Results of the Project Mercury Ballistic and Orbital Chimpan

8/8/2019 Results of the Project Mercury Ballistic and Orbital Chimpan

1/75


2/75

\ PSSLTTS OF THE

NASA SP-39

PROJECTMERCURYBALLISTICANDORBITALCHIMPANZEEFLIGHTS,

Edited byJames P. Henry&LR&h.R andJohn D. Mosely-) 3 lkyi \

M ann e d Spac e c r a f t Ce nte r , Hou s ton , Texfs ,,/. /J w 4 J - - .-- v

Chjb.L.L+ dtltJ 5 f l 1 4 6 3/7 7 4 -4Officeof Scientific and Technical InformationNATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

1963

Washington,D.C.


3/75

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe results presented in this report comprise a team effort

requiring, in addition to the authors of the various sections, thecollaboration of a large number of people in various disciplines.Too many contributed to mention everyone. However, thefollowing must be cited: From the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, Manned Spacecraft Center, Dr. tanley C . White,Mr. Richard S. Johnston, and Mr. Charles D. Wheelwright; fromthe 6571st Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Lt. Col.Rufus Hessberg, Lt. Col. H. Blackshear and, especially, MasterSgt. E. C. Dittrnar; from Walter Reed Army Institute of Research,Maj. Joseph V. Brady and 2d Lt. Bernard Migler; from IndianaUniversity Medical Center, Dr. Charles B. Ferster; from theWenner-Gren Aeronautical Research Laboratory, University ofKentucky, Dr. F. C. Clark and Dr. K . 0. Lange; and from theMcDonnell Aircraft Company, Mr. Earl Younger, Mr. DaleBennett, Mr. G. Stephens, and Mr. James McAllister. The manyairmen and technicians of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration, the U.S. Air Force, and the McDonnell AircraftCompany whose unstinting cooperation was necessary for thecompletion of this task will be remembered with appreciation.

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OtliceWashington, D.C., 20402 - Price 45 cents..11


4/75

FOREWORDThis publication presents a full account of the flights of the Project Mercury

chimpanzees, from program planning through launch and recovery operations.A detailed account of training techniques, in-flight measurements, and post-flight evaluation procedures is given. The suborbital ballistic flight of Hamon January 31,1961, was the prelude to Alan B. Shepards suborbital space flight,while the orbital flight of Enos on November 29, 1961, preceded the flightof Astronaut John H. Glenn.

The fact that we now categorize these events as belonging to the ratherdistant past, although they occurred only about two years ago, serves to em-phasize the pace of development in the exploration of space. While the chim-panzee program may pale in the light of subsequent successes, its scientific andtechnological contribution should not be overlooked.

The significance of this project can be fully appreciated, and its contributionjudged, only within the context of knowledge existing a t the time of its con-ception. In addition to i ts essential training function, it verified the feasibilityof manned space flight through operational tests of the Mercury life-supportsystem. It demonstrated that complex behavioral processes and basic physio-logical functions remained essentially unperturbed during brief exposures tospace flight. The Mercury Chimpanzee Program marked the first time thatphysiological and behavioral assessment techniques were combined for evaluat-ing the functional efficiency of the total organism in space.

Perhaps the ultimate contribution of this program, however, was in pro-viding the technological framework of knowledge upon which future scientificexperiments on biological organisms, exposed to flights of extended durations,must be based. Biosatellite experiments designed to seek more subtle andelusive effects of prolonged space flight on biological functioning will requireeven more refined and difficult techniques, but will depend heavily on the tech-nological groundwork laid in these early steps of Project Mercury.

RICHARD . BELLEVILLFIChief, Behavioral BiologyBioscience ProgramsOfice of Space Sciences

...I l l


5/75

Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pllgc..11.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Foreword.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viPreface1. Synopsis of the Results of the MR-2 and MA-5 Flights.. . . . . . . . . . .

James P . Henry3. Antecedents and Planning Aspects of the MR-2 Flight.. . . . . . . . . . . .James P . Henry and John D . Mosely

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. MR-2 Operations.Norman E. Stingely, John D . Mostly, nd Charles D. -hetiwight

4. Behavioral Apparatus for the MR-2 and MA-5 Flights. . . . . . . . . . . . 15E . J. Brown and R. D . Iwan5. Performance Aspects of the MR-2 Flight.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Frederick H . Robles, Jr. , Marvin E . &n&, and Richard E . Bellevillc6 . Medical and Physiological Aspects of the MR-2 Flight. . . . . . . . . . . . 25Wil l iam E . Ward and Wil l iam E. &i q, Jr .7. Summary of Results of the MR-2 Flight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33John D . Mostly andJ a m s P . Hemy8. MA-5 Operations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

N m n . Stingely and John D . Mostly9. Performance Aspects of the MA-5 Fl ight .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Frederick H . Robles, Jr., Marvin E . Gtrnlpc, and Hcrbnt H . Rgnolds

10. Medical and Physiological Aspects of the MA-5 Fl ight .. . . . . . . . . . . 53Will iam E . Ward11. Blood Pressure Instrumentation for the MA-5 Flight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59John P . Meeban, Jewy Fineg, and Charles D . Wheelwright12. Summary of the Results of the MA-5 Fl ight .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69John D . Mostly and James P . Henty

V


6/75

PREFACEThis document presents a compilation of papers reporting t he

results of the ba lhtic, or Mercury-Redstone 2 (MR-2), flight andof the orbital, or Mercury-Atlas 5 (MA-5), flight conducted wi thchimpanzees as subjects by the Manned Spacecraft Center of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration. The MR-2flight with the chimpanzee Ham, as a subject was conductedon January 31, 1961; and the MA-5 flight wi th the chimpanzeeEnos, Inboth of these flights, the animals were handled in accordance withthe Principles of Laboratory Animal Care established by theNational Society for Medical Research.

,, as a subject was conducted on November 29, 1961.

vi


7/75

1. SYNOPSIS OF THE RESULTS

In April 1959, an animal test program with thefollowing objectives was established for ProjectMercury:(1) Provision of animal verification of a successfulspace flight prior to m anned flight.(2) Provision of data on the physical and psycho-

logical demands which were to be encountered bythe astronauts during space fl ight .(3) Frovision of a dynamic test of operationai pro-cedures and training of support personnel in handlingthe biomedical program for manned flight.(4) Evaluation of the spacecraft environmentalcontrol system and bioinstrumentation under flightconditions.The three sensory modalities most concerned withthe weightless state are: vision, proprioception, andthe labyr in th . Of these, i t is pr imari ly the otol i ths

in the labyrinth that lose their normal input duringthe w eightless s tate . T he tests were performed duringthe M ercury animal f l ights to ascertain whether therestrained animal, retaining visual and kinestheticreferences, could respond normally during weightless-ness to a series of problem s graded in difficulty and inmotivat ion. Th e animal was t rained t o respond on aschedule th at involved mild punishment for error. Inadditio n, a reward system, in th e form of food pelletsand drink s of wate r, was provided. Th e purpose ofthe schedule was both to determine whether therewas a loss of appetite for food or water and, also, toestablish that eating and drinking could be carriedout normally in the weightless s tate . Th e bioinstru-mentation resembled, as closely as possible, that usedin th e human Mercury f l ights for whic h these animalflights were to be introductions. One importantadd ition for the MA-5 flight wa s th e use of a specialinstrumen tation package by which onboard recordingswould be made from both the low (venous) and high-pressure (arterial) systems of the circulation beforeand during flight.

MR-2 AND MA-5 FLIGHTSByJames P. Henry, M.D., Ph. D.*

The comprehensive series of operant tasks in volvingboth reward and avoidance was based primarily onth e principles and techniques established b y Sk inner,Ferster (refs. 1 an d 2), and Sidman (refs. 3 an d 4).Originally, the feasibility of applying such tech-niques-which had already been worke d ou t for thepigeon, rat and monkey-to th e chimpanzee wa sproblematical since previous operant studies of theseaiiimals had not used avoidance conditioning. it isone of the accomplishments of the animal programth at solut ions to the various problems in comparat ivepsychology were so rapidly found and that a highlyeffective and complex series of in-fhght tasks wasdeveloped and successfully used in space.Methods

The techniques employed to adapt the chimpanzeeto the Mercury spacecraft, the methods by w hich theoperation s of preparing the animal and delivering h imin the ready s ta te to the gant ry a t launch time werecarried out, and a medical account of prelaunchpreparations and recovery and postrecovery care arepresented in th is report.Results

Results are also presented in th e body of th e report.They show tha t :(1). Pulse and respiration rates, during both theballistic (MR-2) and th e orbita l (MA-5) flights,

remained within normal l imits throughout theweigh tless stat e. Effectiveness of hea rt action , asevaluated from the electrocardiograms and pressurerecords, was also unaffected by the flights.( 2 ) Blood pressures, in both the systemic arterialtree and the low-pressure system, were not signifi-

>

Co lon el, Aerospace Medicine Division, Brooks Air Force Bax ,Tcx.,with permanent duty station at Department of Physiolgy,University of Southern California, Los Angcles, C alif. (formerly atNASA Manned Spacecraft Gnter).

1


8/75

cantly changed from preflight values during 3 hoursof the weightless s ta te .(3) Performance of a series of tasks invo lving con-tinuous and discrete avoidance, fixed ratio responsesfor food reward, delayed response for a fluid reward,and solution of a simple oddity problem, wasunaffected by t he weigh tless state.(4) Animals trained in th e laboratory t o performduring the simulated acceleration, noise, and vibra-tion of launch and reentry were able to maintainperformance throug hout an actual fl ight.

ConclusionsFrom th e results of the MR-2 and MA-5 flights, thefollowing conclusions were draw n :(1) Th e numerous objectives of the Mercury animaltest program were met. The MR-2 and MA-5 testspreceded the first ballistic and orbital manned flights,respectively, and provided valuable training in count-

down procedures and range monitoring and recoverytechniques. Th e bioinstrum entation w as effectivelytested and the adequacy of the environmental controlsystem w as dem onstrated.(2) A 7-m inute (MR-2) and a 3-hour (MA-5) ex-posure to the w eightless s tate were experienced by thesubjects in the context of an experimental designwhich left visual and tactile references unimpaired.

There was no significant change in the animals phys-iological state or performance as measured during aseries of task s of graded m otivatio n and difficulty.(3) Th e results met program objectives by answer-ing questions concerning the physical and mental de-mands that the as t ronauts would encounter dur ingspace flight and by showing t ha t these demands wouldno t be excessive.(4) An incidental gain from the program was thedemonstra t ion that the young chimpanzee can betrained to be a high ly reliable subject for spac eflig htstudies.

References1. Skinner, B. F.: The Behavior of Organisms.Appleton-Century-Croft (New York), 1938.2. Ferster, C. B., and Skinner, B. F.: Schedules ofReinforcement. Appleton-Century-Croft (NewYork), 1957.3 . Sidman, Murry: Avoidance Condi t ioning withBrief Shocks and No Exteroceptive WarningSign al. Science, vo l. 118, no. 3057, 1953, pp.4. Sidman, Mu rry : Time Discrimination and Behav-ioral Interaction in a Free Operant Situation.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psy-chology, vol. 49, 1956, pp. 46F.473.

157-158.

2


9/75

2. ANTECEDENTS AND PLANNING ASPECTS

Experimental bioastronautics began with the useof animals in the la te 1940's and evolved in an atmos-phere of sharp distinction from aviation medicine inw hic h-a nim als have been used m ainly for on-the-ground support research. A number of ballisticflights with animals were accomplished with encour-aging results during the period from 1948 to 1958.In 1959, with the initiation of the Mercury man-in-space program it was decided by the National Aero-nautics and Space Adm inistration th at animals shouldbe employed to test the adequacy of the var ioussystems used to support l ife. Th e intention wa s notto m ak e extensive physiological studies of th e effectsof the w eight less s ta te , but ra ther to use animals toensure the adequacy of t h e life-support systems.Little Joe F light

Th e first step in th e attem pt a t animal Verificationof the adequacy of the Mercury flight program wasthe development of two tests in collaboration withth e U.S. ir Force School of Aviation Medicine inwhich there would be a biomedical evaluation of theaccelerations expected during the abort of a Mercuryflight a t lift-off and shor tly after lift-off. Theseflights were to be launched at the NASA WallopsS ta tion wi th a "L i t t l e Joe" solid-fuel launch vehicle.T w o L i t t le Joe firings were made with activationof the escape rockets during t he boost phase to securemaximum acceleration, and only a brief period ofweightlessness wa s attained. Th e first f ir ing wa s onDecember 4, 1959, and th e oth er on January 21,1960.A 36- by 18-inch sealed, 125-pound7 cylindricalcapsule containing the subject, an &pound Mucummaluttu (monkey), the necessary life support systemand associated instrumentation w as flown in a ** bo ile rplate" model of th e Mercury spacecraft . A detailedreport was prepared by the U.S. Air Force School ofAe rospace M edici ne. (See ref. 1.)

696-439 0 63 - 2

of theMR-2 FLIGHTBy James P. Henry, M . D . , Ph. D .,* and

John D. Mosely, D.V.M .**Chimpanzee Flight Program Planning

Immediate ly following in i t ia t ion of th e L i t t le Joebiopack program, a meeting was held at NASAManned Spacecraft Center on April 13 and 14, 1959,to plan a fu rther series of flight tests of full-scale space-craft containing animals in which observations couldbe made of the effects of long-range ballistic andurbiiai flights.(1) T o provide anim al verification of the feasibili tyof a manned flight.(2) To provide data on the level of mental andphysical activity which could be expected during theflight.(3) To provide a dynamic test of countdown proce-dures and training of support personnel in handling

the biological aspects of manned flight.The above mentioned planning grou p wa s composedof representatives of the McDonnell Aircraft Com-pany, NASA Manned Spacecraft Center, and Navy,Army, and Air Force biomedical specialists. It w asagreed that the existing Mercury spacecraft l ife support, environmental control, and instrumen tation sys-tems should be used w ith ou t modification in all tests.Th e 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory at H ollo-man Air Force Base was assigned the responsibilityfor the training of the animals, their preparation forth e flight, and their h andling after recovery. AManned Spacecraft Center representative w as assignedas coordinator to insure integration of animal flightsinto the overall fl ight program and t o insure coopera-tion of all organizations required to support the pro-gram. In order to provide the highest level of per-formance short of a human, i t was decided that

-1rn e purposes oi these studies w ere:

*Colonel, Aerospace Mcdicinc Division, Brooks Air Force Basc,Tex.,with permanent duty station at Department of Physiology,University of Southcrn California, h s ngclcs, Calif. (formerlyat Manned Spacecraft Gntcr).

"Major, U.S . Air Force, School of Veterinary Medicine, OhioState University, Columbus, O hio.

3


10/75

chimpanzees should be used because of them size andphysical similarity to man. Restraint would beminimal to perm it performance of psychomotor tests.The electrocardiogram, body temperature, and respi-ratory movements would be recorded by the sametechniques as those used for the man. If possible,arterial pressure wo uld be recorded. Urine wo uld besaved for a study of steroid output and there wouldbe photography of the subject. At tha t t ime, it w asdecided that various types of performance would berequired of the subjects to simulate the tasks of th ehuman operator . They would involve s imple m otormovements of the arms and hands, discriminations ofvisual signals, and acts requiring judgme nt. In thelonger orbital f l ight, th e difficulty of th e task wouldbe raised to a level tha t would approximate the m anstask as closely as possible within the animals capa-bility. Th e effect of the flights upon the animalsperformance would be measured during flight andwould be determined by preflight and postflightstudies.The three military services of the Department ofDefense accepted t he M anne d Spacecraft Ce nters posi-tion and further agreed th at all services wou ld supportthe Aeromedical Research Laboratory insofar aspractical.Although the Aeromedical Research Laboratory(AMRL) had animals, veterinarians, and spacephysiologists, i t had, a t that t ime, no facilities toobtain behavioral measurements of these animals;therefore, several chimpanzees were trained un der acontract w ith the W enner-Gren Aeronautical ResearchLaboratory, University of Kentucky. In addition,the Air Force transferred, to t he AM RL in whole, theanimal performance facility and personnel of theUnusual Environments Section, Aerospace MedicalLaboratory, Aerospace Systems Division, Dayton,Oh io. Before this group arrived in August 1959,arrangements were made wi th t he W alter Reed A rmyInst itute of Research to aid th e preliminary establish-ment of the Comparative Psychology Branch atAMR L . As soon as possible after th e establishm entof the Comparative Psychology Branch, the trainingof eight chimpanzees began w ith the use of standardoperant conditioning equipment and special restraintchairs.Development Phases

Soon after assignment of the animal program to t heAeromedical Research Laboratory, the Laboratorybegan a series of meetings with representatives of theMa nned Spacecraft Center and the McD onnell A ircraft

Corporation. The first hurdle wa s to provide environ-mental support for the chimpanzee subject in theProject Mercury spacecraft . There are tw o loops inthe environmental control system, one for the space-craft cabin, and one for the astronaut pressure suit .The NASA decis ion was to use the chimpanzee toevaluate the sui t environmental control loop. W iththis decision, i t was feasible to design a couch to fitthe chimpanzee and put a cover on th i s couch w hichthen could be sealed. Th is s imulated the as t ron autpressure suit w it h the faceplate closed. (See figs. 2-1and 2 - 2 . ) Th e deta ils of the psychomotor apparatusare discussed in section 4 of this series of papers. Ofgreat importance is the fact tha t , in keeping w ith th epolicy of noninterference w it h th e Mercury spacecraft ,in the final design the programing apparatus was tobe completely within the chimpanzee couch and torequire from th e spacecraft system on ly th e pow er forits operation.In order to condition the animal realistically to hissurroundings, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation fabri-cated six train ing couches identical to the flight couchw i th the excep tion tha t they were to be used at am-bient atmospheric pressure and that the psychomotorapparatus would be programed w ith s tandard labora-tory equipment . In addi t ion , the McD onnel l AircraftCorporation furnished four plywood mockups of theMercury spacecraft in order to simulate the physicalsurroundings of the couch. Th e mo ckups includedreplicas of th e astronaut panel and panel l ig hts .A t the same t ime th at t ra ining w as progress ing, th eVeterinary Services Branch of the Aeromedical Re-search Laboratory began collecting normal baselineda ta on the entire colony of immature chimpanzees.These data consisted of complete physical examina-tions, including X-rays at specified intervals; and inaddition, ex aminations were made im med iately beforeand after any work session or aircraft f l ight of theanimal. Data were gathered on normal blood andurine values; X-rays were taken; and blood pressure,respiration, and heart rate were measured at regularintervals. At this time, because postlanding tem-peratures were in the critical zone, the Ecology Sec-tion of the Bio-Astronautics Branch began thermal-humidity experiments to determine the temperatureand humidity tolerance of the chimpanzees. Detailsof the method of restraint were worked out by theAeromedical Research Laboratory and the restraintsuits were designed and fabricated by the AerospaceMedical Laboratory, Aeronautical Systems Division,Dayton, O hio . A series of simulated flights werethen conducted on the centrifuge at the AerospaceMedical Laboratory to determine t he effects of accel-

4


11/75

FIGURE-1.-Diagam of the locatio n of the animal pressurized couch within t he Mercury spacecraft and the placement of the per-formance test panel within the couch. Immediately to the right of the thrcc levers are th e spring loaded fingers that present thespecial banana-flavored reward pellets. In the rectangles above the levers, the colorcd lights and symbols are displayed. Thewa ter dispenser is not depicted but l ies to the r igh t of the animal 's head in the top portion of the couch.

5


12/75

eration and vibration on th e chimpanzee, to acclimatethe animals to t he flight conditions, and also to evalu-ate t he complete chimpanzee-couch system.The medical recovery plans were formulated byManned Spacecraft Center, the Office of the StaffSurgeon, Patrick Air Force Base, and the AeromedicalResearch Laboratory. Veterinary officers and veteri-nary technicians of the U.S. Army and the U.S. AirForce were selected and sent in small groups t o t h eAeromedical Research Labora tory for 2 weeks trainingin the care and handling of chimpanzees. A total of35 veterinary technicians and 10 veterinary officerswere so trained.Th e prelaunch operation began on January 2 , 1961,when 20 officers and airmen of the Aeromedical Re-

search Lab oratory flew from H ollom an Air Force Baseto Cape Canaveral with 6 chimpanzees and the nec-essary sup port equipment. The animals were movedimmediately upon arrival into an aeromedical vancomplex which had in the meantime been preparedfor them and placed within the fence of Hangar S onthe Atlantic Missile Range.Reference1. Green, Cloid D., U'elch, B. E., et a l.: Studiesof Escape from Ballistic Space Vehicles-I. Bio-medical Evaluation.cine, Brooks Air Force Base Rep . 61-29, A pr .1961.

School of Aviation Medi-,

FIGURE-t.-Display of the ball ist ic f l ight couch show ing on the left of the pic ture th e couch proper w i th th e tabs and adjus tmentsfor at taching the subject 's restraint sui t . The nylon lac ing adjus tment can beseen. Th e hand access cover canbe seen at t he base of the l id . On the r ight and below are thediaper and nylon waist panel used for separat ing the anima l from his rectal probe. Above on the sheet are the tw o psychomotorst imulus plates contoured to fit the soles of the feet , the respiratory sensor, rectal probe, and the EC G sensors all connected toa plug w hich in turn f i ts into a receptacle on the basc nf the couch on the lef t of the photograph.

Th e suit is shown immediately b elow th e couch.On the r ight i s the couch lid containing the bali ist ic psychomotor apparatus and two levers.I t f its o ver a h ole seen above and to the left of the whi te l ever.

6


13/75

3. MR-2 OPERATIONSBy Norman E. Stingely,*

John D. Mosely, D.V.M.,**andCharles D. Wheelwright***

Prelaunch ActivitiesThe an ima l o p a t i o n s a t Cape Canave ra l, F lo ri da,for th e MR-2 f l ight began January 2, 1961, w i t h t h earrival of 6 chimpanzee subjects and 20 scientific andtechnical personnel. T he early arrival, 29 days priorto the launch date, was required to s tabi l ize the

The medical van was equipped as a combined clin-ical and surgical facility for physical examination,clinical lab orato ry analysis, minor surgery, and treat-ment of illness or injury. It was also used for theinstallation of the various biosensors, the restraintgarment, and placement of th e animal in th e couch.animal subjects, to enable the preparat ion team topractice with the animal and its flight apparatus, andt o perform spacecraft systems checkouts with chim-panzee subjects. A minimum of 21 days for subjectacciimatization was deemed necessary to give thechimpanzees tim e to adapt t o th e change in environ-ment. (The altitud e at Hollom an Air Force Base,N. Mex., is approximately 4,000 feet above sea levelasopposed to th e sea-level altitude at C ape Canaveral,Fla.)Th e facilities for quartering, training , and preparingthe subjects for flight consisted of seven trailers(two caging, two training, one medical, one transfer,and a house trailer) located in a fenced enclosureadjacent to Hangar S at Cape Canaveral, Florida.(See fig. 3-1.) T he basic requirements and th edesigns of th e interior fo r these vans were formulatedby the M anned Spacecraft Center wit h the cooperat ionof the Aeromedical Research Labora tory. The vanswere designed, engineered, and supplied by NASAManned Spacecraft Center (ref. 1). One caging andone training van were connected front to front intrain couple fashion which provided two identicalcaging-training units. In order to avoid a possiblespread of disease, ;he chimpanzees were separa ted,three animals to each caging-training unit , withseparate provision for food stora ge and food prepara-t ion.

Each training van had two training cubicles andone Mercury spacecraft mockup to simulate isolationcondit ions of th e Mercury f l ight wh ile th e chimpanzeesubjects maintained the ir proficiency on the psycho-mo tor performance tasks . (See section 4.) Duringthe preflight period 29 training sessions wereconducted.

The transfer van was designed to accommodateeither a man or a chimpanzee subject in the couchwhile enroute from the Hangar S complex to th elaunch pad. In addition, i t EYE lsed fcr ch:ckontof the physiological sensors and psychomotor appa-ratus and for testing the pressurized couch to deter-mine if it w as in a flight-ready c ondition. An e ight -channel Sanborn 350 ecorder was used for th e physio-logical and psycho logical performance checks and torecord preliminary flight data. A Firewell pressure-sui t test console with air supply was used for thepressure check of th e chimpanzee couch an d to sustainthe subject while in the t ransfer van. A portableliquid-oxygen supply was used for sustaining thesubject while moving from the transfer van up to th egantry and in to th e spacecraft.

The animal complex was manned at all times tomaintain continuous observat ion of th e anima l colony,to detect any illness, and to preclude any emergencycondition, such as faulty temperature regulation inth e caging vans. The house trai ler served to housepersonnel on duty at night and was used as an officefo r the operat ion.

Five practice countdowns were conducted by themedical preparation team for the MR-2 f l ight. Theyconsisted of preparing the subject and couch, and pro-ceeding up the gantry . T he couch w as placed outsideor inserted into the spacecraft and connected to th espacecraft environm ental co ntro l system (ECS) andelectrical system. One countdown was performed fora telemetry check, one fo r a spacecraft-pressure check,

Captain, U.S.Air Fora.**Major, U.S. Air Force, School of Veterinary Medicine, Ohio-NASA Manned Spzcecraft Center.

State University, Columbus, Ohio.

7


14/75

S u r g i c a l T r a n s f o r m e r W a l l c a b i n e t s A i rt a bl e X - r a y w o r k a r e a c o n d i t i o n e r

Desk

A i rc o n d i t i o n e r

I / I I / /I 1 lo1

M e d i c a l v a n

- LI7- E

/ /M e d i c a l S t a i n l e s sS u i g ic a l C e n t h u g e W a lli n s t r u m e n t t ab le \ /

Ca g i nCages

x

c a b i n e t s

- i o p a cka r e a

A i r- c o n d i t i o n e r

-Desk

d

F i l md e v e l o p i n g T r a c t o r

P s y c h o m o t o rc u b i c l e sI

G e n e r a t o r Desk

\T r a n s f e r v a n B i o s e n s o r p a n e l

w r i t e o u tA i r

c o n d i t i o n e r -

A i rc o n d i t i o n e r

C h e m t o i l e t -

- ox-a i r t a b le- De sk a re aB o p a ck-

Ca g e s-4o u s e t r a i l e r .FIGURE-1.-Animal van complex for the MR-2 and MA-5 flights. Each van measured 28 by 8 feet.


15/75

one for a radio-frequency com patibility test, and tw owere simulated flights.Flight Preparation and Insertion

The flight preparation and insertion of the couchin to th e spacecraft was performed in a two-part count-do w n. Th e time-consuming operations, such as th ephysical examination of all potential flight subjectsand a complete checkout of all animal preparationequipment were performed on T-1 day; the actualanimal preparation took place on T day. Th e se-quence of events as the y occurred, w it h times expressedas Eastern Standard, are presented in the followingparagraphs.T-1 Day (January 30, 1961)

The act ivi t ies of the day pr ior to the flight wereas follows:Ground support equipment.-The foll ow ing che cks ofground support equipment were made at 8:OO a.m.(T-26 hr 54 rnin):1 . All vans w ere checked to see i f the ECC~SSIC-'equipment and supplies were available and in theirproper place.J

2. A check of all test equipment wa s initiated.3. The pressure-suit console and air supply werechecked for proper operation.Flight equipmcnt.-At 8:OO a.m. (T-26 hr 54 min)the three available flight couches and sensor cableswere checked to see that the ECG leads, respirationsensors, rectal temperature thermistors, and psycho-

mo tor programers functioned wi thi n specifications.A t 2 a .m. (T-20 hr 54 min), restraint suits andcouch attachments were selected and fitted to theflight and backup subjects. The y were then placedin their respective flight couches and fitted to them.Diet an d feeding schedule (all animIs).-All subjectswere placed on a diet and feeding schedule at T-26hr 54 min. A t th at time, each subject received 15comm ercial food pellets. and one -fourth of a n orang e.All subjects received 12 ounces of a lo w b ulk d iet a t2:OO p .m . (T-20 h r 54 min) and again at 8:OO p.m.(T-14 h r 54 min).Clinical studies.-The fol low ing clinic al stud ies we reconducted a t 8:OO a.m. (T-26 hr 54 min):1. Blood and urine samples for analysis andM etabo lic Profile Studies were collected and processed.2. A com prehensive clinical ECG and overall bodyX-rays were conducted.Water intake.-Water in tak e wa s lim ited to a totalof 800 cc from T-24 hours thr ou gh recovery.Physical examination.-A com plete phy sical exam i-nation was given t o each of the four primary subjects

a t 8:OO a.m . (T-26 h r 54 rnin). Th e physical exami-nation included a check of body weight, rectaltemperature, blood pressure, pulse, respiration, skin,eyes, ears, nose, mouth and throat, chest, abdomen,and extremities.At th e completion of th e physical examination, th eflight and back up anima ls were chosen. Th is decisionwas based on the veterinarian's judgment, t he physicalcondition of the animals, and the psychologist 'sevaluation of the animal's psychomotor performanceability.

T Day (January 31, 1961)The chronological events of the launch day are asfollows :1:15 a.m . (T-9 hr 36 mi#).-A phy sical exa m ina tio nof the flight subjects was again conducted, and physio-logical sensors, disposable diapers, and plastic water-proof pants were placed on the subject .1:45 a.m. (T-9 hr 6 min).-An op era tio nal tes t ofthe attached sensors was made in the medical van.

L I I C clcLtricai resistance of t h e ECG leads was checkedto insure compatability with the spacecraft ECG am-plifiers. A telethermometer was used to test theoperation of th e rectal temperature thermistor.2.Q3 a.m . (T-8 br 51 min).-The sub ject w as placedin the prefitted su it and zipped and laced in t he couch(figs. 2-2 and 3-2). Th e res trai nt sui t consisted ofnylon webbing reinforced by nylon tape at the cuffsand other points of stress. Th e suit which w asdeveloped by the Aeromedical Research Laboratorypersonnel and fabricated by the Aeronautical SystemsDivision represented a modification of suits previouslyused in chim panze e research. (See ref. 2.) Provisionswere made for expansion of the suit to compensatefor growth of the subject by zipping the suit to pre-attached leg and torso tabs. Loose restrain t of thelegs with nylon cord completed the couch restraint.Psychomotor s t imulus plates were at tached t o the soleof each foot and were electrically checked for con-tinuity. Th e panel, designed to prevent th e subjectfrom reaching the sensor leads, was plugged into thecouch base.2:31 a.m. (T-8 hr 20 mi#).-The fligh t sub jects andcouch base were moved to th e transfer van. Immeldiately thereafter, the backup subject was moved tothe medical van and prepared t o the same point as theflight subject. Th e flight subject and com plete couchwere weighed and ballasted to a prearranged total of95.45 pounds. Th e instrumentat ion with in the couchwas then attached t o the Sanborn recording equipmentand a check made for normal ECG and respirationwaveforms and for rectal temperature. Respiration

9

TL. . - l - -


16/75

FIGURE-2.-Animal in couch (compare wit h fig. 2-2). Thelacing on the arms to fit the adjustable nylon restraint suitis visible. The waist panel with its zipper which isattached to t h e couch lid ca n also bc sccn.

rate, heart rate, and rectal temperature were recordedevery 5 minutes , both to moni tor the subject and toplo t trend datn to aid th e fiight control surgeons indetermining the subjects flight readiness.The digi tal counters on the psychomotor programerwere read and recorded, and the couch lid was elec-tr ically connected t o th e couch base and loosely placedupon i t wi tho ut t ightenin g the pressure seat . Powerwas appl ied to the psychomotor programer , and theprogramer was checked to ascer tain that the r ight-and left-hand levers produced a signal each time t heywere depressed and that a pulse appeared with everypresentation of shock and blue light.

3:02 a.m. (T-7 hr 5.2 #in).-The flight and ba cku psubjects received 8 ounces of th e prescribed di et. T h elid t iedown bolts were all torqued to 15 inch-pounds.The inlet and out let ai r hoses were at tached to thecouch and a flow of air wa s initiate d. The couch

portho le covers were attac hed and torqued t o 10 inch-pounds. Leakage was checked by pressurizing thecouch to 5 psi and recording any pressure drop. Th eleak rate was below 50 cc per minute, the lowest thatcould be read on the pre ssuresu it test console. Fif-teen minutes of -psychomotor performance data werecollected du ring this procedure. Th e couch pressurewas then returned to ambient and the subject wasvent i lated with an ai r f low of 75 t o 100 l i ters perminute unt i l he was moved up the gantry . The sub-ject remained on s tandby in the t ransfer van at theanimal complex until directed by the blockhousesurgeon t o move to t he l aunch pad .5:04 a.m. (T-5 br SO #in).-The transfer van w asdirected t o move to th e launch pad and ar r ived a t5:29 a.m.6.95 a . m . (T-4 hr 49 #in).-The subject and co uc hwere switched f rom the t ransfer van a i r supply to th epor table l iquid-oxygen supply, moved up th e gan try,inserted into the spacecraft , and connected to t h e

ECS and electrical system. The phys iological m oni-rxir?g of the fl ight subject was then switched to t h eblockhouse.

Immediately after the departure of the fl ight subject,the backup subject was placed in the transfer van.Th e subject and couch were checked by th e same pro-cedure as that for the primary subject and placed ons tandby.ECS monitorzng.-The ECS w as m on ito red by adirect l ine to the blockhouse wh ile a f inal bubble-leakcheck was performed in th e spacecraft at t he junctionof the inlet and outlet ECS hoses. Thre e recordings

were made of the psychom otor responses a t the block -house before the spacecraft hatch closure was com-pleted. Th e duration s of these checks were 1minute57 seconds, 3 minutes 40 seconds, and 1minute .Before the gantry was removed, the transfer vanwas moved t o an adjacent blockhouse. Moni to r ingof the backup subject in the transfer van continuedunt il T-30 minutes wh en all personnel and thebackup subject and couch with por table ai r supplywere moved into this blockhouse.Hatch closure was completed at 7:lO a.m. and thegant ry was r emoved a t 8 :05 a .m. A t 9 0 8 a . m . th ecount was recycled, the gantry returned, and thehatc h opened t o cool an inverter.

performed a t an accelerated pace. Portions of th ecount were not repeated. Again three psychomotorrecordings were made in the recycled cou nt. Th eduratio n of these checks were of 2 minutes 4 seconds,1 minute 38 seconds, and 1 minute 50 seconds. The

Th e coiint was resumed a t T--2 hr (10:15 a . m . > nd

10


17/75

last check began just prior to lift-off and continuedin flight.Lift-tf.-Lift-off occurred a t 1 1 5 4 5 1 a.m .Flight Characteristics

Th e spacecraft reached an apogee of 136.2 nauticalmiles and a range of 363 nautical miles in a flightlasting approxim ately 1 6 minutes 29 seconds.Upon separation from the launch vehicle, thespacecraft rotated slow ly about all three axes. Th emotion in pitch and yaw became atti tude stabilizeda t 3:54 minutes with a s teady rol l ra te of 9.5' persecond w hic h continued until main parach ute deploy-ment . At T+8 minutes 55 seconds, the spacecraftbegan to turn around and to reenter the atmospherewith the heat shield pointed in the direction offlight.Th e longitudinal acceleration loads imparted to t hesubject in the transverse plane are presented in figure

3 3 . The acceleration increased from 1.2g a t lift-offto 6 .5g a t T+ 2 minutes 17 seconds. At T+ 2 minutes18 sccciids the escape rocket iired, due to a failure inprecise timing of launch-vehicle cutoff, and theacceleration peaked at 17.0g. It then returned to

Og for a 6%-minute period. Reentry decelerationstarted at T+9 minutes 20 seconds, reached a maxi-mum of 14.6g at 9 minutes 36 seconds, and thendecayed to 1.3g. The drogue-parachute deploymentcaused a pulse of less than 0.5g a t T+lO minutes 54seconds, and the main-parachute deployment caused abrief 3g deceleration at T+11 minutes 28 seconds.Lateral and head-to-foot accelerations during flightwere negligible. Ab rupt land ing decelerations in th elongitudinal plane of the spacecraft ranged from thetolerable values of 20g to -7g, th e lateral decelera-tion varied from 3.5g to -4.7g, and the head-to-footdeceleration with respect to the subject rangedbetween 3.4g to -16.8g.The ECS was designed so that the subject breathed100-percent oxygen from lift-off until descent whenthe sno rkel val ve opened a t 18,OOO feet. As th ecraft went to alt i tude, the pressure reduced to andleveled off at 5.5 psi and then on descent, just prior tolanding, returned t o am bient pressure.

The couch inlet temperature did no t change signifi-cantly during th e flight. Jr W E 58' F a: lift-& a dvaried fO.5' F until the craft reached an alti tude of18,OOO feet on descent when the ECS opened to a mbienta i r . The couch temperature a t landing was 66' F.

Reentry- Drogueparachutedeve opmenI Main DarachuteI dvloymentF I ~ I J R B-3.-The long itudi nal acceleration profile of the Mercury-Rcdstone 2 flight. The extra peak to 17g during launch was causedby escape rocket firing.696-439 0 63 - 3 11


18/75

MonitoringReal-time monitoring of the subject occurred atthree Cape Canaveral locations. It began in thetransfer van and was then transferred to the block-house after the subject was placed in the spacecraft .The blockhouse was monitored by hardline trans-mission (spacecraft umbilical) until T- 30 minuteswhen telemetry commenced; then both blockhouse

and Mercury Control Center (MCC) monitored unti ll ift-off. After l ift-off MCC was the sole mon itor.The three monitoring stat ions were connected byMissile Operations Intercom System (MOPS), aclosed-loop voice l ink . In addit ion, the Hanga r Smedical facil i ty, the point recovery team, emergencyspacecraft recovery team, Patrick Air Force Basehospital , and Grand Bahama medical facil i ty wereinformed of countdow n events via MO PS.The blockhouse monitoring phase used two con-soles which displayed physiological , psychological ,and environmental control system variables. Inaddit ion, two channels of ECG (leads 1 and 3),respirat ion waveform, rectal temperature, and threepsychomotor variables were recorded on a st r ipcha rt . Range time was substi tuted as a readout inlieu of the four th psychomo tor channel. Indicationof mild shock to the subject during the blockhouseperiod was obtained through a disturbance of theECG waveform. Th e console also provided for thedisplay of either lead of ECG on an oscilloscope.Adjacent to the physiological and psychological dis-play was the environmen tal control system monitoringconsole. The environmental data which had directbearing on the condition of the subject includedcouch and spacecraft pressure and temper ature,.amo untof oxygen in the ECS, and available coolant.At the Mercury Control Center , the data readoutwas the same as th at a t the blockhouse except that thetransmission of an electrical shock was recorded.Since this was a s uborbital fl ight , the range stat ionsof the Worldwide Mercury Network did not part ici-pate. Tw o Atlantic Missile Range stat ions (SanSalvador and Grand Turk) part icipated for purposesof checking telemetry signal qua li ty.In addi t ion to moni toring records, both the CapeCanaveral Telemeter I1 and an airborne stat ioncollected data . O the r data sources for determiningthe status of the subject during fl ight were an onboardtape recording and photog raphy of the subject .Recovery and Postflight Periods

Three m ajor animal recovery areas were used. T h e ywere the emergency spacecraft recovery area, the12

point recovery area, and the downrange normalrecovery area . All of these areas permitted t heexercise of the manned procedures. Emergencyspacecraft recovery effort was designed to providecare for th e subject in th e event of a canceled mission(abort of the m ission prior to launch). The poin trecovery effort , a highly coordinated land, sea, andair effort , wa s designed to provide th e retrieval of th eoccupant in the event of a pad or launch abort; i textended for a 12-mile radius from the launch si te.The normal recovery effort consisted of an ai rbornesurveil lance supported by eight ships distributedalong the l ine of probable landing. A land-basedmedical facil i ty on the Grand Bahama Island forpostfl ight examination and animal care was provided.The movement of the animal after recovery was tothis land-based facil i ty.The significant events occurring during recoveryincluded the retrieval of the Mercury spacecraftby helicopter and i ts delivery to the recovery vesselat 3:40 p.m. e.s. t . , January 31, 1961. Th e spacecrafthatc h was opened at 3:42 p.m. e .s . t .Moisture on the interior of the plexiglass couchcover prevented observation of the chimpanzee; how -ever, i t was heard vocalizing norm ally. T he environ-mental control system (ECS) inlet hose was discon-nected at 3% p.m. e.s. t . and fresh air (ships air)under pressure was introduced into the couch. Theright-hand couch cover porthole was removed andthe ai r source was then placed in the port . Th e freshair cleared awa y the condensate on the interior of th ecouch cover and the animals condit ion appeared tobe norm al. Upon removal of the couch from thespacecraft, the cover was removed and th e subject andlower half of the couch were transported t o the shipssick bay where the chimpanzee was given a physicalexaminat ion.He was retained overnight on the recovery shipunti l the morning of February 1, 1961. Th e subjectand equipment were then transported by helicopterto the Grand Bahama forwa rd medical facil i ty andarrived at 8:lO a.m . e.s. t .The subject , equipment, and personnel were thentransferred by pressurized aircraft to Patrick AirForce Base, Florida, and returned to the Cape Can av-era1 animal complex. There, another physical exam-ination was performed. A post-test calibration checkwas made of the psychomotor eq uipment and physio-logical sensor harness. Th e test indicated th at al lequipment was operat ing wi thin prefight speci f ica-t ions. On February 2,1961, tw o %-hourpsychomotorperformance sessions were conducted and the physio-logical variables were recorded. Finally, on February


19/75

3 , 1961, a sim ilar test was condu cted, and on the nextday the subject wa s returned to Holloman Air ForceBase, New Mexico.References1. St ingely, Norm an E.: Countdown and Proceduresfor Project Mercury Flight MR-2 (Chimpanzee

Subject). '4ir Force M issile Developm ent Cen-ter TR-61-20, June 1961.2. Archibald, Erwin R., and Ward, William E.:Chimpanzee Temperature-Humidity ToleranceTes t s -C on t ro l Tes ts a t 80' F, 50 Percent RelativeHum idity. Air Force Missile Development Cen-ter TR-61-11, Apr. 1961.

13


20/75

4. BEHAVIORAL APPARATUSfor the

MR-2 AND MA-5 FLIGHTSBy E. J. Brown* and R. D. Iwan*As the preceding sections have indicated, the Mer-cury animal program generated a requirement for thedevelopment of l ightweight, miniature, highly re-liable equipment with which a series of tasks could

solution of the McD onnell Aircraft Corporation to theproblem of producing an instrumentation packagewh ich met the specifications given by th e NASA andth e 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory .- - Apparatuse presented to the animal . This psychomotoratmaratus had to fit in to th e confines of th e animals

Blue l ight White l iqht R ed l iqht4(d i sc re te avoidance) *


21/75

for use in orb ital f l ight (fig. 4-2). Th e bal l is t ic uni tpresented two shock-avoidance program s. Th e pri-ma te had to depress levers in response to colored lightstimuli within a certain time period to avoid a mildshoc k. Th e 'orbital unit had three additiona l pro-grams during various phases of which the p r ima teobtained drink and banana-flavored food-pellet re-wards or shock punishment for error or fa i lure torespond. Th e stimuli for a particular program con-sisted of colored lights and symbols presented in dis-play uni ts . The performance tasks are described insections 'j an d 9.System Operation

Th e system is composed of tw o types of basic parts,a s tepper switch and a t imer .Of the stepper switches, one utilizes 9 positions on7 wafers and the other 20 positions on 9 wafers .Since space was at a premium, commercial switcheswere modified; and a co ntaine r wa s designed to elimi-nate as much w aste space as possible and yet to providea hermetic seal on the coil and contacts.

Th e t ime c i rcui t i s a radical depar ture f rom conven-t ional types . On e of smal l s ize, low power drain ,hi gh re l iabi l ity , large dynamic range, and low we i g h twas required. Extreme var ia t ions in the supplyvoltage and excessive transients further complicatedthe problem.Figure 4-3 is a schematic diagram of the basictim ing circuit w hic h is used to give time periods from

0.125 second to 900 seconds. Basically, it is cons tant-curren t generator formed by resistors R,, Rz, ransis torQ1, nd a Zener diode De feeding capacitor C ,. T h i stim ing circuit causes th e voltag e across C 1 to risel inear ly unt i l Qz, a unijunction transistor, f ires anddischarges C, to the val ley vol tage of the un i junct ion .KCNeglecting leakage currents, the time period T=Iwhere I is constant current, C is capacitance, and Ki s a proport ional i ty constant . As the circuit isshow n, i t i s h igh ly susceptible to vol tage var ia t ionsand negat ive-going t ransients on the power supplvbus. Figure 4-4 shows the major modif icat ionsincorporated in this circuit to e l imina te power p rob-

FIOURB-2.-Advanced orbital MA-5 psy chomotor flight programer wi th the accompa nying panel (compare w ith figs. 2-1 and 9-1).A dig ital counter records lever presses. Illustrative mode l symb ols are pasted to the.display unit windows above each lever.The reservoir tube of the pellet dispenser curves back around the programer to the circular fillin g orifice. Th e wai st restraintpanel is laced to thc tab appearing b elow the panel.

16


22/75

Zenerdiode 1Fxovns +3.-&sic timing schematic diagram.

+"K6 O3 c 2Fioup~ .-T im in g circuit with switching and transient protection.

17


23/75

lems and to improve the overall characteristics. Aregulated voltage to Base 2 of the unijunction tran-sistor is proviaed by D1, D5, Re, an d C z , to preventinput voltage variations from varying the firingvoltage. The diode D2prevents C1 from dischargingthrough a transistor during a severe negative-goingtransient. The capacitor Cl is discharged by Q3,Rs, an d C2 o approximately 1 volt above ground,which is lower than the val ley voltage of Qz. It isalso possible to reset C l to zero w ith an inhibi t pulseprior to the firing of Qz by coupling a trigger signalto th e gate of Q3.The diode D3 enables C3 to obtain a charge whenQz fires and yet t o hold or stretch the pulse so t h a t Q4will reliably pull in RY1.The d iode D4 is used to suppress the transient pro-duced by the interruption of current through theinductanc e of RYI when Q4stops conduction.By varying t he value of R1, the period of the timercan be varied grea tly. For excessive changes in th eperiod, Cl must be charted too. For periods up t o 2minutes, 50 microfarads were used for C1; for 2 to 6minutes, 300 microfarads were used; and for 5 t o 15minutes, 800 microfarads were used.Figure 4-5 aids in explaining the operation of thesystem. When power is applied, the master timerbegins a countdo wn and t he program selector channelsprovide power throug h th e display selector t o turn onthe red light in the right-hand display unit and route

ProgramidentityD r i n kShockLeft- ha nddepressionC e n t e rdepressionRi ht -handd p r e s s i o n

Power

18

power to start the discrete avoidance and continuousavoidance programs. While in this mode of opera-tion, right-hand lever depressions inhibit a .hock for15 seconds; mean while, t he blue ligh t comes on every2 minutes and requires a depression of the left-handlever within 5 seconds or the light is terminated anda shock is delivered.After 15 minutes the master timer delivers an o utp utto the program selector which turns the power offfor all but the cum ulative response circuits and allowsa 6-minute time-out o r rest period.At the end of 6 minutes, the master timer deliversanother output to the program selector , which,*inturn, powers the circuits required for the differentialreinforcement of low rates (DRL) program . A greenlight in the r ight-hand display window aler ts theprimate to the program identity. A 20-second timerbegins to count down and permits the drinkdispenser to be armed at the end of 20 seconds if theright-hand lever is depressed. , If i t is depressed priorto the passage of 20 seconds, the timer is reset; andth e d rin k dispenser cannot be armed for an addi-tional 20 seconds. Once armed, it will remain so for5 seconds or until th e prim ate h as received his allo ttedamount of liquid, whichever comes first. This pro-gram lasts for 10 minutes, at which t ime the mastert imer advances the program selector to the secondtimeout period.

1 Left Cen ter Right 1Te leme trv I

Display selector1t

M a s t e rf-l i m e r

I

ui meout and 13[ d E g e r

Subprogram t i mersCS, DRL, PRPM, NkPM4 T- - - - - -out$r?- _ _1 Lever , ShockI Left C e n t e r I Ri ght I

FIOURB-5.-0rbital psychomotor block diagram.


24/75

After 6 minutes t he m aster t imer advances the pro-gram selector to fixed ratio (FR) reinforcementprogram for food rewards. Th e stimulus for thisprogram is the il lumination of a yellow light on thecenter d isplay window . When this l ig ht is on, t h esubject has t o press the center lever 50 t imes for onepellet of food. After 10 minutes the animal hasanothe r rest period.At the end of 6 minutes the master t imer advancesthe program selector to the positive reinforcementperceptual mo nitoring (PRPM ) or negative reinforce-ment perceptual mo nitoring (NRPM ) oddity problemmode. Th e choice of modes is determined prior tolaunch. A latching relay is preset electrically toprogram t h e desired mode of operation. In thePRPM mode, symbols are displayed in each of thethree display window s. Displays in tw o of thewindow s are always alike, and one is always different.If the primate depresses the lever under the oddsymbol, he is rewarded with a banana pellet and anew display. If a wrong lever is depressed, theprimate is punished by not receiving a pellet and a15-second black out of th e display s. After 15 seconds,the same display is shown again.The oddi ty problems las t unt i l 36 combinationsof displays have been show n or u ntil 5 minutes haveelapsed, at which time the master t imer will returnthe program selector to the discrete-avoidance-continuous-avoidance mode and the entire program isrepeated.The oddi ty problem which was employed in theMA-5 flight uses negative reinforcement (NRPN) inorder to conserve food pellets. A wron g answerresults in a %-second shock, followed by a 15-secondblackout of the displays and a representation of thesame set of symbols. A right answer results in noshock, a 15-second time ou t, and a new set of symbols.If no response is given in 35 seconds, a shock isdelivered every 5 seconds until either a right or a

wrong answer is given. This program lasts until 18combinations have been shown twice or until 10minutes have elapsed.The following information was telemetered overfour channels :For th e discrete-avoidance-continuous-avoidance task,(1) Shock indication( 2 ) Number of left-hand-lever switch closures( 3 ) Blue light on t ime(4) Number of right-hand-lever switch closures

For t imeout ,(1) Program identification(2) Number of left-hand-lever sw itch closures( 3 ) Number of center-lever s wi tch closures(4) Number of right-hand-lever switch closures

For t he differential reinforcement of low rates tas k,(1) Program identification( 2 ) Number of left-hand-lever and number of center-( 3 ) Drink indication(4) Number of right-hand-lever switch closures

lever switch closures

For the fixed-ratio (food reward) task,(1) Program identification(2) Number of left-hand-lever switch closures(3) Number of center-lever sw itch closures(4) Number of right-hand-lever switch closures

For the oddity problem,(1) Program and display number indication(2) Number of left-hand-lever s w i t d closures( 3 ) Number of center-lever sw itch closures(4) Num ber of right-hand-lever s w itc h closuresIn addition to the telemetered data, an electro-mechanical counter on the front panel records the tota lcum ulative num ber of lever sw itc h closures. (See

fig. 4-2.)

696-439 0 63 - 4 19


25/75

In April of 1959 when the Nat ional Aeronaut icsand Space Administration defined th e anim al programof Project Mercury, i t was specified tha t bot hbehavioral and physiological m easurements would bemade on the subject. Th e behavioral aspects of thisprogram were assigned to the Comparative Psychol-ogy Branch of the Aeromedical Research Laboratory,Hol loman Air Force Base, N. Mex. (ref. I). T h epurpose of this se rtion is to describe the performanceaspect of the k s t of th e chimpanzee flights of ProjectMercury, which was the ballistic fl ight of theMercury-Redstone 2 spacecraft on Janua ry 31, 1961.Methods Subject

The subject, Ham (Aeromedical Research Labora-tory subject No . 65) , was a male chimpanzee weighing37 pound s. On th e basis of denta l eruption:, his agewas es t imated t o be 44m onths. He had received 219hours of t ra ining in the behavioral task over a 15-month period, and prior to the flight he had beensubjected to simulated Redstone launch profiles onthe centr i fuge a t the U.S. Air Force AerospaceMedical Laboratory, Dayton, Ohio .Performance Apparatus and T ask

Figure 4-1 shows the performance test panel,conta ining three l ights and two levers , which wasmounted perpendicular to the subject a t wais t level .The levers are approximately I inch in diameter andprotrude 2%inches from the face of the panel. Aforce of 2 pounds wa s required t o activate each lever sot h a t it could no t be depressed by the force of inertiaaccompanying launch.

*Lieutenant Coloncl, U.S. ir Force.#Major, U.S. Air Force.***NASA Hcadquutcrs, Oflice of Space Sciences.

5. PERFORMANCE ASPECTS

MR-2 FLIGHTBy Frederick H . Rohles, Jr.,*

Marvin E. Grunzke,** andRichard E. Belleville, Ph. D.***

The task, wh ich is described in detail in reference 2,was one in which an intermittent o r discrete avoidanceprocedure on the left lever was superimposed on aright-hand lever schedule wh ich required co ntinuo usavoidance behavior. Each response by the subject onthe right-hand lever postponed the Occurrence of thenext scheduled shock for 15 seconds and, as a conse-quence, a consistent and stable rate of responding w asdeveloped by which the animal could avoid shocksindefinitely.

In contrast to the continuous task, discrete avoid-ance employed a signal as a warning of impendingshock if the corrert response was not made. In t h eMR-2 flight, the warning signal was the il lum inationof the blue light. This l ight came on once every 2minutes. However, a fixed time interval w as no t em-ployed during training in order t o eliminate the possi-bili ty of temporal conditioning. T he time betweenthe appearance of the blue light and the pressing ofthe left lever was the subject's reaction time.

During the flight the subject had to press the righ tlever at least once every 15 seconds and at the sametime press the left lever within 5 seconds after eachpresentation of th e blue ligh t. A detailed descriptionof the psychom otor programer operation is presentedin section 4. Since redundancy in da ta collection wasdesired, five digital counters were included in theprograming unit of the couch. These counted th eresponses on the right-hand lever, the blue-light pre-sentations, responses on the left-hand lever, the num-be r of shocks for failure to perform continuous-avoidance task, and the number of shocks for failuret o ma ke discrete-avoidance responses. Reading s fromthese counters after flight verified the informationobtained via telemetry and the o nboard tape recorders.

21


26/75

Results and DiscussionFrom a behavioral viewpoint, this flight can bedescribed as an experimental investigation to deter-mine the effects upon learned behavior of exposure t othe environmental distractions imposed by spaceflight. Follow ing the flight, an investigation wasmade of those variables w hic h could be studied in thelabora tory wi thout r isk of injury to the subject . Thisinvest igat ion was made in an at tempt to rule outcertain extraneous factors that could possibly haveaffected t h e performance.The first variables studied were the minor stresseso n th e subject th a t occurred immediately prior to theflight. These variables included the awakening afteronly 5 hours of sleep, installa tion of th e physiologicalsensors including the suture EC G electrodes, and thenearly 9 hours of restraint pr ior to launch. Th e intro-duction of these variables raised questions as to thephysical condition of the subject at the t ime of launch.

It was suggested that the chimpanzee may have beenfatigued. If this were true, then a reduced responserate on the continuous-avoidance behavior and anincreased reaction time on the discrete task might beexpected. How ever, because neither of these wereobserved and because the novelty and uniqueness ofthe flight itself could possibly compensate for subjectfatigue, these stresses were again imposed upon thesubject 2 weeks after the flight. The subject was keptawake on the 1 3th day af ter launch, was al lowed togo to s leep at the usual t ime and was then awakeneda t 1:OO a .m . on th e 14 th day and subjected to the sameactivit ies as those during the countdown. I t wasthen given a 17-minute trial in wh ich b oth tasks wereperformed. Th e results of th is test showed perform-ance to be stable and unaffected. Thus, it was con-cluded that the physical condition of the subjectresulting from preflight activities did not affect itsin-flight performance.With the exception of the noise and vibrationaccompanying the launch, the environmental factorsassociated with the remainder of the flight can besummarized in terms of the physical forces actingupon t he subject during the launch, flight, and reentryinto the earths atmosphere. The magnitude, dura-tio n, a nd time of occurrence of these forces during t heflight are sho wn in figure 5-1. Th e figure also show sthe level of performance of the discrete-and-contin-uous-avoidance task during the flight. During thelaunch the animal was subjected to a maximumacceleration of 17g. This acceleration was followedby 6% minutes of weightlessness. Wh en th e space-craft started on its downward course into the denser

atmosphere, its flight attitude was reversed so t h a tduring reentry the deceleration again imposed atransverse force of inertia which acted from back tofront of the subject . Although the magnitude of theforce was not so great as i t was during launch, i tsduration w as much longe r; tha t is, there were acceler-ations of more than 14g for 5 seconds and more thanlog for 10 seconds.Th e flight can be divided into three periods: launchaccelerations, weigh tlessness, and reentry. In termsof performance of the continuous-avoidance task, thesharp reduction in response rate following launchwas expected on the basis of th e results obtained frompreviously exposing th e subject to accelerations of 6gon the centr ifuge at the U.S. ir Force AerospaceMedical Laboratory. Immediately fol lowing launch,th e subject received his first shock. How ever, it isbelieved th at this shock was due to a malfunction inthe timing apparatus since analysis of the telemetryrecording shows that the time between responses atthis period of the flight was less than 15 seconds.Performance was not directly affected by weightless-ness; however, exposure to the reentry decelerationswas critical from the performance standpoint. Agradual decrement in the response rate for the con-tinuous-avoidance task was observed, but reactiontime w as unaffected.

It might appear that the high decelerat ion thataccompanied reentry w as responsible for t he persistentdecrement in performance of the c ontinuous avoidancetask; however, the launch accelerat ions and theweightless stat e (either ind ividually or in combina-tion) could also have accounted for the decrement.Moreover, since there was no information concerningperformance following reentry, there was no w a y ofdetermining whether the subject returned to normalresponse rates soon after the reentry portion of theflight was over or whether recovery was delayed.(See table 5-1 and fig. 5-1.)Reaction time, as measured by the discrete task,was unaffected. For th e nine presentations of th eblue l ight during the f l ight , the mean react ion t imew as 0.82 second which was sl ight ly above the 0.80-second mean of his preflight performance. (Seetab le 5-1 and fig. 5-1.)These flights represent a beginning in the measure-ment of animal behavior in space and as such, it isbelieved they can provide valuable data for theplanning of further a nimal flight studies.

(See tabl e 5-1 and fig. 5-1.)

Concluding RemarksPerformance of a two component avoidance taskwa s measured on a chimpanzee th at w as f lown on the

22


27/75

Mercury-Redstone 2 ballisti c flight . As a result ofthis f l ight and the laboratory invest igat ions whichfol lowed, it was concluded that the minor stressesimposed imm ediately prior to t he f l ight, t ha t is , pro-longed wakefulness, physiological examination, andrestraint, did not affect infligh t performance. Theaccelerations accompanying launch and reentry wereassociated with a brief decrease in the response ratesfor the continuous avoidance task; however, the raterapidly returned to normal and the immediate post-launch rate showed no change from preflight control.This f inding duplicated that fol lowing exposure toradial acceleration on the cectrifuge at the AerospaceMedical Lab orato ry. Performance during weightless-ness was steady and unimpaired. Howev er, a sharpdecrement in the response rate of th e continuous task

was noted following the acceleration that accompa-nied reentry. Performance of the discrete avoidancetask was consistent and near the preflight meanthroughou t the f l ight .References1. Rohles, Frederick H., Jr.: Behavioral Measure-ments on Animals Participacing i n Space Flig ht.

Air Force Missile Development Center TN-60-5,Mar . 1960.2. Belleville, Richard E., Rohles, Frederick H., Jr.,Grunzke, Marvin E. , and Clark, Fogle C.:Complex Avoidance Behavior in the Chimpanzeeand i ts Applicabil i ty to the Study of Space Envi-ronments. Air Force Missile Developmen t Cen-ter TR-60-27, Se pt. 1960.

nU0

1\ r A

I I I I I l Y 1 I I I I I I J0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Time, minFIGUREl.-Responses of th e MR-2 flight animal to th e blue lig ht (classical avoidance giving reaction time) and th e red ligh t (Sid-man test; a continuous monitoring task i n wh ich the lever m ust be pressed once every 20 seconds). Th e transverse dotted linesrepresent the average preflight responses of this subject. Th erate of pressing th e continuous avoida nce lever is normal dur ing weightlessness and only falls significantly after exposure to th ereentry acceleration.

Discrete avoidance responses stay well within preflight means.

23


28/75

TABLE -1 .-R aw performance da ta f o r continuoas- and discrete-avoidance task i n MR-2 j?ight

Time from launch. sec.umber of responses

Continuousavoidancelever

0 to 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 to 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 to 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 to 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 to 10 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 to 12 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 to 14 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141 to 16 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 1 to 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181 to 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201 to 220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .221 to 240 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .241 to 260 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261 to 280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .281 to 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .301 to 320 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .321 to 340 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341 to 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .361 to 380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .381 to 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .401 to 420 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .421 to 440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .441 to 460 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .461 to 480 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .481 to 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .521 to 540 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .541 to 560 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .561 to 58 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .581 to 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .621 to 640 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .641 to 660 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .661 to 680 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .681 to 700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .701 to 720 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 1 to 740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 1 to 760 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .761 to 780 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .781 to 80 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

841 to 860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .861 to 880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .881 to 900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .901 to 920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .921 to 940 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .941 to 960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .961 to 980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .981 to 1000 . . . . . . .

24

.

28172534243272324193328252327251930243126272927242421156167104211691114961016258055C

Discreteavoidancelever

1

. . . . . . . . . .

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1. . . . . . . . . .

Number of shocksContinuousavoidance

. .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . . .

1

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . . .1.

Discreteavoidance.

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

DiscreteavoidancepresentationsDuration ofdiscreteavoidancereaction. scc

0 . 5 5

. 7 5

70

85

.7 5

.90

.65

1 . 1 0

1.00


29/75

6. MEDICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Rectal:mpcra-m , O F

99.8

96.4.9998.8

98.899.4

100.0

o theMR.-2 FLIGHT

Bloodpressuremm/Hg--2 / 9 0

13811101 3 0 p130185110/841281981481120

By William E. Ward,* andWilliam E. Britz, Jr.**

The chimpanzee subject was procured by the U.S.Air Force on July 9, 1959. It originated in theCameroons, West Africa.The animal was repeatedly given tuberculin testswith negative results and has remained in excellentheal th .During the 18-month period from July 11, 1959,until January 31, 1%1 (MR-2 flight), the subjectreceived six complete, quarterly physical examina-tions. All of th e findings were with in normalranges for the imm ature chim panzee (ref. 1).

Prelaunch Preparation of Primary,Secondary, and Backup Subjects

Physical Examination and DietAt T-26 hours 54 minutes (8:OO a.m. e.s.t .) fol-lowing the prelaunch physical examination (see ref.

2 and table 6-1) the subject was placed on a lo wbulk, low gas-forming liquid diet (section 3).At T-9 hours 36 minutes (1:15 a.m. e.s.t .) thesubject was removed from its cage and taken to th emedical van for fl ight preparation. It was given aphysical examination and found to be in excellentcondition for th e flight.

Data co::ccting :fcthdsThe following physiological parameters weremeasured : ECG (leads 1an d 3), respiration waveform ,and rectal temperature. Prelaunch physiologicaldata w ere recorded on Sanborn direct writingrecorders;flight data were recorded on onboard tape and tele-metered t o ground stations and to recorders locatedon inflinht aircraft .

G p t a i n , US.Air Force.**Captain, Veterinary Corps, U.S.Air Fom.TABLE-I.-Results of preflight and postjligh t physical exam ination conducted on MR-2 subject

Subject: Imm ature male chimpanzee named H am Age: 3 years 8 months (approximately)[Clinical history : Subject has had no serious i l lna s within 6 months prior th e launch date1

Date

Jan 30,1961

Jan 31,1961Jan 31,1961Fc b 1,1961Fc b 2,1961Fc b 7,1961Fc b 14,1961

Time

8:OO a.m. e.s.t . . . . . . .1 2 5 a .m . e . s . t . . . . . . .4 5 0 p.m. c.s.t . . . . . . . .8:lO a.m. e .s . t . . . . . . .8 0 0 a.m. e.s.t . . . . . . . .10m a.m.m . s . t . , . . . .1 m p . m . m . s .t . . . . . . .

Location

Animal complex, CapeG-Animal complex, Cape Ca-Recovery ship . . . .. . . . . .Grand Bahama Island. . . .Animal complex, Cape Ca-Holloman Air Force Base,Holloman Air Force Base,

naveral.n av aa l .

niverai.N . Mcx.N.M e r .

~

Weight.Ib-37

37.25. . . . .. . . . . .35.2538.7538.0

-m=,beats/mi n-

104

14012010092

104124-

-Lespuationircaths,min-

28

323230243230

-

ECG

Normal

Normal. . . . . . .NormalNormalNormalNormal

X-ray

NormalNormal

NormalNormalNormal

Axillary25


30/75

Electrocardiogram.-The ECG was detected by threeelectrodes (fig. 6-1). Two electrodes were made ofmale and female snap fasteners grasping steel sutures0.28 inch in diameter , which were implanted underthe skin of the ches t as described in reference 3 .(See figs. 6-1 an d 6-2). A stainless-steel-mesh fluid

FIGURE l .-Subject follo win g installation of the rectal thermistor, ECG lectrodes, and copper sulfate pheumograph. Th e insert tothe r igh t depic ts how th e wire suture used for the ECG pickup is clipped between one pair of snap fasteners (see fig.G 2 ) an dpasses under the skin to be b r ough t ou t a t t he o t he r .

26


31/75

electrode (bentonite paste as a conductor) of the typeto be used in t he manned f l ights wa s applied to t h eleft medial thigh (fig. 6-2) .

(a) Enlargement showing male and female snap fastenersand wire used for t he suture electrodes.

x ".

(b) IVire mesh electrode ni t h a cork surround tha t holds thcmesh air a\ from t h e rkin a n d pro\ ]der a


32/75

lead 1). Heart rate du ring th e flight was determinedby counting all QR S complexes per minute for eachminute of the flight. Prelaunch respiration rateswere determined by counting waveform peaks for 1minute in every 10 minutes. Respiration rate duringthe flight was compiled by counting the number ofwaveform peaks per minute and recording totals atthe end of each minute of flight. Body temp eraturevalues were recorded a t lo-minute intervals duringthe prelaunch period and at the end of each minuteduring the flight.Results Physiology

The physiological dat a from th e MR-2 flight are

presented in figure 6-4. Tim e on the abscissa scale isin minutes f rom launch. Total f light t ime was 16minutes 39 seconds.Prelaunch heart rate.-For th e perio d 8 hours prior tolaunch, the mean heart rate was 94 beats per minute,a ra te s l ight ly lower than the mean es tabl ished forthe subject in a previous test (see table 6-11). H o w -ever, during the early morning period the subject waslying quie t ly in the couch. A t approximately T-8hours and again at T-7 hours the subject was engagedin a 15-minute psychomotor work performance.Launch and flig ht heart rate.-From lift-off to T+ 1minute , the hear t ra te was 126 beats per minute .During the third minute of fl ight, there was anincrease in heart rate to 147 beats per minute (ECG

90rh

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Time, minFIGURE-4.-Hcart and respiratory rates (based on 10-sec intervals) th roug hou t the MR-2 fli ght . Rates fall to preflight values during

the weightless state. (For preflight control data, see table 6 1 1 . )28


33/75

telemetry wa s lost during this period for 10 seconds).Peak acceleration was experienced a t T-t-2.3 minu tes;then acceleration traces returned to zero. From T+ 3to T+4 minutes there was a r ise in the mean heartrate t o 158 and then a gradual decl ine during th eweightless period. Figure 6-5 is an example of thein-f l ight data taken during the weightless s tate .This period lasted approxim ately 7 minutes. Reen trypeak acceleration occurred a t T+ 9 minutes 3j econds.From T+10 t o T+11 minutes there was a dramaticr ise in th e heart rate to 173 beats per minute; theheart rate then fel l s lowly to 119 beats per minute a tto T+11 during the peak reentry acceleration, 34beats were recorded. If this rate had been sustainedi t would have const i tuted a rate of 204 beats perminu te from T+ 10 t o T+11. Heart rate was approxi-

T+14 minutes. In one 10-second period fro m Tf10

mately 130 beats per minute a t landing (muscle noiseartifact prevented a full count).Recovery and Postflight O bservations

The MR-2 flight lasted approximately 17 minutes,and landing occurred approximately 130 nauticalmiles beyond th e planned point. After th e arrival ofspacecraft onboard th e recovery ship, the LSD Donner,the animal couch was taken out , i ts to p removed, andthe subject wa s examined by a n A ir Force veterinarian.According to his report , the animal was in goodcondit ion, even though the inside of the couch washot and humid.The veterinarian removed the subject from thecouch and performed the post figh t physical examina-tion. A 30-cc blood sample wa s taken for postflightblood count and chem istry studies.

Weight lessness

Respirat ion

Body t emper a tu r eFIGURE 5.-Portion of the inflight telcmctered MR-2 data sho wing the records obtained from the clcctr ourdio gram and respiratorysensors at an al titude of approximately 100 ~ ~ t i ~ a lilcs during th e weightless state.

29


34/75

TABLE-11 Heart and r.espirution rates[Control data established 4 day s before launch]

Heart rate:Mean, bea ts /min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Standard deviation, beats/min. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 2Range, beats/min. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 to 154Respiration rate:Mean, breaths/min. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Standard deviat ion, breath s/min . . . . . . . . . . 4 .8Range, hreaths/min. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 to 72The subject appeared sligh tly dehydrated and some-w ha t exhausted imm ediately after the flight. Despitethe dehydrat ion no change in the hematocri t was ob-served. How ever, there was a 5.37-percent loss in th etota l body weig ht. This loss was to be expected inview of the fact that the subject had received no foodor water for approxim ately 16 hours. The samechange has been observed in controlled temperature-humidity studies conducted a t the Aeromedical Re-search Laborato ry. Th e subject responded to sounds;he was alert; and no incoordination of limb, hea d, orbody movem ents was detected. All reflexes werenormal. Ophthalmoscopic exam ination showed nochanges from the observations made during the pre-flight exam ination. A small abrasion was present onthe bridge of the nose, but it was insignificant andappeared to be self-inflicted. A small amount of dried

vomitus (5 to 10 cc) , containing wh at was th ou gh tto be traces of blood, was noted in the couch. N oabnormalities were noted during the auscultation ofheart and lungs.After completion of the physical examination, thesubject was placed in a small cage provided on theship. He was then fed frui t , given water whe n hewanted it, and allowed to rest for the remainder ofthe n ight .The fol lowing m orning the subject was t ransportedto th e forward medical faci l ity at th e Grand BahamaIslands. There, he was given a complete physicalexamination. (See table 6-111.) T h e on ly abn or-mali ty noted at this t ime was a s l ight ly dehydratedappearance, and the animal appeared physically ex-hausted.The subject was then transported from the forwardmedical station back to Cape Canaveral and was al-lowed to rest for the remainder of the da y.O n the second da y after the flight (February 2) th esubject was given another complete physical exam-ination and found to be in good condition. (Seetable G II I . ) Following this physical examination,he was fully instrumented and placed in the flightcouch for a postflight psychomotor evaluation test.O n February 4 the subject was returned to the Aero-medical Research Laboratory at Holloman Air ForceBase. He was given a complete physical exam ination

TABLE -III.


35/75

on February 7 (1 week after the flight), and again onFebruary 14 (2 weeks after the flight). The resultswere completely within normal ranges, and the sub-ject wa s in excellent condition.Discussion

During launch acceleration, there was a rise in bo thheart and respiratory rates followed by a gradualdecline durin g th e weightless state. A t 1%minutesafter peak reentry acceleration there was a markedrise in respiration rate, far exceeding the rise duringini t ial launch. Respiration rate declined during thenext 2 minutes, then rose slightly, and finally ex-hibited a downward trend prior to landing. Follow-ing the rise during and immediately after launchacceleration, the hearr rate declined rather slow ly forthe first 3 minutes of the weightless state. It thenstabilized, rising during reentry and falling againwi th the re turn to lg (fig. &4). During the physicalexam ination conducted approxim ately 4j4 hours afterimpact, the heart rate was 120 beats per minute, andrespiration was 32 breaths per minute. N o significantchange in body temperature was noted.The subject wa s wit hou t wa ter for 16 hours fromthe tim e of ?lacement in the couch until t he postflightexamination. Upon observation 16 hours after thisexamination, it appeared to be slightly dehydrated.It had access to food and water when it wished, fromthe time of recovery; nevertheless, when weighed 44hours after the flight there was a 5.3-percent loss fro mhis initial body weig ht. Reference 4 states th at a5-percent body weight loss in man represents signifi-cant dehydration. Young chimpanzees who are de-prived of wate r an d food and restrained in a chair for20-hour periods s ho w th e significant loss of +percentof body weight . Hence, the data on the flight sub-ject suggest that i t was significantly dehydra ted.Heart and respiration rates, and the body tempera-ture of the subject during th e MR-2 flight were wellwithin the normal range established for chimpanzeesduring the control temperature-humidity tests.Probably the most dramatic and significant changeseen in the MR-2 subject was in the postflighthema tology. Th e differential w hi te blood cell countshowe d an extreme reversal ,of the neutrophile-lymphocyte rat io. (See table 6-111.) The bloodsample taken during the 24-hour preflight physicalexamination showed a rat io of 31-percent neutrophilesto 69-percent lymphocytes (4,247 total neutrophiles to9,453 to tal lymphocytes). These values are essen-tially normal for imm ature chimpanzees. The sampletaken on board t he recovery ship immediately follow-

ing recovery (2 hours, 44 minutes after the flight)showed a rat io of gepercent neutrophiles to +percentlymphocytes (15,040 total neutrophiles to 800 totallymphocytes). All oth er hem atological findings,except the eosinophile count, which is discussedsubsequently, were w ith in normal ranges. Similar,though less severe, changes hav e been observed follow -ing 20-hour controlled temperature-humidity studiesat the Aeromedical Research Laboratory . Three daysafter the f l ight , the rat io was s l ight ly higher thannormal : 14-percent neutrophiles to &percent lympho-cytes (1,750 to ta l neutrophiles to 10,500 to ta l lympho-cytes). One week after the f l ight, th e rat io was againwithin normal ranges : 35-percent neutrophiles to&percent lymp hocytes (5,273 tot al neutroph iles to9,810 total lymphocytes).After the flight, there was a significant change inthe tota l circulating eosinophile count. Norm ally,the coun t of this subject was more th an 100 per mm.Immediately after the flight, there was a completeabsence of eosinophiles in the circulating blood.Biochemical analyses of plasma and urine samplesobtained before and after the flight indicate a level of17 hydroxycorticosteroid activity of 50 microgramsper 100 cc of plasma. These results represent anincrease of approximately 36 micrograms per 100 ccof plasma during the MR-2 flight. Thus, a markedpituitary-adrenal response is indicaced.Fecal samples imm ediately after recovery and 2 daysafter th e flight were negative for blood by t he guaiactest. These results eliminate th e possibility of gastro-intestinal hemorrhage of any magnitude. T t is pre-sumed that the 5 to 10 cc of dried vom itus n oted onopening the couch was a result of ei ther eructat ion o rretching during the post landing period while thespacecraft was subjected to wave act ion pendingrecovery. The postflight urine samples containedtraces of album in wh ich persisted for 2 days follow ingrecovery. These traces indicate that there may havebeen severe oliguria.Concluding Remarks

The MR-2 flight, conducted o n January 31, 1961,was characterized by good telemetry which permitteda thorough study of th e physiological reactions of ,thechimpanzee subjected to this unusual environment.Heart- and

Results of the Project Mercury Ballistic and Orbital Chimpan

Documents

Transcript of Results of the Project Mercury Ballistic and Orbital Chimpan