the in vitro immune
response. After a suitable incubation period the blastogen_ response was
measured by determiningthe incorporationof radioactivethymidine into newly
formed DNA. For the Commander there was a significant (p<O.01) postflight
decrease in the ability of lymphocytesto respond to mitogenTc assault. This
depression had essentially returned to normal by the third day after the
flight. The responsivenessof the Pilot'scirculating lymphocytes was
depressed two days before the flight and remained atthe same low level I

through the last sampling period which was 10 days after completion of the
mission.

°,

16
 MEDICALMICROBIOLOGY
OF CREWMEMBERS
AND SPACECRAFT

DuaneL. Pierson,Ph.D.

Crew Sample Collection

Samples were collected from each prime crewman for microbial evaulationat
F-30, F-IO, F-2, L+O, and L+3. The backup crew was sampled at the same desig-
nated preflight times, but no postflightsamples were collected. The samples
consisted of swab samples from the ears, nose, and throat; a fecal specimen
(or rectal swab); and a midstreamfirst-voidurine specimen.

SpacecraftSample Collection .....

Microbiologymonitoringof the spacecraftwas comprisedof collectingand ana-

lyzing samples from the Orbiter'sinterior surfaces,flight hardware,air, and
potablewater supply.

Results and Discussion

Crew Microbiology

All crewmembers exhibited absent or normal microbial flora in ears, nose,

throat, urine, and feces cultures.

SpacecraftMicrobiology

Twenty_ne surface sites on the mid and flight decks were sampled at F-30,
F-2, and L+O. The prelaunch levels of bacterial contaminationwere somewhat
higher than observed during STS-1 and 2. Nearly all sites exhibited higher
numbersof bacteria at L+O. The number of fungi per site was low at prelaunch
sampling periods. However, at L_O almost all sites exhibited much higher
levels of fungi. The F-30 sample period prior to STS-4 will be very important
in assessingthe cleanup proceduresemployed between flights.

No bacterial pathogens were isolated. However, twelve different species of

the pathogenicfungal genus, Aspergillus,were isolated. Interestingly,
three
of these species, A. sydowi, A. phoenicis,and A. amstelodami,were isolated
. from the crewmen post _ing. None of these species were cultured from
either crewman prior to launch.

Shuttle Foods

Random samples of all foodstuffsstored onboard the Orbiter were analyzed to

assure that acceptablemicrobial levels were not exceeded. The analytical
proceduresand microbiologicalstandards have been establishedfor both non-
stabilized and thermostabilizedfoods. No food samples submitted to the
laboratoryfor the STS_ mission failed the acceptancestandards.

17
Crew Virology ,

The crewmen (prime and backup) were evaluated to determine their immune status
to specific viral agents. Serum samples were screened for hepatitis B surface
antigen and antibody to the hepatitis A antigen at F-30, F-tO, F-2, L+O (prime
crew), and L+3 (prime crew). No evidence of infection (prior or current) was
found in any of the crewmen. It was determined by the Health Stabilization
Officer that the crewmen had sufficient immunity (previously determined) to
rubella, rubeolla, and mumpsviruses to make a current evaluation unnecessary.
Throat and rectal swabs were taken of the crewmen at F-IO, F-2, and L+3.
These specimens were evaluated for the viral agents,

Prior to the mission the prime commander was exposed by a family member to
what was suspected to be Epstein-Barr (mononucleosis) virus. Serum samples
were immediately examined to determine the immune status of all crewmen to EB
virus. All crewman exhibited titers indicative of prior infection and were
probably sufficiently immune.

18
 -lO-

• FOOD AND NUTRITION _

RichardL. Sauer and Rita M. Rapp

The menus for STS-3 were designed to maintain good nutritionby providing3000
kilpcaloriesand at least the recommendedlevels of nutrientslisted in Table
1. Food intake records shown in Table 2 for the STS-3 Commander (CDR) from
his Skylab 2 mission indicate that 3000 kilocalories per day were not a
sufficientdaily energy allowancefor this individual. In order to assure an
adequate food supply for the STS-3 CDR, additionalfood itemsWere included to
increase the menu allowance to approximately4000 kilocaloriesper day. The
• supplemental foods listed in Table3 were overwrapped,labeled by day of
intended use, and stowed in locker trays with the pantry food.

Eight entry beverageswere provided for fluid loading as a countermeasureto

cardiovasculardeconditioning. Each crewman was requested_to consume four
beveragesprior to entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Original plans were to
use Wyler'sbeef bouillon cubes (2.9 g/8 oz water) packaged in flight beverage
containers;however, Gatorade (16 g/8 oz water) was finally selected for this
purpose.

Preflightfood service was provided for the STS-3 prime, backup, and support
crews during countdowndemonstrationtests (CDDT) and the Health Stabilization
period. Meals were prepared and served at both the JSC food facility and the
KSC crew quarters.

Postflight food service was provided• for the prime crew immediately after
touchdownat Northrup Strip, New Mexico, and for the return flight to Houston.

There was no requirementto measure inflight nutrient intake; however, this

was estimated after the mission. The crew ate breakfast in the crew quarters
at KSC prior to launch. This meal is not included in the nutrient
calculations.

The entry beverageswere consumed on the day of scheduledentry prior to the

time a sand storm at Northrup Strip caused a landing delay of approximately24
hours. There were no provisionsfor an additional set of entry beverages.
Therewas sufficientfood in the pantry for the extra day of flight.

19
 Table 1: Minimum Daily NutritionalLevels
Supplied by ShuttleOFT Menus

nutrient amount

kilocalories _ 3,000

protein -. " _56 gm ,

vitaminA 5,000 IU

vitamin D .. 400 IU

vitamin E _ = . 15 IU

ascorbic acid 45 mg

folacin 400 _g

niacin 18 mg

riboflavin 1.6 mg

• . thiamin 1.4 mg

vitamin B6 2.0 mg

vitamin B12 3.0 _g

calcium 800 mg

phophorus 800 mg

iodine 130 _g •

iron 18 mg

magnesium 350 mg

zinc 15 mg

potassium 70 mEq

sodium 150 mEq

20
 Table2: EnergyIntakefor Skylab2 PLT

Mission : No. of " Mean Daily

,Phase Days Kilocaloric -_
Consumption_ •

Preflight 21 4150
Inflight 59 3875 ._

.Postflight 18 4220 .

Table3: Supplemental
Food for STS-3CDR

Day11 No additional
food

Day 5 Peaches(T) ButterCookies(NF)

Beef Patty(R) ShrimpCocktail(R)
TurkeyTetrazzini(R) Rice Pilaf(R)
k Cashews(NF) - _

, Day 2, 6 Eggs (R) Meat Ballsw/BBQ(T)

PotatoPatty(R) PecanCookies(NF)

Day 3, 7 Chickena la King.(T) Rice Pilaf(R)

Cashews(NF) Strawberries
(R).
, _ Fruitcake(NF)

Day 4 Eggs (R) PotatoPatty(R)

Apricots(NF) Turkeya Gravy(T)
BreakfastRoll (NF) :Peasw/ButterSauce R)

Day 8 Apricots(NF)
BreakfastRoll (NF)

o .

21
 -ll-

- THE POTABLE"WATER/_: _''

Richard L. Sauer

The Potable Water System performedwithout difficultiesthroughout the third

Shuttle mission.• The problem of air in the water, noticed on STS-2, did not
occur during STS-3.

Results and Discussion ...................

. ..

A total of twelve chemical and nine microbiologicalsamples were taken from

the potable water system for STS-3. The specific parameterstested for are
those listed in Tables 1 and 2. All parametersof medical concern met the
specificationlimits with the exception_ofthose listed••below,Parametersof
nonmedical concern exceeding the specification limits were total solids
(lOmg/1 max), total organic solids/carbon (3.1mg/1 max), and color (> 50
units).

o Nickel - The water initiallyused to service the water system for STS-3
exceeded the O.05mg/l limit for_nickel. The maximum level of nickel
detected preflight(O.15mg/l)does not representa health hazard. Nickel
levels postf]ightwere within specificationlimits.

o DissolvedGas Dissolvedgas was detected in the Ground Support Equipment

(GSE) water used to service the vehicle. Subsequent samples were free
from dissolvedgas.

o Taste and Odor -A slight iodinetaste and odor was detected. The levels
were very low and of no medical consequence.The taste and odor were due
to the iodine concentrationwithin the potable water storage tank. The
crew receives: water from the water dispenser which strips iodine
concentrationsto a maximum of O.4mg/l.•Tasteand odor of iodine would not
be detectableat this level.

o Total Bacteria Total bacteria exceeded the specificationlimit of zero

up to a maxmum of 91 colony forming units•per lOOml (CFU/IOOml) and
32.6CFU/100ml in the ambient and chilled water samples, respectively.
While exceeding the limit, these levels arenot considered significant.
The organismswere identifiedas Flavobacterium,Enterobacter,and Pseudo- J

monas, all being common contaminantsof water, but none consideredpatho-

gens under these conditions.

o Yeast and Mold - One ambient water sample exceeded the yeast and mold
specificationlimit of zero. The level detected was 1.3CFU/IOOmI. The
yeast was identified as .Rhodotorulaminuta var. texensis. Rhodotorula
minuta has not been shown to be a pathogen.

The Shuttle Potable Water System provided the STS-3 crew with water that was
acceptablefor both metabolic and hygenic needs. Although not a medical con-
cern, postflightiodine levels were somewhat higher than expected. The crew
was not exposed to these levels since the water dispenser strips iodine to a
maximum of O.4mg/l. The Potable Water System functioned without problems
throughoutSTS-3.
• 22
 TABLE 1

PREFLIGHTSTS-3 POTABLEWATERANALYSlS (TANKA)

REF. SE-S-OO73C-TABLE6.4.6

. .. 3/19/82 3/19/82L3i22/82
• Date_'JSC#1 JSC #1. /<'/. /
. '_ " Sample--_
' ' Port ,Ambient Chilled

Parameter Units Ref. Limit

Conducti vi ty ismho - - -
' pH pH ' - ' -
Total Solids mg/l 2-Amb/lO Chilled - , , -.
Total Org Solids/Carbon mg/l ....
Taste and Odor - * - -
Turbidity NTU II max ....
True Color Units 15 max - -
_o Cadmium mg/l 0.01 max - -
' Chromium (hexavalent) mg/l 0.05 max - - _"
Copper mg/l l .0 max - -
Iron mg/l 0.3 max - -
• Lead mg/l 0.05 max - - :=
.." Manganese mg/l 0.05 max - -
Mercury mg/l 0.005 max ,- ._ -
'Nickel mg/l 0.05 max - i - -_
.... Selenium mg/l I1r ' 0.01 max ," I -
Silver mg/l . 0.I max -. ! -
Zinc mg/l ' 5.0 max - -
Dissolved Gas @31°C + None N/A N/A
Iodine • , m ' ' 1 .

Total ColiformBacteria #/lOOml o 0 0

Total Bacteria #/IOOml 0 4.6B, 132.6
B
Anaerobes + 0 0 0
Yeast and Mold #TlOOml '"' 0 1.3C 0

•None at threshold,no. of 3.
B. Flavobacteriumand Pseudomonas.
C. Rhodotorulaminuta var. texensis.
 TABLE 2

POSTFLIGHTSTS-3 POTABLEWATER ANALYSIS (TANKA)

REF. SE-S-OO73C-TABLE6.4.6

4/2/82 4/2/82 4/2/82 i 4/2)8-2.....

4/2/82 4/2/82
Date----_Postflt Postflt Postflt I.Postflt Postflt Postflt
Sample---_ I
Port-----_Ambient Chilled Ambient ! Chilled Ambient Chilled
WSTF WSTF JSC I JSC KSC KSC
Parameter Units Ref. Limit .. i

Conductivity Hmho - 4.0 4.6 6.8 ! 8.3 - -

pH pH - 4.7 .4.6 4,7 - i: 4.6 - -
Total Solids mg/l 2-Amb/iO Chilled - - lO l l.O 2.1 <2.0
Total Org Solids/Carbon mg/l - - - •- ! - - -
Taste and Odor - * - - D - I •E None None
Turbidity ' NTU II max - - _ i _ <ll <ll
True Color Units 15 max - - 50 !_ 50 i>15 _ >15

Cadmium.(hexavalent)
Chromium mg/l
mg/l O.Ol
0.05 max - -- <O.Ol
<0.05 <O.Ol
<0.05 <O.Ol
<0.05 'i <O.Ol
<0.05
" Copper mg/l l .0 max - - <l.0 ! <l.0 <l.0 <l.0
_ Iron mg/l 0.3 max - - <0,3 . i .<0.3 <0.3 <0.3
Lead _ mg/l 0.05 max - - <0.05 ....
<0,05 <0.05 <0.05
Manganese mg/l 0.05 max .... <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 I <0.05
Mercury " mg/l 0.005 max - - <0.005 <0.005 <0.00,5I <0.005
Nickel mg/l O.05max - - <0.05 .......
<0.05 <0.05 t <0.05
Selenium mg/l O.Ol max - - ..... .....
; <O.Ol <O.Ol
Silver mg/l O.l max - - <0.05 <0.05 <O.l _ <O.l
Zinc mg/l 5.0 max - - <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 , <5.0
DissolvedGas @31°C _+ None Nqne None N/A N/A N/A N/A
Iodine....... mg/l.... 4.7 5.4 7.0 7.4 N/A N/A

Total ColiformBacteria #/lOOml 0 .... '0 0

Total Bacteria #/lOOml 0 .... 91 F,G 3F
Anaerobes + 0 - - - - 0 0
Yeast and Mold #/lOOml 0 .... 0. 0

*None at threshold,no. of 3.
D. Chlorinetaste; odor #4.
E. Chlorinetaste; odor #17.
F. Pseudomonascepacia.
G. Pseudomonasalcaligenes,one Enterobacter.
 -12-

SHUTTLETOXICOLOGY : : :

Wayland J. Rippstein: _

An atmospheric sampling program is conducted to characterize the outgassing

behavior of the •Orbiter .... !-

Since an unusually high level of toluene was detected in atmospheric sampies

, returned from the STS-2 mission, two preflight samples were collected for
STS-3. These were collected at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) two weeks prior
to the STS-3 launch. Four atmospheric sampling cylinders were carried onboard
, STS-3 for inflight sampling purposes. The STS-3 crew collected samples just
after attaining orbit; just prior to deorbit; and on two occassions, equally
spaced, between the first and last sampling times.

Table I contains the analytical results of the two cabin atmospheric samples
taken just prior to the STS-3 launch. The main reason for taking these sam-
ples was to determine whether the toluene detected in the STS-2 mission was
still present at an elevated value. Toluene was detected in sample number 2,
but was present at a concentration of only 0.001 parts per million (ppm).
This level is of no consequence. Methane was present at 1.67 ppm and offered
no problem. The remaining 12 compounds were all well below the one part per
million level.

The only compoundspresent in concentrationsgreaterthan one part per million

were:

Compound Cabin Concentration SMAC*Value

i. carbon monoxide 2.28 ppm 25 ppm

2. methane 7.54 ppm 2700 ppm
3. bromotrifluoromethane (Halon 1301) 2.67 ppm i00 ppm
4. ethanol 1.21 ppm 50 ppm

*SMAC: spacecraft maximum allowable concentration.

The remaining36 compoundswere below the one part per million concentration
range. Evaluationof the 40 compounds using the toxicity group categories
method indicatedno hazard.

The results from the analysesof the two samplestaken just prior to the STS-3
mission proved that the Orbitercabin had been cleaned of the toluene detected
during the STS-3 mission. This may be accounted for by the new restrictions
imposedon the use of solventsin the cabin prior to the launch period.

The results from the analyses of the four samples taken during the STS-3 mis-
sion indicated the presence of 40 compounds. Four of these compounds were
present in concentrationsabove 1 part per million.

This is the first time that carbon monoxide reached the 2.28 ppm level. The
SMAC value for carbon monoxide is 25 ppm. STS-2 carbon monoxide stayed below
1 ppm while STS-2 carbon monoxide attained a high value of 1.02 ppm.

25
Halon 1301 was found in the last sample takenduring the STS-3 mission at 2.67
ppm. It was learned from the debriefing records that one of the Orbiter's
hand held fire extinguishingdevices had been purposely discharged into an
avionics bay area during the mission.

In conclusion,the STS-3 cabin atmospherepresentedno_toxic hazard during the

mission. It is also noteworthyto point out that the crew did not indicate
any odor problem during the STS-3 mission.

26
 TABLE1 _
STS-3 PREFLIGHTATMOSPHERICANALYSISa

COMPOUND SAMPLE1 SAMPLE2

• _ . .

Trichlorofluoromethane O.939 (0.167

) I.709 (0.304)

, 1,1,2-Trichl
oro-1,2,2-Trifluorethane 0.284 (0.037) 1.020 (0..133)

Ethanal 0.189 (0,105)

Propanal _ _ ° ..... 0.014 (0.006)

2-Propanone: <0.002(<0.001) 0.007 (0.003)

-Butanal
_ 0.026 (0.009)

2 -Butanone 0.006 (0.002)

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.005 (0.001) 0.016 (0.003)

Dichloromethane; 0.031 (0.009) 0.059 (0.017) :

2 _Propanol _ 0.005 (0,002)

_Benzene ill <0.003(<0.001) <0.003(<0.001)

Toluene . . <0.004 (<0.001)

CarbonMonoxide <0.057(0.05) 1.067 (1.631)

Methane 1.091 (1.668) 1.067 (1.631)

• aconcentrationsare in mg/m3, values in parenthesesare in p_

. _ • •

27
 RADIOLOGICAL
HEALTH

; Robert'G_i
Richmondand B.L. Cash_
.. ...

Manned spaceflightresults in exposure of astronautsto a radiation environ-

ment that is significantlymore complex than that normally associatedwith the
radiologicalIhealth environment,
for industrialworkers. , .

A record of all radiation exposure_receivedby the;astronautsismaintained as

part of the astronaut's medical record. The measured dose of radiation
encounteredby the space crew during each mission is added to the individual
crewman's medical record.

Permissibleradiationexposuresare provided for each mission on a risk versus

gain basis by the JSC RadiationConstraintsPanel. These exposurelimits are
entered into the Flight Rules which are used to govern the mission. The basis
for radiationprotectionstandardsfor space flight is provided in guidance by
the National Academy of Sciences.

A constant watch is maintainedto projectthe incidenceof potentiallyhazard-

ous radiationconditionswhich might occur during the mission. Incooperation
with the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministrationand the Departmentof
Defense, constant evaluationof space environmentis conducted._

The results from the radiation instrumentation measurements aboard the

Columbia, STS-3, March 22-30, 1982, are presented in-Table 1. This report
includes measurementsfrom the crew pocket dosimeters (CPD: low range, high
range, and high rate), the unshieldedthermoluminescentdosimeters(TLD). An
examination of the high energy-high atomic number (HZE) plastic detector
stacks was conducted althoughthe data will not be presentedhere.

The dosimeterswere placed in pouches which were stowed on the spacecraft.

The Crew Activities Plan.(CAP) called for the dosimeters to be deployed
throughoutthe spacecraftat L+8 hours.

Prior to the mission, backgroundreadings for each instrumentwere taken and

the procedure developed.for extrapolatinga value for the backgroundat the
time of the postflightreadout. This procedure was implementedas planned.
Data from the six low-rangepocket dosimetersare presentedin Table 1. These
data representthe corrected "flight doses", i.e., the dose attributedto the
spaceflightalone. The backgroundcorrectionthat has been made consistsof:
(1) residual charge imparted to the unit when zeroing it; (2) the leakage of
the charge with time; and (3) the recordingof the naturally-occurringradia-
tion background.

The measured doses from the CPD's are given in Table 1. The average flight
dose measured with the CPD's was 46.1 + 2.6 mRem. The CPD's worn by the
backup commanderand pilot were used to p_ovide backgroundcorrectionsfor the
CPD's worn by the commander and pilot. The averages of the two control CPD
doses were used to provide a background subtraction for the other flight
units.

28
 TABLE 1. SUMMARYOF RADIATIONMEASUREMENTS
FOR STS-3

TLD DOSE
(mRem) POCKET DOSIMETER
MEASURE}4ENT LOCATION TLD-200 TLD-700 DOSE (mRoentgen)
i
COMMANDER IN CLOTHING 41.5 47.1 NONE WORN

PILOT IN CLOTHING 45.0 45.9 NONE WORN

, POUCH 1 ON AIRLOCK, 48.7 49.0 57 + 3

ABOVE HATCH --

POUCH 2 ON OUTER WALL, 46.1 46.2 48 + 3

BEHIND & AFT DFI

POUCH 3 OUTER WALL, 40.7 44.4 53 + 3

ABOVE INGRESS/EGRESS
HATCH

POUCH 4 AFT, TOWARD 46.1 50.2 56 + 3

OF OBSERVATIONWINDOW

POUCH 5 ON CLOSEOUT PANEL, 50.4 44.4 55 + 3

ABOVE LOCKER L-IO

POUCH 6 ON CLOSEOUTPANEL, 45.2 46.0 58 + 3

ABOVE LOCKER R-11

i ...

29
 -14-

ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTSCF SHUTTLELAUNCHAND LANDING

AndrewPotter,Ph.D.

The environmentaleffectsof the exhaust cloud produced by the launch of STS-3

were monitored at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. Acidic mist and
dust from the cloud were the main focus. The monitoringprogram containedthe
followlng elements:

o Exhaust cloud model,used to predict heightand directionof the cloud and

surface concentrationsof dust and HCI.
w

o Monitoringstations,each includingpH paper, copper plates, HCI dosimeter

tubes, and a nucleoporefilter.

o Geomet units for gaseous HCI measurement.

o Air qualitymeasurements(03, SO2, etc.) prior to and during launch.

o Acoustic noise measurement.

o CIoud photography.

o Aircraft samplingof cloud particles.

o Post-flightwater, sediment and soil analyses of samples near the pad.

o Survey of benthic organisms on lagoons near the pad before and after
Iaunch.

o Survey of vegetationbefore and after launch.

Results and Discussion

Launch Exhaust Cloud Dynamics

STS-3 was launched at Cape Canaveral,Florida, on March 22, 1982, at 10:00

a.m. EST. The weather conditions at olaunch were partly cloudy skies with
surface_inds out of the southwest(240) at 3 knots. The surfacetemperature
was 26.1 C, with the relative humidity at 66%. The launch generateda cloud
of exhaust productswhich moved out to sea. The cloud was composed of alumi-
num oxide dust, liquid HCI aerosol, and gaseous HCI, plus a small amount of
dust swept up from the launch area. The launch cloud was observed and video
taped from the CIF Antenna Building, from which vantage point it appeared to
split into two parts at launch. One part traveled north from the flame trench
and went out to sea in a northeasterlydirection. The second part went south
for about one kilometer and then traveled east out to sea. An additional
video tape recordingof the cloud was made from UCS6, near the Vehicle Assem-
bly Building (VAB), and this recording indicated a similar cloud pattern. A
third recordingmade from the WildlifeLaboratoryarea, just south of Haulover
Canal, was of little value due to the poor visibilityat this site. Airborne
observersalso noted that the cloud split into two components,one at 1000 ft.

30
 .... ; .. o _ •, . .. ..... . .

and the other at about 2000 ft. Bothkground'basedand airborne measurements --°
were made of the cloud. Ground-basedmeasurementswere limited, since the
cloud traveled over land only a short distance before going outto sea. Air,
borne measurementsfollowedthe cloud for about 35 miles.

Surface MeasurementsPlan

The measurementplan for STS-3 differed from STS-1 and STS-2, in that it was
reduced in scope, with most of the measurement sites determined fromcloud
model predictionsprior to the launch, rather than at fixed locations. Meas-
-" - urements were made of gaseous HCI, atmosphericparticulates,acidicmist and
dust deposition,biologicalimpacts,temperatureand acoustic noise. Particle
size distributions,wind velocity and temperaturewere measured in the exhaust
" plume at the north edge of the launch pad. Video recordingsas well as still
photographs were made of the launch and exhaust cloud from several•vantage
-- points. - -

Effect of the Launch Cloud on the Surface •_

,, , . . .......

Since the cloud traveled quickly out to sea, the surface measurementsWere
confined to the pad area and the region between the pad and the beach.

.... The HCI dosimeterand HCI geomet data were not availableat the time of this o
report. However, the reactionof pH paper and copper plates at the pad sites
is indicativeof the HCI levels at these sites. The pH_paper showed bits of
dropletswith pH Values less than 1, and the copper plates were blackened•
from
exposure to HCI with pH values less than 1. _ •

. •. -_

i :

-. . . .

°
.... . • • _ • .

•- -..31.....

.o
 I. Report No. I 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

i
NASATM:58247
4. Title and Subtitle ....
I - .... 5. ReportDate
• : August:1982
•STS-3 Medical Report 6. Performing
Organization
Code

7. EDITORS ." 8. PerformingOrganizationReoortNo.

Sam L. Pool, M.D.; Philip C. Johnson Jr., M.D. and s-517
John A. Mason : - 10. Work Unit No,

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 199,89-00-00-72

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center
Houston, TX 77058 11. Contract or Grant-No.

.... 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

_2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address - Technical Memorandum

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14.Sponsoring
Agency
Code
Washington, D.C. 20546

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract - "

The medical operations report for STS-3, which includes a review of the health of the crew
before, during, and immediately after the third Shuttle orbital flight (March 22-30, 1982) is
presented. Areas reviewed include: health evaluation; medical debriefing of crewmembers;
health stabilization program; medical training; medical "kit" carried in flight; tests and
countermeasures for space motion sickness; cardiovascular profile; biochemistry and endocrin-
ology results;hematologyand immunologyanalyses;medicalmicrobiology;food and nutrition;
potablewater; Shuttletoxicology;radiologicalhealth;cabin acousticalnoise. Also includ-
ed is informationon: environmentaleffectsof Shuttlelaunch and landing,medical informa-
tion management;and management,planning,and implementationof the medicalprogram.

17. Key Words (Suggestedby Author(s)

Toxicology RadiationHazards
AcousticNoise EnvironmentalEffects
MedicalScience Nutrition
flanagement,Planning Crews (Health)
Medicine Motion Sickness
Cardiovascular System Water
Training Simulators Hematology/Immunol
ogy
Biochemistry/Endocrinology
Microbiology
Food
lB. Distribution Statement

Unclassified- Unlimited
Subject Category: 51

19. _urity Ctassif.(of this report) I 20. Security Classif.(of this page) 21. No. of Pages i 22. Price"
Uncl assi fied I Unclassi fied 37 I
"For sale by the National Technical Information Service,Springfield, Virginia 22161
J_C Fo*'m 1424 (ReN NOV 75) NASA -- JSC